Excellent, well thought out post as usual Coach. I agree on the reasons we lost. I agree on giving Nance and Starks their shot. I agree on starting Bulaga. I agree that Tauscher isn't a lost cause, yet. That said, I disagree slightly on a couple accounts.
1. I would be ok with a #2 pick. Obviously a #3 or lower would be ideal. A #1 is out of the question for a player with known character issues.
2. I think that the Bears are not a good football team. The running game was part of the loss, but obviously not the sole reason. Kuhn could be a decent RB, but he's mainly effective when he catches the D expecting pass. He gets nothing when a team is actually trying to stop the run. My point is that against better teams, we're going to need the running game. In cold/bad weather, passing 40-50 times isn't going to be productive enough. Especially if it's a cold weather game verses a playoff team.
Therefore, I do feel that having a running game could be the difference between a Super Bowl appearance and/or Super Bowl victory. The better teams will exploit our complete lack of a run game. Imagine if we had to play Belicheck with our zero run-game offense. The thought scares the living daylight outta me.
Thanks for the compliment, CJS.
1. Fair enough, but I disagree on the #2. I agree absolutely not a #1.
2. Dallas may disagree about the Bores, but then the jury's still out on how good they actually are this year.
Chicago is not a bad football team (I don't think they're great either), and they're certainly better than I gave them credit for entering the season. I think we match up very favorably with them, and I look forward to playing them again. We just didn't run out of bullets shooting ourselves in the foot soon enough Monday night.
I'll be curious to see how the Bores play against the Giants.
Regardless, Indianapolis has already shown that it's possible to get to the Super Bowl with the running game that's at the bottom of the league. That's not wishful thinking, that's a fact.
Wait, but they're a dome team, right?
Pittsburgh (cold weather team) won a Super Bowl even with a running game that was 29th in YPC just within the last two years. The reason they didn't make the playoffs last year had next to nothing to do with their running game (they actually ran the ball better last year going 9-7 than the year they won the Super Bowl).
If the argument is how the offense is going to respond in the cold, I understand the concern.
However, if you think back just to the '07 season, we didn't run the ball effectively against the NYG in that bitter cold, yet we still were in the position to win the game in OT.
What some people seem to forget is that the Giants couldn't run the ball that day either (Jacobs averaged 3.19 per carry that day) yet they won the game. I doubt anyone forgets the amount of success they had throwing the ball that game (and our DC that simply did not adequately adjust to what the Giants were doing).
I firmly believe that we can consistently move the ball in just about any conditions short of the 40 MPH winds in Chicago earlier that year.
That said, I'm not adverse to adding another back if the price is right. From the reports of his reaching out to Buffalo, apparently neither is Thompson.
Thompson showed last year by signing Tauscher that he is willing make a move to address a need when it presents itself or if he can obtain a player he likes at a cost he's willing to pay (or we wouldn't even have had Grant to begin with).
1. Fair enough, but I disagree on the #2. I agree absolutely not a #1.
2. Dallas may disagree about the Bores, but then the jury's still out on how good they actually are this year.
Chicago is not a bad football team (I don't think they're great either), and they're certainly better than I gave them credit for entering the season. I think we match up very favorably with them, and I look forward to playing them again. We just didn't run out of bullets shooting ourselves in the foot soon enough Monday night.
I'll be curious to see how the Bores play against the Giants.
Regardless, Indianapolis has already shown that it's possible to get to the Super Bowl with the running game that's at the bottom of the league. That's not wishful thinking, that's a fact.
Wait, but they're a dome team, right?
Pittsburgh (cold weather team) won a Super Bowl even with a running game that was 29th in YPC just within the last two years. The reason they didn't make the playoffs last year had next to nothing to do with their running game (they actually ran the ball better last year going 9-7 than the year they won the Super Bowl).
If the argument is how the offense is going to respond in the cold, I understand the concern.
However, if you think back just to the '07 season, we didn't run the ball effectively against the NYG in that bitter cold, yet we still were in the position to win the game in OT.
What some people seem to forget is that the Giants couldn't run the ball that day either (Jacobs averaged 3.19 per carry that day) yet they won the game. I doubt anyone forgets the amount of success they had throwing the ball that game (and our DC that simply did not adequately adjust to what the Giants were doing).
I firmly believe that we can consistently move the ball in just about any conditions short of the 40 MPH winds in Chicago earlier that year.
