nfoligno

I live in Dallas, and plan to go to the game. I have someone working now on a suite, but who knows if that will work out. I will warn you. It is expensive to go to Jerry World. Parking is $75 for the lot (which isn't close) near the stadium, though there are only 12,000 spaces for a potential of over 100,000 viewers. Lots a mile or more away are $50.

Calvin is a stud, no question, but I think some are giving a tad too much credit to Burlson and Sheffler. Do they have some weapons on offense? Sure. But frankly, they have had receiving weapons for some time, and that has not translated to wins. Their OL was awful, and while they have added Sims, I am not sure their OL is fixed. At the same time, we have upgraded our DL with Peppers, and will have Urlacher and Pisa back too. Their rushing attack is still iffy, and their pass protection is not that well upgraded while our pass rush should be. Then there is the other side of the ball. Their defense was garbage, and I am not sure how much they have upgraded that area, while we very well could have an upgraded offense. Detriot has made some respectable moves, but I don't see these moves translating to a significant difference.

By all reports, Bennett looked lost in practice. Lovie would have seen that, as well as the offensive coaches. I just don't understand the believe that Lovie should have stepped in and forced Turner to play Bennett when the kid looked lost in practice.

I guess I look at it this way. Bennett is struggling in practice, and doesn't look good. Both the OC and WR see him struggling and do not believe he is ready to enter games. By all reports I have read, and even Bennett's own admission, he struggled that rookie year to pickup the offense and thus I think it very fair to say he was not looking good in practice. Is it your opinion then that the HC should have gone against the opinion of the HC and WR coaches and forced the rookie to play even though he was looking lost in practice? I guess I just don't see that. Look, I think Turner and Drake made a mistake in how the choose to develop Bennett, asking him to learn all WR positions rather than one, but I am not sure such a decision is one the HC should have jumped in and countered. What is the point of having assistants if you are not even going to allow them to do their job. By all reports, the staff realized their mistake and tried to limit his study, but by then it was too late. I have no problem blaming Lovie for many things, but I just don't see it here.

I think we agree on what the situation was, but I have not communicated that well. I am not saying Turner had some level of power written into his agreement or anything like that. I am saying, due to the manner in which Lovie runs the team, the OC has control of the offense. I do not think Lovie was involved in a lot of game planning. I don't think Lovie was telling Turner to run this play or that play on game day. I don't think Lovie was telling Turner who should start, or who should play. Lovie empowered the OC in such a way. Recently, prior to hiring Martz, there were many articles talking about why an OC might like the job, and this was a key factor. It was the opposite situation as with our DC. There, any potential coach who can in to be the DC would do so knowing they would have a very hands on HC, where as the OC would know he had a very hands off HC. Whether or not Lovie should manage this way is another story. I am simply talking about the way it was, not the way it should be. When Bennett sits for basically his rookie season, that is a Turner call, not a Lovie call.

While I have no doubt Lovie loves the way a player looks in shorts, at the same time, I think the same can be said of Angelo. Look at Angelo's first draft, well prior to Lovie. He took Roe Williams in the 2nd round, and he would absolutely fit the "traits" player that lacked football creds. Angelo, IMHO, often took the athletes over the football players prior to Smith joining the team. In fact, I remember that being an issue between he and Jauron. Jauron wanted players who were football players that fit his scheme, while Angelo balked and preferred the athletes, regardless of system fit. IMHO, more than just Lovie getting more power, I think a key was the SB run. IMHO, Angelo (and Lovie) had a false sense of how good the team and players were, and both felt they could afford to draft more developmental athletes thinking we had fewer holes. Then two things happened. One, that team was exposes as having more holes than the staff believed and two, many of those "athletes" were busts, and thus the number of holes became greater as the replacements were duds and we saw little to no transition.

Disagree. Many reports have talked about how our OC is similar to a HC2. Maybe not to the level of Buddy/Ditka, but similar just the same. Lovie has no experience on the offensive side of the ball, and I am not sure I have ever heard a report of Lovie really meddling in the offense. Now, you can criticize him for that, but IMHO, the fact remains the decisions on offense were still on the OC.

