Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)

Re: Weeds not gifted the spot .....................

Avatar

Posted: 1/24/2013 4:25 PM

Re: Weeds not gifted the spot ..................... 



HeadHole wrote: "Norv and Chud , are setting a precedent , by  serving notice at the top everybody has to put their work in ."

-- And that's a good thing. Certainly new guys- backed up by a FO that didn't draft any of these players- have no dog in the fight going in. 

Replacing QBs- whether it's Jimmy Claussen or Alex Smith or Matt Flynn or whoever- isn't new and seems to happen more these days . While there are other spots that can be filled, the QB is still important.

Much will depend on who is available when we draft and how they are rated. But Weeden's future just took a new turn when new guys took over with no old loyalties. I'll bet Chud and Norv take the QB position seriously.
Welcome to PF. Okay. That's done. Now I have to give you a hard time.

Your first statement is arguable. You go on to say "new guys" don't have a vested interest in these players. You didn't actually use vested interest, but I explained what you meant better than you did.  

Why is it a good thing to immediately tell a QB he's on shaky ground? Specifically. What does it accomplish? 

See. I find it disheartening. I find it disheartening because that attitude is the exact one every other new coach took as they tore down the roster for our typical two steps back on the promise of a step forward. Usually we get the two steps back and a new coach. 

So, why is it a good thing to immediately make your QB uncertain and do it in the press before speaking with him?

Then you go on with some...chatter...water is wet...sun is hot...snow is cold...finally you end up with Chud will take the QB position seriously.

Why do you believe Holmgren, Heckert and Shurmer weren't serious about the QB position? More importantly, what is there about embarrassing a player you haven't even met yet that signals Chud is serious?
Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/24/2013 8:12 PM

Re: Weeds not gifted the spot ..................... 


"Welcome to PF. Okay. That's done."

-- Thank you. As you say, that's done.

"Now I have to give you a hard time."

-- I don't think I need to worry about that. 

"Your first statement is arguable. You go on to say "new guys" don't have a vested interest in these players. You didn't actually use vested interest, but I explained what you meant better than you did.  

Why is it a good thing to immediately tell a QB he's on shaky ground? Specifically. What does it accomplish?"

-- When did Chud or Norv actually say Weeden was on "shaky ground"? I took the gist of what they were saying at their press conference as indicating the obvious that their evaluations were pending. A possible extension of that is that positions going forward may be impacted. 

In essence, any position in a competitive game is competitive or, in your terms, on shaky ground. (See Flynn, Smith, Tebow, Claussen, etc.) Nothing said was unusual or directly threatening. 

"See. I find it disheartening. I find it disheartening because that attitude is the exact one every other new coach took as they tore down the roster for our typical two steps back on the promise of a step forward. Usually we get the two steps back and a new coach."

-- This is a different consideration. "Two steps back" can be disheartening if they don't need to be made. "Two steps back" can be two steps forward ultimately if they need to be made. That is a valid debate that will be dependent on future events. 

Guys trying to make valid changes is one thing. Guys making changes just to show how important they are is another thing. Something to be watched.

"So, why is it a good thing to immediately make your QB uncertain and do it in the press before speaking with him?"

-- I believe the comments made were meant to be team-focused and fairly generic. Sometimes the context a question is asked in and then answered in can lead one to make assumptions that may have not been there. It's January. We'll know more down the road.

"Then you go on with some...chatter...water is wet...sun is hot...snow is cold...finally you end up with Chud will take the QB position seriously."

-- Water isn't always wet, the sun isn't always hot (on Earth, at least) and snow can be cold or really cold, slushy or powdery. Actually, I didn't say those things. The comment about Chud and Turner, to make it clear if it needs to be, was meant to emphasize their offensive backgrounds and how it may impact Weeden's future. That is, things haven't changed with a new FO and new coaches. 

"Why do you believe Holmgren, Heckert and Shurmer weren't serious about the QB position?"

-- I'm willing to believe they were. Like I said, things haven't now changed and Weeden- as all players are- is still to be evaluated. As we all know, Holmgren and Heckert and Shurmer are all gone. What matters now is what Chud and Norv think and do.

If anything recently said upset Weeden's feelings, I'm not sure what to think of his mindset.

"More importantly, what is there about embarrassing a player you haven't even met yet that signals Chud is serious?"

--You may see this as "more important", but I think you are making jumps in logic that don't exist.

I don't see Chud's recent comments as a sign of seriousness about the QB position. I think they were fairly straightforward press conference stuff. I think his- and Turner's- seriousness (that is, value regarding) the QB position as something indicated by their past histories. 

Who knows where the team will go under the new regime? It is good- or valid- that a new HC says he wants to evaluate people at this point. Predictable, but good. And if a 1 year player can get upset by a new HC in January, then it's best to know that as soon as possible. 