That said, I'm not adverse to adding another back if the price is right. From the reports of his reaching out to Buffalo, apparently neither is Thompson.
Thompson showed last year by signing Tauscher that he is willing make a move to address a need when it presents itself or if he can obtain a player he likes at a cost he's willing to pay (or we wouldn't even have had Grant to begin with).
Assuming TT has any interest in Lynch whatsoever (I remain very skeptical), I can't see him giving up anything more than a fourth round pick for him.
Well thought out post Coach, I second CJS's compliment. We do disagree that he is worth a second. I think a guy that is 24 and has run for over 1000 yards and is of 1st round pedigree is worth a very late 2. It helps us this year and into the future. I say he's worth a 2. Packer Joe's idea is probably right on about a trade with Lynch. It will probably be incentive laden. Upwards of a 2nd round pick if he runs for a certain amount but likely a 3rd if he does anything average. If below a 4th..
Im not sure this will be the maximum offer that Buffalo gets, but it would probably be the maximum deal that a guy like Ted would do. I think it would be a mistake for not going out and getting a very solid back like Lynch, but Ted has a history of bypassing on guys that could be impactful via a significant trade that would give up a high rd. pick. The closest thing I can think of would be trading up for Clay. Hopefully that makes him bold. That has been a smashing success.
Im not sure this will be the maximum offer that Buffalo gets, but it would probably be the maximum deal that a guy like Ted would do. I think it would be a mistake for not going out and getting a very solid back like Lynch, but Ted has a history of bypassing on guys that could be impactful via a significant trade that would give up a high rd. pick. The closest thing I can think of would be trading up for Clay. Hopefully that makes him bold. That has been a smashing success.
I trust TT to make the approriate decision in what to do. There is no question that Lynch is an upgrade over our current situation but is there an absolute reason the panic at this point? No.
The lack of rushing attack had nothing to do with the Packers loss to the Bears. We controlled the game with our passing attack. Sure Grant is a big loss but the OL and FB's did a bad job not blocking or somewhat sustaining their blocks. It's hard to run when the DL get to you before the linebackers do.
The lack of rushing attack had nothing to do with the Packers loss to the Bears. We controlled the game with our passing attack. Sure Grant is a big loss but the OL and FB's did a bad job not blocking or somewhat sustaining their blocks. It's hard to run when the DL get to you before the linebackers do.
quote:Originally posted by Salmon Dave:
She also had a good one about Ayn Rand, but I can't remember it now.
Google may not be your friend, but it provides the answer.
Reviewing Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged, Parker wrote, "This is not a novel to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force."
If all the girls who attended the Yale prom were laid end to end, I wouldn't be a bit surprised.
- Dorothy Parker
- Dorothy Parker
quote:Originally posted by CJS:
Imagine if we had to play Belicheck with our zero run-game offense. The thought scares the living daylight outta me.
Is this the same Belichick led team that allowed the Buffalo Bills to score 30 points?
Billy B. doesn't have his DVD collection anymore. You remember, when he knew what play was coming and could call a great offense and defense.
Yeah, he's not the big bad wolf anymore.
Every team has issues. Even the Super Bowl champs of the last 3-5 years. Ours is a crappy running game and OT's that seem to have aged 10 years right before our eyes. Why T.J. Lang is inactive is beyond me.
I have no doubt we'll win quite a few games this year as long as we cut down on the penalties , special teams gaffes and turnovers.
quote:Originally posted by Coach:
Regardless, Indianapolis has already shown that it's possible to get to the Super Bowl with the running game that's at the bottom of the league. That's not wishful thinking, that's a fact.
The Colts earned a bye and had homefield advantage throughout the playoffs. You know as well as anyone it's a hell of a lot easier to operate the offense when the crowd is polite. The Colts defense held the Ravens to just 3 points and the Jets just 17. They also took a total of 5 penalties in the two games leading up to the Superbowl. I think it's oversimplifying things a bit to say they proved you can get to the Superbowl without a run game without looking at the complete picture.
If the Packers win home field advantage, the defense shuts down opponents, and the whole team focuses on cutting the penalties down to almost nothing they'll have the ability to overcome their lack of explosive plays from the running game and reach the Superbowl. That's a whole different story than just looking at a team who made the Superbowl despite the lack of a strong running game and saying we can do it too.
oh how I look forward to the day that Lynch is no longer on the bills so that this constant pondering about his worth can become dust.
quote:Originally posted by Diggr14:
I think a guy that is 24 and has run for over 1000 yards and is of 1st round pedigree is worth a very late 2.