I think it is both. I agree he is trying to get rid of players who may not fully buy into his system, yet at the same time, that system is part of the equation. It isn't just his getting rid of Cutler, but who he replaced him with, and now getting another fairly similar QB in Brady. Another player I might point to is Royal, who is still on the team. Royal had great success in one role his rookie year, but in comes McD and his role changes due in large part to the changed system, and Royal struggled in such a role all year. Rather than try to adapt your playcalling to utilize a player who was a playmaker the prior year, they instead continue to try and force that player into a role that doesn't suit him.

But don't they want a TE who can block in pass protection and then roll-out? It could be Olsen is too much of a liability. I think you misunderstood the point, as it had nothing to do with Olsen. The point was made that McD was getting rid of players that didn't fit his system. I said that is why it was a surprise that he got rid of Scheffler as he would seem to fit NE's system, and thus Denvers. Another poster said McD is just trying to get rid of the attitudes on team team. In the end, I think it just comes down to McD trying to remold the team with "his" players, which means both system and attitude. Talent is talent. You need to find a spot where a guy can succeed. Why can't Sims play SS? He's 6'0 225. Afalava is 5'11 215. Kevin Payne is 6'0 212. Sims has great speed. He'd be one helluva a SS. Detroit wouldn't trade within the division, but I'd love to have given our 5th rounder for him. I think, if the size works out, it is easier to move from SS to LB than the other way around. There is a greater level of coverage to SS than LB. Honestly, I just don't know enough about Sims. I thought he was a good player, but as cheap as Det just let him go, maybe I was wrong. Olsen isn't a blocker, he's a receiver. Instead of dumping him or trying to get him to beef up, he should shed a few pounds & play WR. Don't fit your system around the player. Find a place where the player can succeed. I don't see Antonio Gates doing much blocking. Disagree all around. One, I do match the system to the talent. Doesn't mean you throw out the playbook, but you refine it to best utilize the talent you have. Jump to the other side of the ball. If your system is a power run offense and you find a player like Forte, to you continue to play him as if you had a 240lb RB or do you adapt your system to fit your personnel? Also disagree with the concecpt of moving Olsen to WR. Olsen is a mismatch at TE, but as a WR, he would actually be slow, even if he shed lbs. Finally, you mention you don't see Gates blocking. No, you don't. However, I wonder what Gates would look like if SD's OL was so bad Rivers had milla-seconds to throw. Agreed. Maybe McDaniels is the next John Gruden. But all he's done is dump assets for potential draft picks. Good luck with that. IMHO, McD is going to either boom or bust, w/ little in between. If he hits on draft picks and creates a great team, he will reach upper tier levels of coaching respect. But after dumping so much talent, I am not sure that much of anything less would be considered anything but a bust.

While it may be a bit misleading as it only provides insight into one area, it is also the area Angelo so often claims to be the most important and the one he supposedly hangs his hat on. Further, it is on the side of the ball he is supposed to be so good.

Yet that is sort of what surprises me about Scheffler. NE does like the TE, and from all reports, are looking to deal for a TE now. They sure have spent enough picks trying to find one. So it stands to reason the TE is very much a part of NE's offensive system, and thus you would think part of Denvers. I have personally always had a big issue with this sort of thing. I get that coaches have systems they like to run, but to me, if a coach is really all that, he should be able to adapt his system in order to fit players. That doesn't mean he must totally change his system for a medium level player, but if a team has upper tier talent, I just question getting rid of all that talent just to make your system fit. Honestly though, the one truly at fault here is likely Denver's owner. It was he who hired a coach who ran a system that didn't match the talent at hand, and thus began the changes.

This move really surprises me. Det just used a 1st round pick (20th overall) on a TE (Pettigrew) who I thought they were pretty pleased with. I am surprised that one year after using a 1st round pick on a TE, trade for another. Further, Sims was a top 10 draft pick, and I was under the impression that Sims was considered a very solid LB for Det. Adding Scheffler improves their offense, yet at the same time, it takes away from their defense, which was not good to begin with. Scheffler is a solid, young TE, but lets not make too big of an issue of this. Everyone talks about how disappointing Olsen is. Well, Olsen's 60 catches are 20 more than Scheffler's best season. His Scheffler had one season with 645 yards, but that was only a bit more than Olsen's 612 this past year, and Scheffler had that many only one season, two years ago. Finally, Scheffler's best TD total was 5, compared to Olsen's most recent 8. Point is, while Scheffler is a good TE, I am not sure he is as great as some make him out to be. Last year, Scheffler had barely better stats than Det's rookie TE (Pettigrew) had this year. Sure, you can argue he improves their team, but I question by how much, and would further state they downgraded their defense in doing so.

