Mike n Mike talk team building

[Krovvy]

Just now, Mr. Scot said:

I'll give you Otah, but he wasn't exactly a great pick (wasn't around long enough to justify that and fell off because of lousy work ethic).

But no, it doesn't.

You're basically trying to put together an all star line out of guys that were picked over an eleven year period. Doesn't work that way. Lines are built from year to year, and outside of 2003 (the steroid year), 2008 and maybe 2005, our lines were nothing special. That includes Cam's first two years here and equates to us only having solid line play around 25℅ of the time under Hurney.

Spin it how you want. It doesn't work.

I'm not trying to do anything of the sort. Let me just ask you this, do you think Dave Gettleman would ever value an offensive tackle as much as Marty Hurney valued Jeff Otah? Jeff Otah cost, if I recall, two first round picks, a second, and another pick.

With this in mind how is it disingenuous to state that Hurney valued offensive lineman more than Gettleman currently does?

[iamhubby1]

16 minutes ago, TheRed said:

I'm not here to hold your hand, and tell you it's going to be alright hubby. You're a man, you can stand on your own two feet.

We have had sound bytes on this forum of Gettleman saying various phrases for crying out loud. Yes, there is a contigent on this board that has a circle jerk every time an opposing source suggests perhaps Gettleman could have done a little more, or his approach needs a little fine tuning.

We sure as hell aren't going to get anywhere as a franchise with this mindset. If you take issue with me stating this, well, that's too bad.

 

Wow, you really don't pay any attention to what folks actually say do you?

 

No one, I repeat, no one believes that Gman has been perfect. But there are folks that believe he has done a fine job. Just because we defend Gman against folks whose only purpose is to downplay his successes, just to try and make him sound worse than he actually is. It does not mean it is a "Circle Jerk". It seems like if we don't cowtow to the great and powerful Red's line of thinking, we must be willing to settle for the status quo.

 

Why is it so hard to believe that folks can think that Gman has done a fine job, and still think he could do better? But because we don't ride him to the ground with hate. We are somehow in denial?

 

I tell you what. You go on ridiculing folks for sticking up for Gman. And the rest of us will just go about our business.

[grimesgoat]

16 minutes ago, TheRed said:

That OL that "went 17-2" only coincidentally got destroyed in the biggest game in the history of our franchise. Then got destroyed again months later by the same team after we sat on our hands in the offseason. After that things just went right off a cliff.

But who could have seen that happening, right? *vomit*

Destroyed?

Did you watch the superb owl?  We turned the ball over 4 times, 1 for a TD and 1 ended up inside the 10 for another TD (thanks to a no-call on a clearly batted ball).  We gave up the longest punt return in SB history resulting in 3 more points.  We committed 12 penalties for 102 yards compared to Denver's 51 yds.  We had the ball 33 minutes and outgained them 315 to 194.  We dropped pass after pass, yet we were still only down 6 pts with the ball and 4 minutes to go.  Bottom line - we did far more damage to ourselves than the Denver defense did to us and we were far from "destroyed". 

Then the next year we were "destroyed" again when we missed a FG for the win as time expired.

Seriously - get some perspective.  Everyone wants a scapegoat, but sometimes there just isn't one.

[Mr. Scot]

3 minutes ago, TheRed said:

So then you have no problem admitting that our front office bungled the 2016 offseason, right?

I can name youspecific errors...

1. Counting on the pass rush being as good as it was in the Super Bowl, and this helping cover for the young secondary. Though honestly, why wouldn't you think this? Ealy played the game of his life and Johnson looked like he was back to form.

2. Thinking Daryl Williams was ready to challenge for the starting right tackle spot. He might be now, but he wasn't last year.  If he has been, that would've made a huge difference in our year.

3. Continuing to count on Mike Tolbert, especially after the injury he had last season.

4. Believing Kelvin Benjamin would just pick up right where he left off. Again, a reasonable assumption, just one that didn't pan out.

5. Having faith in Tre Boston as a starter. You could conceivably have made an argument for this after last year, but again it just wasn't so.

6. Not realizing that some of our older guys were primed to lose a step. Tolbert was a prime example of this, but there were others, sadly including Thomas Davis.

There's more, but some of the other stuff kind of blues the lines between front office and coaching (don't get me started on that).

Again Red, nobody's suggesting everything is awesome and we can just cruise into next season as is. What we've unfortunately spent a lot of time having to react to are the morons who think everything prior to last year no longer matters and you need to burn the whole thing to the ground.

[TheRed]

1 minute ago, grimesgoat said:

Destroyed?