Not for someone in the program. Risk/reward...
quote:Originally posted by Diggr14:
It helps us this year and into the future.
It may help this year. I still believe the run blocking is a big part of the issue which has been alluded to. Clifton just can't do anymore what he once was okay at and Tausch has been making too many mental mistakes so I'm willing to give him a week or two to correct those.
Lynch is worth as much as the franchise.
BTW, someone needs to send a memo to the Bills that no matter how many draft picks you have, it takes good management throughout the franchise to turn into winners. Crummy GM. Crummy coach.
BTW, someone needs to send a memo to the Bills that no matter how many draft picks you have, it takes good management throughout the franchise to turn into winners. Crummy GM. Crummy coach.
I don’t understand where guys are coming from suggesting that Lynch isn’t worth a second round choice.
He had a 1000-yard season with a crappy team that lacked a good QB (and still does). Think having a mediocre-to-poor QB and passing attack doesn’t affect a run game? I don’t agree.
I would also point out that there’s no guarantee at all your 2nd round choice is going to pan out if you pass on a deal and hang onto it. On the same team with Lynch now is a stellar GB 2nd, Brian Brohm. The other second-rounder we acquired in the same draft as Brohm was Pat Lee, whom some think or at least suspect, should be cut.
BJack is a catcher and a blocker, but not a consistent yard-getter when running, at least partly IMO because he seems indecisive. A good player, but not the 1000-yarder that Lynch has already been. BJack was a 2nd.
Sure, there’s a risk, but there is with any player. Lynch has had one good season, and I’m not sure why. I do remember, however, a RB who languished a while with disappointing seasons until his team acquired decent surrounding personnel. That was OJ. I have no use for OJ as a person but he was a top-flight runner and evidently not a 'character risk' in his playing days. Everyone liked him till 1995. AR seems to vouch for Lynch.
The alternatives voiced here are stopgap at best and remind me of the Eric Torkelson/Paul Ott Carruth days. I would not only give the 2nd for Lynch but maybe even a player into the deal. Lynch has proven (with at least one season) he can be an NFL RB. The 2nd round choice you guys want to hang onto has never played there.
And maybe never really will.
He had a 1000-yard season with a crappy team that lacked a good QB (and still does). Think having a mediocre-to-poor QB and passing attack doesn’t affect a run game? I don’t agree.
I would also point out that there’s no guarantee at all your 2nd round choice is going to pan out if you pass on a deal and hang onto it. On the same team with Lynch now is a stellar GB 2nd, Brian Brohm. The other second-rounder we acquired in the same draft as Brohm was Pat Lee, whom some think or at least suspect, should be cut.
BJack is a catcher and a blocker, but not a consistent yard-getter when running, at least partly IMO because he seems indecisive. A good player, but not the 1000-yarder that Lynch has already been. BJack was a 2nd.
Sure, there’s a risk, but there is with any player. Lynch has had one good season, and I’m not sure why. I do remember, however, a RB who languished a while with disappointing seasons until his team acquired decent surrounding personnel. That was OJ. I have no use for OJ as a person but he was a top-flight runner and evidently not a 'character risk' in his playing days. Everyone liked him till 1995. AR seems to vouch for Lynch.
The alternatives voiced here are stopgap at best and remind me of the Eric Torkelson/Paul Ott Carruth days. I would not only give the 2nd for Lynch but maybe even a player into the deal. Lynch has proven (with at least one season) he can be an NFL RB. The 2nd round choice you guys want to hang onto has never played there.
And maybe never really will.
some great discussion going on here....my two cents i don't want to win a superbowl and be done i want a team that's going to win multiple superbowls and lynch just doesn't strike me as a guy that will be happy after being in one place for a while ala TO. I'd rather draft a RB in the second round next year and let him come in fresh from college and show him how great GB is and can be to players that appreciate the opportunity given to them.
If I had to give up a second i'd want Fred Jackson over Lynch. I'd only pay a fourth for Lynch with conditions on it changing to a third depending on how far we go.
I'm with FountainFox on this. We have a good young nucleus of a team, with playmakers everywhere. Bring in a RB, who could compliment those, and were looking at a powerhouse team for maybe the next 5+ years.