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/25/2013 1:53 PM

Re: Weeds not gifted the spot ..................... 



HeadHole wrote: "Welcome to PF. Okay. That's done."

-- Thank you. As you say, that's done.

"Now I have to give you a hard time."

-- I don't think I need to worry about that. 

"Your first statement is arguable. You go on to say "new guys" don't have a vested interest in these players. You didn't actually use vested interest, but I explained what you meant better than you did.  

Why is it a good thing to immediately tell a QB he's on shaky ground? Specifically. What does it accomplish?"

-- When did Chud or Norv actually say Weeden was on "shaky ground"? I took the gist of what they were saying at their press conference as indicating the obvious that their evaluations were pending. A possible extension of that is that positions going forward may be impacted. 

In essence, any position in a competitive game is competitive or, in your terms, on shaky ground. (See Flynn, Smith, Tebow, Claussen, etc.) Nothing said was unusual or directly threatening. 

"See. I find it disheartening. I find it disheartening because that attitude is the exact one every other new coach took as they tore down the roster for our typical two steps back on the promise of a step forward. Usually we get the two steps back and a new coach."

-- This is a different consideration. "Two steps back" can be disheartening if they don't need to be made. "Two steps back" can be two steps forward ultimately if they need to be made. That is a valid debate that will be dependent on future events. 

Guys trying to make valid changes is one thing. Guys making changes just to show how important they are is another thing. Something to be watched.

"So, why is it a good thing to immediately make your QB uncertain and do it in the press before speaking with him?"

-- I believe the comments made were meant to be team-focused and fairly generic. Sometimes the context a question is asked in and then answered in can lead one to make assumptions that may have not been there. It's January. We'll know more down the road.

"Then you go on with some...chatter...water is wet...sun is hot...snow is cold...finally you end up with Chud will take the QB position seriously."

-- Water isn't always wet, the sun isn't always hot (on Earth, at least) and snow can be cold or really cold, slushy or powdery. Actually, I didn't say those things. The comment about Chud and Turner, to make it clear if it needs to be, was meant to emphasize their offensive backgrounds and how it may impact Weeden's future. That is, things haven't changed with a new FO and new coaches. 

"Why do you believe Holmgren, Heckert and Shurmer weren't serious about the QB position?"

-- I'm willing to believe they were. Like I said, things haven't now changed and Weeden- as all players are- is still to be evaluated. As we all know, Holmgren and Heckert and Shurmer are all gone. What matters now is what Chud and Norv think and do.

If anything recently said upset Weeden's feelings, I'm not sure what to think of his mindset.

"More importantly, what is there about embarrassing a player you haven't even met yet that signals Chud is serious?"

--You may see this as "more important", but I think you are making jumps in logic that don't exist.

I don't see Chud's recent comments as a sign of seriousness about the QB position. I think they were fairly straightforward press conference stuff. I think his- and Turner's- seriousness (that is, value regarding) the QB position as something indicated by their past histories. 

Who knows where the team will go under the new regime? It is good- or valid- that a new HC says he wants to evaluate people at this point. Predictable, but good. And if a 1 year player can get upset by a new HC in January, then it's best to know that as soon as possible. 

SD:

So HeadHole , , do you have a direction you would like to see Chud pursue in course of this rebuild , which you see them doing in deference to what you perceive as the correct course .

Are you buying into the 34 changeover from the 43 and who do you project as an elephant blue chip at the 5th hole if we go that route with our top pick .

SoulDawg
WAR : OUR TIME HAS COME
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/25/2013 2:02 PM

Re: Weeds not gifted the spot ..................... 


G,

I have mixed feelings about Chud's statement that it would be premature to name Weeden the starter at this point. Absolutely agree that it would be nice not to have the Couch/Kelly, Frye/DA, DA/Quinn scenarios right off the bat, and really showing confidence and dedication to one QB would be soothing.

On the other hand, I would like the QB of the Cleveland Browns to have a strong and competitive enough nature to welcome any challenge. Russell Wilson didn't need the Seattle front office to declare him the starter prior to TC in order to thrive.

I do worry a bit about Weeden's failed baseball career. That was his first choice as a pro athelete, and he tanked. Not sure how much of that was physical talent, but seems to me a pitcher with a good arm who fails, probably failed at mastering his craft from a mental standpoint. He wasn't either smart enough or determined enough to harness his ability, throw with control, and have a strategy for getting hitters out. All similar attributes required for being a successful NFL QB. Just doesn't include the ability to shake off concussions. ; - )
>>> Decleater <<<
Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/25/2013 3:14 PM

Re: Weeds not gifted the spot ..................... 


"So HeadHole , , do you have a direction you would like to see Chud pursue in course of this rebuild , which you see them doing in deference to what you perceive as the correct course ."