Did you watch the superb owl?  We turned the ball over 4 times, 1 for a TD and 1 ended up inside the 10 for another TD (thanks to a no-call on a clearly batted ball).  We gave up the longest punt return in SB history resulting in 3 more points.  We committed 12 penalties for 102 yards compared to Denver's 51 yds.  We had the ball 33 minutes and outgained them 315 to 194.  We dropped pass after pass, yet we were still only down 6 pts with the ball and 4 minutes to go.  Bottom line - we did far more damage to ourselves than the Denver defense did to us and we were far from "destroyed". 

Then the next year we were "destroyed" again when we missed a FG for the win as time expired.

Seriously - get some perspective.  Everyone wants a scapegoat, but sometimes there just isn't one.

Are you under the assumption I'm arguing the OL is the sole factor in our woes or something? Big hint here chief, I'm not. In fact I've never said that anywhere at any point this season

But many of our issues along the way have more often than not centered around the inadequacies of our offensive line. If you want to argue that with me, you are honestly beyond reasoning with, there is wearing homer shades, and then there is just flat out self deception.

Anyway, if you think our OL wasn't "destroyed" in the season opener while the defense was able to tee off all game on our QB, particularly with blatant helmet to helmet shots in what became one of the worst beatings I've ever seen any quarterback endure, well, either you were watching a different game, or you are trying way too hard to downplay it's significance. If our OL wasn't so vastly over matched in that game, and others, it wouldn't likely have had to come down to depending on Ray Fink.. I mean, Graham Gano to kick the winning field goal.

[Mr. Scot]

13 minutes ago, Krovvy said:

I'm not trying to do anything of the sort. Let me just ask you this, do you think Dave Gettleman would ever value an offensive tackle as much as Marty Hurney valued Jeff Otah? Jeff Otah cost, if I recall, two first round picks, a second, and another pick.

With this in mind how is it disingenuous to state that Hurney valued offensive lineman more than Gettleman currently does?

Not so much disingenuous as just plain incorrect.

What Gettleman values most is getting the best out of your draft picks. That means he's not going to bypass a better player just because he's dead set on taking a tackle. Reaching for need is a good way to lower the quality of your roster, at which point you wind up with, for example, only three good years out of eleven seasons.

[Krovvy]

Just now, Mr. Scot said:

Not so much disingenuous as just plain incorrect.

What Gettleman values most is getting the best out of your draft picks. That means he's not going to bypass a better player just because he's dead set on taking a tackle. Reaching for need is a good way to lower the quality of your roster, at which point you wind up with, for example, only three good years out of eleven seasons.

How is it incorrect to state that Marty Hurney put more resources into the offensive line? It's a fact, it's plain as day.

How about this then. Can you name a year under Hurney that the offensive line was as bad as it was in 2014 under Gettleman or even as bad as 2016?

[Mr. Scot]

5 minutes ago, Krovvy said:

How is it incorrect to state that Marty Hurney put more resources into the offensive line? It's a fact, it's plain as day.

How about this then. Can you name a year under Hurney that the offensive line was as bad as it was in 2014 under Gettleman or even as bad as 2016?

Easy. 2004. We lost guys to injuries early and looked terrible all year. And no, that wasn't the only season our OL looked terrible.

And no, it's not a fact because you're still comparing eleven years to four, yet somehow leaving out the fact that we've had as many division titles and Super Bowl appearances in those few years as we had under Hurney's entire career.

Throw in that we're primed for this offseason with a high draft pick and loads of cash to spend (more than you could have had in probably give seasons put together under Hurney) and yet again, it's a fail.

[Krovvy]

Just now, Mr. Scot said:

Easy. 2004. We lost guys to injuries early and looked terrible all year. And no, that wasn't the only season our OL looked terrible.

And no, it's not a fact because you're still comparing eleven years to four, yet somehow leaving out the fact that we've had as many division titles and Super Bowl appearances in those few years as we had under Hurney's entire career.

Throw in that we're primed for this offseason with a high draft pick and loads of cash to spend (more than you could have had in probably give seasons put together under Hurney) and yet again, it's a fail.

I don't think the 2004 line was comparable to the atrocity of the 2014 line, the 2016 line yes, but not the 2014 line. The offensive line in 2014 wasn't because of injuries as we all know though, it was because we went into the season with the manta of "sometimes the answer is on the roster", but it wasn't.

The fact remains that Hurney spent many high and late rounds picks on offensive linemen. While Gettleman has yet to use a high draft pick on a single one in four drafts. Maybe this will be the year, and maybe he'll finally use some of the accumulated cap space. It may however be hard to outbid some of the leagues bottom dwellers with the same comparable cap room as the Panthers have.