I don't think losing a number two will all of a sudden put the organization into a tailspin. Look at how many players we cut that have been picked by other teams. We don't know if that #2 next year will even make the team?
The only other reason, I see TT not willing to make this trade, would be the current and future salary structure of the team. Within 1-2 years, TGIF, will be looking for a significant raise, and rasises will be paid to CMIII, possibly Burnett, Shields, Sitton, etc. If TT looks at the books, and realizes that we cannot extend Lynch, then I think he doesn't do it.
As for the Turd factor, I don't think it is one. Dude doesn't like Buffalo, he comes to GB, ARodg and him get re-united, he's on a good team, producing member of a potential SB team. Attitiude and everything changes IMO.
I don't think losing a number two will all of a sudden put the organization into a tailspin. Look at how many players we cut that have been picked by other teams. We don't know if that #2 next year will even make the team?
The only other reason, I see TT not willing to make this trade, would be the current and future salary structure of the team. Within 1-2 years, TGIF, will be looking for a significant raise, and rasises will be paid to CMIII, possibly Burnett, Shields, Sitton, etc. If TT looks at the books, and realizes that we cannot extend Lynch, then I think he doesn't do it.
As for the Turd factor, I don't think it is one. Dude doesn't like Buffalo, he comes to GB, ARodg and him get re-united, he's on a good team, producing member of a potential SB team. Attitiude and everything changes IMO.
quote:Originally posted by titmfatied:
If I had to give up a second i'd want Fred Jackson over Lynch. I'd only pay a fourth for Lynch with conditions on it changing to a third depending on how far we go.
It's been noted though that FJ is 5 years older than Lynch?
Why does where the player was drafted even equate into the equation? So what he was drafted in Round 1. Tom Brady was drafted in Round 6, so does that decrease his value compared to Carson Palmer.
As tit pointed out, I would take Fred Jackson over Lynch in a heartbeat. And while Fred Jackson is older, the life span of a RB is shorter than every position anyhow. And Marshawn Lynch has more abuse in the pros than Fred Jackson has based on touches.
As tit pointed out, I would take Fred Jackson over Lynch in a heartbeat. And while Fred Jackson is older, the life span of a RB is shorter than every position anyhow. And Marshawn Lynch has more abuse in the pros than Fred Jackson has based on touches.
quote:Originally posted by Fountainfox:
I don’t understand where guys are coming from suggesting that Lynch isn’t worth a second round choice.
He had a 1000-yard season with a crappy team that lacked a good QB (and still does). Think having a mediocre-to-poor QB and passing attack doesn’t affect a run game? I don’t agree.
I would also point out that there’s no guarantee at all your 2nd round choice is going to pan out if you pass on a deal and hang onto it. On the same team with Lynch now is a stellar GB 2nd, Brian Brohm. The other second-rounder we acquired in the same draft as Brohm was Pat Lee, whom some think or at least suspect, should be cut.
BJack is a catcher and a blocker, but not a consistent yard-getter when running, at least partly IMO because he seems indecisive. A good player, but not the 1000-yarder that Lynch has already been. BJack was a 2nd.
Sure, there’s a risk, but there is with any player. Lynch has had one good season, and I’m not sure why. I do remember, however, a RB who languished a while with disappointing seasons until his team acquired decent surrounding personnel. That was OJ. I have no use for OJ as a person but he was a top-flight runner and evidently not a 'character risk' in his playing days. Everyone liked him till 1995. AR seems to vouch for Lynch.
The alternatives voiced here are stopgap at best and remind me of the Eric Torkelson/Paul Ott Carruth days. I would not only give the 2nd for Lynch but maybe even a player into the deal. Lynch has proven (with at least one season) he can be an NFL RB. The 2nd round choice you guys want to hang onto has never played there.
And maybe never really will.
Good post. He's actually had 2 1000 yard seasons though.
I still don't know how people can sit there and say Jackson and Kuhn are the answer. The opponent doesn't have to fear either one going the distance. What's the worst they're going to do, get a 20 yard run? Big deal.
While he's obviously not a burner like CJ or Peterson, a guy like Lynch (or whoever else they may be looking at) has that extra gear that the current guys just do not have. Again, I point to that run Kuhn had early in the 4th quarter against Buffalo. He did not get touched until 10 yards downfield. All he had to do was take an angle on the safety and he was gone. Any above avg RB likely scores on that play.