-- Just to keep on trying to be clear, the only "correct course" I see so far is that Chud's comments seem to indicate that no spot is a foregone conclusion and evaluations need to be made.

I think it's logical that a new regime- again backed by a new FO- will naturally be a bit distant from guys they didn't draft in the first place and who may be better suited for other schemes or fit the criteria of some other coach. And I think the resistance to any favor towards any player that can effect his evaluation is a good thing.

Having said all that, it would be wise not to reinvent the wheel if you don't have to. Stay with guys who fit your ideas and change only what needs to be changed. 

"Are you buying into the 34 changeover from the 43 and who do you project as an elephant blue chip at the 5th hole if we go that route with our top pick"

-- 3-4s, blue chips, 5th hole. I've got little to add to that conversation at this point. My take would boil down to the simple command to make the team better. Chud and company would seem to have their hands full over the next few months as they figure out who to keep and who to draft.


Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/25/2013 3:28 PM

trying to follow along here 



HeadHole wrote: 


Having said all that, it would be wise not to reinvent the wheel if you don't have to. Stay with guys who fit your ideas and change only what needs to be changed. 


I'm just curious what the new staff has done or said that makes you think this is not the case.  They've been pretty up front about wanting to watch tape and evaluate skills and existing talent as it fits or doesn't fit into the system they want to implement.  Presuming they will just dump someone of value because he wasn't "their guy" appears to be a gigantic stretch - not to mention giving no credit to the coaches proven ability to evaluate talent and adapt winning strategies.

I'd say Cam Newton here, as a case in point, but that's just me.
It's like magic....only real.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/25/2013 3:32 PM

Re: Weeds not gifted the spot ..................... 



Gameface64 wrote: G,

I have mixed feelings about Chud's statement that it would be premature to name Weeden the starter at this point. Absolutely agree that it would be nice not to have the Couch/Kelly, Frye/DA, DA/Quinn scenarios right off the bat, and really showing confidence and dedication to one QB would be soothing.

On the other hand, I would like the QB of the Cleveland Browns to have a strong and competitive enough nature to welcome any challenge. Russell Wilson didn't need the Seattle front office to declare him the starter prior to TC in order to thrive.

I do worry a bit about Weeden's failed baseball career. That was his first choice as a pro athelete, and he tanked. Not sure how much of that was physical talent, but seems to me a pitcher with a good arm who fails, probably failed at mastering his craft from a mental standpoint. He wasn't either smart enough or determined enough to harness his ability, throw with control, and have a strategy for getting hitters out. All similar attributes required for being a successful NFL QB. Just doesn't include the ability to shake off concussions. ; - )

Need swb to come out of the weeds but his problem in baseball was that he couldn't develop s secondary pitch.  He had a good 4 seam fastball in the low 90s with movement but nothing more than that.  He was hurt in 2006 and at that point he was either going to college or he could try to make the majors as a reliever. 

But he was a ptbnl in a very big trade and was also picked up in the rule 5 draft at a point when MLB scouts would know if it's a character problem.  He just could never control a breaking ball.  Not so much a requirement for NFL QBs.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/25/2013 3:53 PM

Re: trying to follow along here 


"I'm just curious what the new staff has done or said that makes you think this is not the case.  They've been pretty up front about wanting to watch tape and evaluate skills and existing talent as it fits or doesn't fit into the system they want to implement."

-- I'm sorry that what I've said has been confusing. Not the first time that's happened.

I think I said- or I certainly meant to say- that what Chud et al. have said so far indicates to me the hope that- while no position is set in stone prior to in-house evaluations- they will see which guys are "of value" to them and how best to utilize their abilities. 

In other words, I imagine they will see that it would be in their best interests if they go forward while avoiding reinventing the wheel. To do otherwise- especially in a flexible and competitive environment like the NFL- would be foolish. Although, if the adage "a new broom sweeps clean" is true, we might indeed see some questionable changes.

My writings were just the sideline ramblings of a not very bright fan. Trying to follow them might not have too much payback.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/25/2013 4:49 PM

Hey! Suzi posted! 



Wow!!
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/25/2013 7:26 PM

Screw you, Reents. 


Just for that, I'm hanging around.  Posting stuff.  With links.  Challenging opinions and crazy ass statements.  Prodding peeps to elevate their game.

In other words, making a general nuisance of myself. 

I've got you in my sights.
It's like magic....only real.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/25/2013 7:29 PM

Re: Screw you, Reents. 



suzi_q wrote: Just for that, I'm hanging around.  Posting stuff.  With links.  Challenging opinions and crazy ass statements.  Prodding peeps to elevate their game.

In other words, making a general nuisance of myself. 

I've got you in my sights.
Serving number 143. Serving number 143.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/25/2013 10:06 PM

Re: Weeds not gifted the spot ..................... 



