a minor concern when Gettleman points to Brandon Beane "orchestrating many trades" when speaking to what he's done to deserve a promotion, is where that came from. Doesn't say "Beane's the one that suggested it", necessarily, but in the wrong light, yeah. Beathard's foolhardiness being Hurney's being Beane's problem would be a f'in bummer.
Some guys just like breaking their own hearts, I guess. The hype train is dangerous. I totally agree. Constant hype - things like vining one of a player's three plays in a game, or suggesting veterans should get cut because they didn't do as much as an undrafted in very limited sample sizes - isn't invalid, but it might be somewhat foolish.
I hope Ward does make the PS. I hope Wegher gets as far as he can, but the pass blocking is an issue. In the end, we can't just decide to cut veterans for shiny new toys. Same for Byrd - it'd be great if he could stick around, but I'm not 100% sure that those three are within the top 53.
Both are hard. Selling out might be harder, because you put resources into something that didn't work. If Dom Capers believed Jason Peter was a better football player than Randy Moss, then he's blind, but I can understand feeling like Randy Moss is a player that isn't worth the risk. Trading back up for Randy Moss (I swear, do I remember Mike Ditka wanting to trade back up with 1999-2000 picks, for Randy Moss, after trading for Ricky Williams?) and watching him go Rae Carruth, would be more catastrophic. Or to put it in more realistic terms, I'd have found trading Sean Gilbert's rights for the eventual Peter pick tough, but knowing that it cost them what it did for Gilbert plus the other picks (Peter, Marrow, and Wiley) hurts more. I would've gladly in retrospect wanted Carolina to give up the 14 pick and be bad on the DL singularly, than give up 14, plus 1999, plus the 2000 pick, and the rotten return on the 1998 2nd for Rashard Anderson, and two thirds in 1998 for the same eventual outcome.
In comparison, I wish Julius Peppers had been here in 11, 12, 13, 14 but I get it. That was just terrible timing and an owner doing what he thought was best, even if it took time to recoil from it.
scripted plays are designed to feel out the defense in certain ways - see how they react to motion, see how they react to different formations. It's partially confirmation of film study tendency, partially setup for something later in the game. Seeing on play 1 how they react in base for motion to a trips bunch with a draw is a way of attempting to pickup first down yardage, but also to setup a bigger play later. It's no different than other types of constraint plays that lead to (hopefully) successful variations. And no-huddle doesn't take the OC out of it. It'd be very short-sighted to think that a no-huddle doesn't take a heavy amount of OC gameplanning. I mean, unless people just wanted to dog the coordinator, which seems to be the point, so don't mind me over here thinking rationally.
Tolbert will definitely play a dual role, and if healthy, he'll probably still be an upback on punt team and KR among other roles. Know that someone will really, really have to impress to knock away Brockel, a good blocker and a core special teamer, too.
it's easy to throw out analytics when they don't agree with them. That's why they're necessary - the same things that emotionally tell you Player X was really great, are the same reasons you can't rely on them to make business decisions.
This has real value. It might not grade "your" player well, but on average, it's a set of skilled eyes grading things like blocking in a way no one here can. It doesn't mean, in 20 plays, for instance that a career is over. Game 1 of preseason isn't the end-all, be-all determinant (I saw a "cut Ealy" in the other thread and an all but "it's OK that Lee Ward had a -1" - turns out falling off your man in the hole isn't universally accepted) of a player's career. Right now, positive is a nice thing to have, but a few negatives aren't catastrophic.
Which, the amazing thing about that was, both were possible. It's not like the team had tough choices to make to keep a team together, everyone was new. It's not like they had to let people walk because of the cap. They could spend without dead cap. He could've done what he did and simply also drafted well. Building through the draft doesn't have to mean suffering through players that shouldn't otherwise be on the field. You want Sam Mills? You put a kid next to him. They didn't have to choose. I think, though, that Polian and JR were both on that same mindset early on. Don't worry about later. Hell I don't know if there was such a thing as "salary cap hell" yet.
I'd heard that Mike McCormack and JR didn't get along with Polian, who was a hot head. McCormack hastened his own departure, and sure maybe Polian wanted that President job. I don't know, though - a President oversees a lot but doesn't handle the guts. JR, again just from what I recollect, didn't like the way things went down with Kevin Greene and Polian. I didn't love Greene forcing a hand, but he was getting paid peanuts and they'd just given Michael Barrow a ton. Polian wouldn't budge. When Polian left, Greene returned. The thing about that, though, is JR himself seemed to want to have some say. A strong, belligerent GM doesn't seem like a guy who'll let you have some say. Believe that or don't, the next three GMs didn't have a lot of power. Capers was a really poor choice to have more power, and while that was a bad decision, JR didn't scrap the concept when he went to Plan B of Seifert (wherein A was Holmgren). I could go into the idea of using an unknown GM/young coach combo in Hurney/Fox and why, but you hopefully get it. And this isn't a smear bit on Richardson. Just the concept that it wasn't just Polian or Richardson. Polian was apparently difficult to deal with, absolutely. You could attack his early cronyism (bringing on three offensive Bills to a team in which those Bills guys didn't fit), he drafted a bit above average here. When he got to Indy he was dying to take pieces with him, took Tyrone Poole and there was that rumored debauchery where he wanted Kerry Collins enough to flirt with the pick that was Peyton Manning. Or so I read - and the one place I posted the link, shows a dead link now. So call that one folklore, it would've taken a lot of resources to have realistically made that trade anyway.
I wish I knew the answer to the McNair/Collins debate. I don't know if they would've ever said. If I had to guess, they had concerns about Carter, found a good sucker in Cincy to trade down, and figured they'd roll the dice. Would be interesting to know