If they can get a good player for a 2nd rounder it is worth it. It is not like they are getting nothing in return, they are getting a good football player back! Make it a conditional 2nd, start it out as a 4th and based on accomplishments (team or individual) that maxes it out at a 2nd.
Sure it's a 2nd rounder and that could be Nick Collins or Greg Jennings. It also could be Brian Brohm, Pat Lee, or any other lousy 2nd round picks other teams have made over the years.
Steve Slaton is now another name being thrown around and apparantly gaining some steam.
quote:It also could be Brian Brohm, Pat Lee, or any other lousy 2nd round picks other teams have made over the years.
Maybe another Trent Edwards?
quote:Originally posted by CJS:
Satori, it's not just this post, you also posted: "Its a basic call for attention by a blogger who knows how to rile the small-brains and generate traffic to his site."
I agree that Thompson is an excellent GM and overall MM is a good coach, but they are not above reproach.
Of course they aren't above reproach, and since we all know that perhaps you can loosen your undies and relax about it
As for my comments about Jersey Al- he is yer basic east coast negative nellie who posts what he considers to be "controversial comments" in an attempt to drive traffic to his website. Some take the bait, others don't
Do you ever see him participate in this forum any time EXCEPT when its a thread linked to his article ? His work is self-serving and I treat it as such
Clearly you have some issues and if ripping me makes you feel better, then have at it.
But right now you are looking rather small, and when given the chance to laugh about it, you instead responded with an additional rip
That says a lot more about you than it does me.
To each his own CJS
Yeah, I think we saw that Kuhn is a good goal line option and Jackson is more effective in the short passing game. Really didn't understand why Nance isn't getting a chance to play. Isn't that why he was brought in?
Lynch is a turd but beggars can't be choosers. Personally think the Bills will ask for more than he's worth. Packers are going to have eat his contract as well as Lynch being one strike away so more than a third is to much in my esteemed opinion.
Would like to see what Nance could do though.
Lynch is a turd but beggars can't be choosers. Personally think the Bills will ask for more than he's worth. Packers are going to have eat his contract as well as Lynch being one strike away so more than a third is to much in my esteemed opinion.
Would like to see what Nance could do though.
quote:Originally posted by Coach:
Regardless, Indianapolis has already shown that it's possible to get to the Super Bowl with the running game that's at the bottom of the league. That's not wishful thinking, that's a fact.
Wait, but they're a dome team, right?
Pittsburgh (cold weather team) won a Super Bowl even with a running game that was 29th in YPC just within the last two years. The reason they didn't make the playoffs last year had next to nothing to do with their running game (they actually ran the ball better last year going 9-7 than the year they won the Super Bowl).
If the argument is how the offense is going to respond in the cold, I understand the concern.
However, if you think back just to the '07 season, we didn't run the ball effectively against the NYG in that bitter cold, yet we still were in the position to win the game in OT.
What some people seem to forget is that the Giants couldn't run the ball that day either (Jacobs averaged 3.19 per carry that day) yet they won the game. I doubt anyone forgets the amount of success they had throwing the ball that game (and our DC that simply did not adequately adjust to what the Giants were doing).
Indy had a 1,000 yard rusher in Addai and he was someone to be respected. Regardless of where they ranked overall in rushing.
Pitt had Willie Parker, who had to be respected.
In the 2007 Championship game, the Pack had Grant, who had to be respected. The Giants had Jacobs, Ward and a young Bradshaw which in turn was talent that had to be respected.
Those offenses, despite where they ranked in the league in rushing had to be respected. BJack and Kuhn are not and will not be respected because they aren't any good.
quote:Originally posted by Henry:
Yeah, I think we saw that Kuhn is a good goal line option and Jackson is more effective in the short passing game. Really didn't understand why Nance isn't getting a chance to play. Isn't that why he was brought in?
Lynch is a turd but beggars can't be choosers. Personally think the Bills will ask for more than he's worth. Packers are going to have eat his contract as well as Lynch being one strike away so more than a third is to much in my esteemed opinion.
Would like to see what Nance could do though.
Pretty much agree. I'd like to see what Nance can do, but I'd also like to see what any RB could do when there are more than 2 or 3 OL on the field who can run block. Knowing the answer to that question would help define what sort of value/risk would make Lynch or someone else they could trade for worthwhile.