0tter wrote:
Gameface64 wrote: G,

I have mixed feelings about Chud's statement that it would be premature to name Weeden the starter at this point. Absolutely agree that it would be nice not to have the Couch/Kelly, Frye/DA, DA/Quinn scenarios right off the bat, and really showing confidence and dedication to one QB would be soothing.

On the other hand, I would like the QB of the Cleveland Browns to have a strong and competitive enough nature to welcome any challenge. Russell Wilson didn't need the Seattle front office to declare him the starter prior to TC in order to thrive.

I do worry a bit about Weeden's failed baseball career. That was his first choice as a pro athelete, and he tanked. Not sure how much of that was physical talent, but seems to me a pitcher with a good arm who fails, probably failed at mastering his craft from a mental standpoint. He wasn't either smart enough or determined enough to harness his ability, throw with control, and have a strategy for getting hitters out. All similar attributes required for being a successful NFL QB. Just doesn't include the ability to shake off concussions. ; - )

Need swb to come out of the weeds but his problem in baseball was that he couldn't develop s secondary pitch.  He had a good 4 seam fastball in the low 90s with movement but nothing more than that.  He was hurt in 2006 and at that point he was either going to college or he could try to make the majors as a reliever. 

But he was a ptbnl in a very big trade and was also picked up in the rule 5 draft at a point when MLB scouts would know if it's a character problem.  He just could never control a breaking ball.  Not so much a requirement for NFL QBs.
SD:

IIRC in addition to the control issues you mentioned he also has some sort of funny rotator -quasi shoulder type injury which precludes him from throwing a big time baseball , but doesn't effect his delivery with a football .

For what we need , he can spin it , however he has tons of work to do to refine the intricacies of the game ,tons , he's got to refine his arm to the point he's confident to throw in the small windows he dodged last year .

To that point Norv Turner is perfect , if Weeds can't step his game up under Norvs tutelage , then thats on the Weed man not on the coaching which was a contributing factor which inhibited his growth.

SoulDawg
WAR : OUR TIME HAS COME
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/25/2013 10:37 PM

Re: Weeds not gifted the spot ..................... 


Otter's point that Weeds couldn't learn the curve not being germane to football is accurate on a literal level. But not on a broader one, which is that professional athletes in almost all sports must master the mental aspect of their position.

I have no opinion that Weeden can't do it. But in context of Chud's poking his ego, I don't really give a f:::k. For Weeden to be a SB quality QB, he needs to be mentally tough.
>>> Decleater <<<
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/25/2013 10:50 PM

Re: Weeds not gifted the spot ..................... 



Gameface64 wrote: Otter's point that Weeds couldn't learn the curve not being germane to football is accurate on a literal level. But not on a broader one, which is that professional athletes in almost all sports must master the mental aspect of their position.

I have no opinion that Weeden can't do it. But in context of Chud's poking his ego, I don't really give a f:::k. For Weeden to be a SB quality QB, he needs to be mentally tough.
SD:

Which brings it back full circle to Wilson .

From day one the third rounder carried himself like the starter , which means Weeds biggest enemy is himself and that spectre that despite being drafted in the first  dep down in side the boogie man is telling him he ain't good enough , if he shrinks from the guantlet which was just put down .

Time to step your game up , or get chopped at 29 going on thirty nobody has time to hold his hand and go thru tender moments .

If this is your team then take the reins in your teeth and start blazing with both fists and make it so .


SoulDawg
WAR : OUR TIME HAS COME
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/25/2013 11:53 PM

Re: Weeds not gifted the spot ..................... 


Yup. Giddy up MF.
>>> Decleater <<<
Reply | Quote
  • redright
  • Faithful Best Friend
  • 12848 posts this site

Posted: 1/28/2013 8:58 PM

Re: Weeds not gifted the spot ..................... 



SoulDawg74 wrote:
Gameface64 wrote: Otter's point that Weeds couldn't learn the curve not being germane to football is accurate on a literal level. But not on a broader one, which is that professional athletes in almost all sports must master the mental aspect of their position.

I have no opinion that Weeden can't do it. But in context of Chud's poking his ego, I don't really give a f:::k. For Weeden to be a SB quality QB, he needs to be mentally tough.
SD:

Which brings it back full circle to Wilson .

From day one the third rounder carried himself like the starter , which means Weeds biggest enemy is himself and that spectre that despite being drafted in the first  dep down in side the boogie man is telling him he ain't good enough , if he shrinks from the guantlet which was just put down .

Time to step your game up , or get chopped at 29 going on thirty nobody has time to hold his hand and go thru tender moments .

If this is your team then take the reins in your teeth and start blazing with both fists and make it so .


SoulDawg
Sad . At 29 he was the mature , mentally tough pick.  Now we speak of 22 year olds as the example for mentally tough and leader.
Reply | Quote