[Mr. Scot]

1 minute ago, Krovvy said:

I don't think the 2004 line was comparable to the atrocity of the 2014 line, the 2016 line yes, but not the 2014 line. The offensive line in 2014 wasn't because of injuries as we all know though, it was because we went into the season with the manta of "sometimes the answer is on the roster", but it wasn't.

The fact remains that Hurney spent many high and late rounds picks on offensive linemen. While Gettleman has yet to use a high draft pick on a single one in four drafts. Maybe this will be the year, and maybe he'll finally use some of the accumulated cap space. It may however be hard to outbid some of the leagues bottom dwellers with the same comparable cap room as the Panthers have.

I was here in 2004. Have been since the beginning, and I can tell you that in every year except a few, one of the most common topics was "our O-Line still sucks", and it was a valid topic.

You can keep trying to cherry pick if you want, but if you actually look at the units year by year, you'll see a trend that doesn't favor your argument.

[iamhubby1]

31 minutes ago, Krovvy said:

How is it incorrect to state that Marty Hurney put more resources into the offensive line? It's a fact, it's plain as day.

How about this then. Can you name a year under Hurney that the offensive line was as bad as it was in 2014 under Gettleman or even as bad as 2016?

 

See, to me this is the main problem right now. Fans seem to forget that, outside of a few good years, we were always trying to fix our Oline when Hurngog was here. All while letting good lineman get away.

 

Why is it so hard for folks to acknowledge that injuries played a large role in how our line played this year?

 

Outside the SuperB owl our line played really well in 15. Why is it such a travesty that they may have thought, "Man, if that line plays as well, or better, we are good to go? Because the line fell apart, fans are back to "We never..."

 

Oher, Norwell, Kalil, Turner, and Williams can be a really good line. Remmers, Scott, Gradkowski, and Larsen can be pretty good back-ups. Injuries, not coaching, or the FO was what kept that group from playing together.

 

Lastly. Gman has never had money. Let's see what he does with it before we pronounce him a bust.

[iamhubby1]

8 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

I was here in 2004. Have been since the beginning, and I can tell you that in every year except a few, one of the most common topics was "our O-Line still sucks", and it was a valid topic.

You can keep trying to cherry pick if you want, but if you actually look at the units year by year, you'll see a trend that doesn't favor your argument.

 

I just said the same thing. Outside the few years Otah actually played, fans were always harping on needing Oline help.

 

The Gman haters always ignore the injuries we had this year. They completely gloss over 15 because of how the SuperB owl played out.

 

I guess we had a great Offense in 15 despite the Oline, not because of it.

 

I love how the Gman haters can use any stat they want to make him sound bad. But bring up anything good about him, and you are delusional. lol

[Krovvy]

11 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

I was here in 2004. Have been since the beginning, and I can tell you that in every year except a few, one of the most common topics was "our O-Line still sucks", and it was a valid topic.

You can keep trying to cherry pick if you want, but if you actually look at the units year by year, you'll see a trend that doesn't favor your argument.

I'm not cherry picking anything. I asked you which year in eleven was worse under Hurney than in Gettleman's four years. You then asserted that the 2004 line was worse, but I disagreed stating the 2016 line was only comparable. Both teams having suffered injuries. I then stated the 2014 was an atrocity that was incomparable to any offensive line under Marty Hurney.

Let me ask you another question. Do you think Dave Gettleman will select an offensive lineman with a high pick in this years draft? If not then that makes five years without one selected. If you assume Gettleman will be here the same number of years as Hurney, then we're already almost halfway through his tenure without taking an offensive lineman with a high pick.

[Krovvy]

10 minutes ago, iamhubby1 said:

 

See, to me this is the main problem right now. Fans seem to forget that, outside of a few good years, we were always trying to fix our Oline when Hurngog was here. All while letting good lineman get away.

 

Why is it so hard for folks to acknowledge that injuries played a large role in how our line played this year?

 

Outside the SuperB owl our line played really well in 15. Why is it such a travesty that they may have thought, "Man, if that line plays as well, or better, we are good to go? Because the line fell apart, fans are back to "We never..."

 

Oher, Norwell, Kalil, Turner, and Williams can be a really good line. Remmers, Scott, Gradkowski, and Larsen can be pretty good back-ups. Injuries, not coaching, or the FO was what kept that group from playing together.

 

Lastly. Gman has never had money. Let's see what he does with it before we pronounce him a bust.

I'm not saying that the lines under Hurney were flawless, but I am saying they were better, and that they were better because Hurney put quite a bit of resources into it.