Personally, I think it is all about the QB. If he finds some good player, even pro bowlers, but is still lacking at QB, I don't think it matters who he finds. You can find a Brian Urlacher level MLB, but if you have not solved your QB position, I think you lost. McD traded away a franchise QB. To offset this, IMHO, he needs to either find another franchise QB or win a SB. As with any move, if you win a SB you pretty much negate all else. But short of that, I think he has to find a franchise QB.

Always part of the equation, but usually coaches are looking at immediate impact players. It isn't often a coach is begging the GM to draft a kid who is a project and who may not be ready to contribute for a few years. I have no doubt Lovie had big influence in additions like Pace or Archuleta. At the same time, I just question how great his influence was overall. Sure, there is no question his authority w/ regard to the coaching staff hit ultimate levels after the SB, but when it comes to who we draft, I just don't know that Lovie had the influence some believe. As for Booker, I still think that was Turner. Ultimately, the HC is in charge, but in reality, our HC allows the OC to run the offense. It was Turner who choose how to develop Bennett, and in doing so, put too much on the kid initially. And it was Turner who continued to play Booker, despite his absolute pathetic play. You can blame Lovie for not taking more control, but the true culprit IMHO on this issue was Turner.

Agreed. I do find it amusing that no matter what a team does, some feel it's never enough. I guess its perspective. Take this year for example. There are some who believe WR is a top priority, while others do not feel it is even a need. A person who believes WR is a top priority are going to feel we didn't do enough. While RB was a need, I figured we'd up grade on the cheap while hoping Matt Forte returns to his rookie form. We could have signed a veteran for lots less, talked up how we believe in Wolfe & Bell, and drafted a guy. The need for a RB didn't appear to be great prior to FA. See above. Some would have argued RB was a big need. Forte did well as a rookie, but was pretty bad last year. Further, there are the rumors that our staff isn't happy with his work ethic, or whatever. At the end of the day, I think most believed it was a need on some level. Most praised the Pace signing. I did. I figured he had a year or two left. Omiyale might still find his place. Maybe most, not all. I sure never liked it. Regardless though. I didn't like it, yet at the same time, the staff did finally recognize OL as a need and tried to do something about it. The difference is the sense of urgency. JA has always operated under the idea of building for the future. Whether it's the pressure to win or the realization that he's almost 60 and doesn't want to do this forever, we've switched to "win-now" mode. It could also be that our defense has gotten old very fast, and the window for success may be closing. Yea, for the most part, I agree. Angelo has always been drafting all these projects for the future, while doing little to add immediate contributions. Now, I think he knows he is on thin ice and needs to win now.

Yea, I think it comes down to this. Last year and this year we addresses two of our biggest needs in such a big manner that we essentially "blew out wad" in doing so. After getting Peppers, there just wasn't a ton left to work with. Yet at the same time, we did add a RB (no question a need) and while TE is was not a need, he was essentially another OL which was. IMHO, we entered this offseason simply with so many needs, there was no way we were going to addressed them all. Plenty of bashing of Angelo over the years, and that is a key reason why we were in the situation we were in the last couple. But IMHO, some thought a little too high of this team's talent the last couple years. We had needs across the board, and when you have that many needs, you simply can't address them all. I would argue we have addressed needs a lot over the last two years (though those moves didn't necessarily always work out [Pace/Omiyale]). What I don't really get is why it took so long to see the sort of moves/plan/prioritizing that we have seen in the last two years.

duplicate

You could be right, but I have never heard of a rule that would bar such a transaction (cash). Usually, such a move is moot as the key is normally salary cap, but that isn't at issue here. I would say that if the cap was in place, in now way would Wash consider trading him after giving him $21m, but this is a unique year. Anyway, I heard/ read from a couple sources that they were asking for cash as part of the deal from Phily to recover part of the $21m given to him.

