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: 1/25/2013 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

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 3:53 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