Why are those people that are proclaiming trading a 2nd for Lynch because of two 1,000 yard seasons but then call Grant average but yet he rushed for 1,200 yards two seasons in a row. Those "same" people want to give up a 2nd for a player that has been less productive. Am I missing something? What would be Grant's price tag?
If Lynch and Grant switched places, I'd give up a second for Grant now. I'd give up Nelson, who was a second round pick, for Lynch now.
"You have to look at what's the definition of the run game. I looked at this particular game, and I felt that our running backs were productive," McCarthy said.
"I thought Brandon and John played well with the opportunities that they were given with the ball in their hands and what was put in front of them. "I thought the running back production was a positive in the game."
M3 smoking weed
"I thought Brandon and John played well with the opportunities that they were given with the ball in their hands and what was put in front of them. "I thought the running back production was a positive in the game."
M3 smoking weed
Have to agree with Coach, everyone playing those teams knew they were going to throw the ball. Being one dimensional doesn’t mean you can’t win. The Patriots haven’t had a running back worth anything for years, but they use a combination of the short and long passing game to keep defenses on their toes.
There is plenty of skill from the WR/TE and BJ can block and catch, coupled with an elite QB like Rodgers, this offense can win games without a weapon like Grant. I also think this line cannot run block, so using the slant/short passing game as a running game substitute actually plays to the strengths of this unit.
There is plenty of skill from the WR/TE and BJ can block and catch, coupled with an elite QB like Rodgers, this offense can win games without a weapon like Grant. I also think this line cannot run block, so using the slant/short passing game as a running game substitute actually plays to the strengths of this unit.
quote:Originally posted by TD:
Why are those people that are proclaiming trading a 2nd for Lynch because of two 1,000 yard seasons but then call Grant average but yet he rushed for 1,200 yards two seasons in a row. Those "same" people want to give up a 2nd for a player that has been less productive. Am I missing something? What would be Grant's price tag?
Yeah I think you are missing something if you are just going to compare Grant and Lynch by yardage gained.
I don't think OJ Simpson would have gained much more than 1,000 yds behind that line and in an offense, which has no threat of a passing attack. 8 in the box with that line.....the more I think about it the more I am amazed that he was able to gain that many yards. In my opinion, Lynch would have gained more and been a better back than Grant if he was in the exact same position as Grant.
Given the uncertainty of the draft even in the 2nd round, the fact that TT does very well in the later rounds of the draft, and its seems like this team might be close, I would say roll the dice and give them a 2nd.
It is not as if it a Hershal Walker or John Hadl trade.
quote:Originally posted by JJSD:
... I'd also like to see what any RB could do when there are more than 2 or 3 OL on the field who can run block. Knowing the answer to that question would help define what sort of value/risk would make Lynch or someone else they could trade for worthwhile.
Agreed. The oline was jumpy. Still really wish there was more beef at center and LG.
I don't think the lack of beef at C or LG would be a problem if there were T's that could move guys off the ball. One of the things that stuck with me after that game is that I think it's time to give Bulaga a shot. I really don't think Cliffy is going to make it through the year as-is. MM is already starting the 'we'll see how it goes with Clifton' quotes for the next game. If it takes that much just to get the guy on the field this early in the year, how is he going to hold up in December? I'd rather let Bulaga earn some stripes now and have a rested Cliffy in reserve as opposed to having Clifton completely fall apart and then have to stick Bulage in at LT with no experience during the meat of their schedule. I know MM is loyal almost to a fault to his vets, but I'd start to at least get Lang ready at RT as well just in case Tauscher doesn't improve. Both of them were getting tossed around like rag dolls on Monday.
One of the arguments I don't understand when qualifying a Lynch trade is "let's see what Nance and Starks can do, if they don't show anything, then go out and get a guy". Isn't the trade deadline Oct 19? That doesn't give much if any time to see what either of those guys can do, especially Starks. After the trade deadline, you can only sign free agents, no? And who is out there in FAland?
That still gives you three games. I guess my point is that if it's determined with finality that an addition to the RB corps needs to be made (and as of now it looks like it does), perhaps you don't need to spend a high pick on a Lynch type if you get some actual run blocking out of the OL. Perhaps you can find someone else who only costs a late-round pick, just as Grant did. Perhaps not, but just giving up a premium pick without defining the variables doesn't seem prudent to me.