Here’s a guy that’s a beast when healthy I would say he's a beast when he wants to be a beast. I was 100% against the idea of going after him before due to the sort of deal it would take to get him, and the high risk I felt he was. Now, the situation is different as he signed the deal w/ Wash and the biggest piece was already shelled out. To get him for a reasonable contract, then the red flags/risks become less in my eyes. With that said, I don't see it. One, I have read/heard that Wash is going to be looking to get back some money. They paid out the $21m bonus, but supposedly were asking Phily for a big part of that in return as part of a trade. We are cutting players to save money at this point. I do not see ownership shelling out huge dollars for a player. Two, what the heck do we have to trade? If we offered our entire draft, I think Wash would say no. And sorry, but I just don't want to screw around with offering picks this year and future years. A team w/ more picks in the draft may be in an opportunistic situation to take advantage here, but I do not see us as being in that position.

I believe there have been some injuries, but that alone has not been the problem as he has played poorly for a few years now. Basically, he had a great season w/ Dallas, got paid, and his game immediately tanked. I am always willing to take a flyer on a guy who had played well, suffered a bad season, but could bounce back. But in Hamlin, you have a guy who really struggled for a few years. Further, his struggles were simply too similar to the problems we currently have, like tracking the ball, play recognition, preventing the big play and tackling. It is possible Hamlin comes back strong, but frankly, there are few signs to expect such. To me, we should focus on a more legit upgrade rather than waste time and money on a player so unlikely to offer much of anything.

From what I read, he is a truly big time character risk though. Per PFT, and the story has been picked up by the major media outlets, he is going to be hit with a 4 game suspension. One more incident and that will become a year suspension. And his history is such that, like Pacman, you have to really question if he can keep his nose clean. The idiot tweets about smoking pot. Talk about an idiot. I realize we can't afford to look only at choir boys, but at the same time, Holmes is pushing himself into the Pacman territory. I think we have a lot of good going for the team right now, and just question the need to add a player that could so quickly ruin all the good vibes.

Surprised there is not even mention of Omiyale. I would be curious to see how he was graded out pre and post benching.

Not sure those are really the same. If a D is on the field a great deal, they tire and their play starts to fade. If Forte is asked to stay back and block a bunch, how is that similar? There is less energy to to pickup a block then to run the ball, or run a passing route. There is also less physical abuse. You may be picking up a block, but is that equal to getting tackled, often by multiple players? No, I don't think this is similar. Also, I would argue Forte's pass protection struggled did not appear to be physical, at least not IMHO. While it happened, I don't think the majority of time was Forte simply getting steam rolled. More often, I thought it was Forte simply not blocking the right area/rusher. He seemed slower to find who to pickup, and by the time he saw the rusher, it was too late. Really, last year Forte was similar to Benson in terms of pass protection IMHO. Benson's struggled were not physical. When he picked up a block, he would do so effectively. Rarely did I see Benson get steam rolled. Benson's problem seemed to be knowing what his blocking assignement was. IMHO, that was Forte's issue last year. What I do not understand is what makes a player look so good in this area as a rookie and then so bad the following year.

Yea, because the media would have never figured out we could use a veteran FS.

Honestly, I have always laughed about some of this stuff. I remember years ago, when Hatley was running the show, it got out that we liked Andre Carter. I don't recall all the details today, but stories were written about how much we liked Carter. Then SF leap frogged us and took Carter. But what always made me laugh was the idea of our interest in Carter as being news. Lets see. We had no pass rush, and were weakest as end. A pass rushing DE then was as obvious of a need as a FS today. In the draft there were 2 DE considered top 10 picks. Justin Smith was already off the board, and then SF jumped us to get Carter. I remember so many bears fans ripping Hatley and the other guy (I think an assist coach or scout or something) who slipped that we liked Carter, but my question always was, who didn't know? If some really good looking FS was falling to us, does anyone thing other teams behind us wouldn't know we were a good bet to take that FS? If we know what the team needs are, I think other teams are good enough to figure it out too. And if we know which prospects are within that draft range, I have a feeling other NFL teams have an idea too.