Here's the thing, did the line suddenly go to crap to make the RBs look this bad? Sure, it's probably not a top 10 line, but they are decent. Ryan Grant has put up serious numbers the last 2.5 seasons behind this line. Kuhn and Jackson especially just look lost.
Maybe the answer is as simple as putting Bulaga and/or Lang in to start now. But, they'll still be stuck with Jackson back there. Maybe Nance will get a bit more of a shot on Sunday. I wish he'd have gotten a bit more time against Buffalo.
Maybe the answer is as simple as putting Bulaga and/or Lang in to start now. But, they'll still be stuck with Jackson back there. Maybe Nance will get a bit more of a shot on Sunday. I wish he'd have gotten a bit more time against Buffalo.
Why some don't want to give up a 2nd for Lynch...
If DL depth was an issue I wonder of these same people would give up a 2nd for Jolly (were he not suspended)? I know it's not granny smith to granny smith, more like gala to granny smith. The turd potential has to be considered when trading / drafting / signing FAs.
quote:
The suspension resulted from the player's arrest in Culver City, Calif., on Feb. 11, when police searched a parked car Lynch was in and found a 9mm semiautomatic handgun in a backpack in the trunk. Police also found four marijuana cigarettes in the car, but no drug charges were filed.
It was Lynch's second run-in with the law following a hit-and run-accident in Buffalo in May 2008. In that incident, he pleaded guilty to a traffic violation and admitted to driving off after striking a female pedestrian with his car near Buffalo's downtown bar district.
If DL depth was an issue I wonder of these same people would give up a 2nd for Jolly (were he not suspended)? I know it's not granny smith to granny smith, more like gala to granny smith. The turd potential has to be considered when trading / drafting / signing FAs.
quote:Originally posted by The GBP Rules:
Here's the thing, did the line suddenly go to crap to make the RBs look this bad? Sure, it's probably not a top 10 line, but they are decent. Ryan Grant has put up serious numbers the last 2.5 seasons behind this line. Kuhn and Jackson especially just look lost.
I think it's possible and worthwhile to find out. Grant put up those numbers behind younger T's. Sometimes guys lose it quickly. Did you notice how running lanes were suddenly there in there in the BUF game when Bulaga played? Do you think it's a coincidence that AR had a perfect rating and his best half of the year simultaneously? Do you think Cliffy and Tauscher look like the same players compared to a couple of years ago? So far this year I don't - they look washed up. Whether it's Nance, Lynch or someone else who is added, I've said that it's looking like something will need to be done. I just think they need to find out how much needs to be done in terms of risk before GB simply barfs up a high pick. They may not need to do that. TT/MM make their share of mistakes (and again I think MM's loyalty to these guys is stubborn in certain respects), but they're certainly not prone to panic.
To me it looks like Clifton has lost it physically, maybe due to the injury and maybe due to age - I don't know and it does not matter. As for Tauscher, he seemed to have more of a fundamentally bad game that physically. While he does not move like he did 5 years ago, he was moving well enough IMO, but it looked like his leverage was piss poor.
If you look at the Philly game, Ryan Grant only had the one decent run when he got hurt. I love Tausch and Cliffy but I want to see Lang and Bulaga in the next two weeks before the team gets all bent out of shape with the RB's and Lynch.
quote:Originally posted by Hungry5:
To me it looks like Clifton has lost it physically, maybe due to the injury and maybe due to age - I don't know and it does not matter. As for Tauscher, he seemed to have more of a fundamentally bad game that physically. While he does not move like he did 5 years ago, he was moving well enough IMO, but it looked like his leverage was piss poor.
That's certainly possible regarding Tauscher. I'd also rather have a healthy Clifton in reserve behind Bulaga, as I do think he could still have a few good games left in him. Duct-taping him back together every week and wheeling him out there right now seems like it's a self-fulfilling prophecy that he's not going to be able to finish the year. I'd rather have Bulaga/Clifton as the LT's on the depth chart than Bulaga/Newhouse or Bulaga/(gasp)Colledge in December. It's dum management to not completely assess the variables within your control before placing a value on the risks you're willing to take. I'd rather trade a late pick for a RB to run behind Bulaga than a top pick for a Lynch to run behind Cliffy until he's spent if the production would be about the same. We don't know that yet, but TT/MM need to define that since all they'd need to do is put Bulaga on the field to find out.