DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum The Haslam Thread

Quote:

---

Now, concerning "hypocrisy"...IMO, if an owner criticizes and judges another owner because they changed coaches too often (2.8 yrs), then the first thing the new owner does is change coaches...that "is hypocrisy" at it's best.

In the simplest terms...if NFL owners do xyz...it's bad and sets the team back.

We have to wait to see what Haslam does...does he set the team back by changing coaches?...or...does he try to promote consistency by not changing coaches?

NOW TOAD, YOUR TURN...what does this mean...

---

So it's your position that no matter what, Haslam is obligated to retain the coaches from the regime hired by a previous owner? Regardless of their outcome and production? Solely based on the fact Haslam stated only that changing coaches coincides with losing games?

I think your nuts.

All his statement is saying is that changing coaches represents constant losing.

What it DOESN'T say is that teams lose because they constantly change coaches.

Something else that it does not say is that he intends and promises to keep the previous regime.

You're going to hold him to a word that he hasn't spoken. That's BS.

Quote:

---

I'll agree that MoMass has stepped up his game...

---

Quote:

---

To be brutally honest, I actually do think Weeden has the arm and potential accuracy to make it in this league. However, there is one part of his game that is his biggest drawback: his feet. He has terrible feet ... like worst in the league awful. He cannot extend plays or shift in the pocket. He is basically a statue after the snap. This is all well and good when the pocket is perfect, but it rarely is.

I guess what I'm saying is ... Weeden's a stiff.

---

Quote:

---

Fun fact: Weeden is only 4 months younger than Derek Anderson.

---

Quote:

---

DA hit his ceiling in 2007

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

DA hit his ceiling in 2007

---

And quickly fell off the edge of a cliff.

---

That isnt funny...

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

DA hit his ceiling in 2007

---

And quickly fell off the edge of a cliff.

---

That isnt funny...

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

DA hit his ceiling in 2007

---

And quickly fell off the edge of a cliff.

---

That isnt funny...

---

No it wasn't in 2008.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

DA hit his ceiling in 2007

---

And quickly fell off the edge of a cliff.

---

That isnt funny...

---

No it wasn't in 2008.

---

that cliff was the last few games in 2007

---

Quote:

---

It will be interesting to compare Weeden's first half with his second half and whether or not he improves or do teams "expose" him.

---

Quote:

---

DA's rise was because of lack of game film on him. Once teams had a half season of games they could break down then they exposed him. It will be interesting to compare Weeden's first half with his second half and whether or not he improves or do teams "expose" him.

---

I think that's true with any new starting QB ... they have to learn to change it up and come off of their tendencies on occasion. Play calling can help improve this too.

DA's could not over come his poor accuracy and touch on the shorter passing routes. I think that he never learned to shake his tendencies either.

Imo Bradon Weeden is going to prove to be better at both. Tendencies? Only time will tell.

Weeden is a rookie ... DA was not a rookie in 2007, yet had worse decision making skills than most rookie QB's.

Weedens decision making has been poor at times (as often times rookie QB's are) and we need to look no further, then his interceptions. Some times you need to challenge the defense though and give your receivers a chance too.
I think that he needs to learn to just throw the ball out of bounds whenever his RB/FB are covered in the flat. Not much good will likely come from the play, but the consequences can amount to a gimmie pick 6 for the defense.

With that said Trent needs to run a better route too ... one that's not so parallel with the LOS.

Marecic Meh!

Weeds is still a rookie and I think that he is still thinking too much. That is not helping his timing with our receivers.

These are the things I'll be looking for improvement from week to week with Brandon Weeden.

"Jimmy" Haslam

Quote:

---

DA's rise was because of lack of game film on him. Once teams had a half season of games they could break down then they exposed him. It will be interesting to compare Weeden's first half with his second half and whether or not he improves or do teams "expose" him.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

DA's rise was because of lack of game film on him. Once teams had a half season of games they could break down then they exposed him. It will be interesting to compare Weeden's first half with his second half and whether or not he improves or do teams "expose" him.

---

it's a constant yo-yo in the NFL. early last year Cam was just chucking it deep, so defenses adjusted. he eventually adjusted taking more underneath stuff and running, but didn't play as well. this year, they adjusted again and he hasn't been good at all.

could also point out how defenses are just daring GB to run or how they are taking away the underneath stuff to Brady in NE. you have to constantly move or you will fail in the NFL.

---

Quote:

---

DA's rise was because of lack of game film on him. Once teams had a half season of games they could break down then they exposed him. It will be interesting to compare Weeden's first half with his second half and whether or not he improves or do teams "expose" him.

---

It's my opinion that Weeden will get better. I've never thought he was a 1st round worthy QB, hence all my comments about him being a bad gamble as early as they took him. However, there are tools and accuracy there that should come out. He's never seen what the NFL is throwing at him and it's showing. To put it simply, Weeden is playing accurately to his scouting report, at least how I and many others viewed him.

From what I've seen this year, it kinda looks like this:

Positives:
Accurate on short-intermediate throws when given time
Willing to step up in the pocket and throw without looking at the rush
Has shown some progressions in reads
Doesn't throw ducks (yeah, that's a positive because of how many "starters" we've had that couldn't throw a freakin' football)
Has shown some pocket awareness

Negatives:
Very inaccurate on the deep ball regardless of pressure
Staring down primary receivers and throwing to them regardless of coverage
Terrible throws when pressured
Predetermining where he's going to throw the ball before making reads
Folding badly when behind and pressured to produce
Holding the ball too long which will lead to unnecessary sacks and fumbles
Poor accuracy when forced out of the pocket

Now I'm sure some folks would get more detailed or nit-picky, but to my eye that covers most of it with him. Those negatives are symptoms of the system he played in at the college level as well as the talent level he faced. It's very much what I spoke of when saying he had "Brady Quinn windows" to throw through. Weeden can look like a 1st round QB when he's got a nice pocket and his 1st reads are open and the timing is right. But during the times in college when he was pressured, he lost his decision-making and accuracy. He also didn't show great accuracy on deeper throws in college regardless of the pressure. Part of that he wasn't asked to do it as much, and when he did, his receivers (mostly Blackmon) bailed him out.

Weeden was only going to get so good in college. He has to face REAL pressure if he's going to get better. I'm encouraged by his courage to stand in the pocket and keep his eyes downfield. I'm encouraged by what I believe to be his ability to know where to go with the ball, which means reading defenses. The question with that will be whether or not his mind can determine quickly enough whether or not he should make the throw and find his second or third read. I believe he'll learn to develop the clock in his head, which he doesn't have right now. He never had to use that in the flag-football league he played in at OSU.

These things are why I called him a developmental QB, and why I thought they reached badly on him. That's not necessarily a slam because not every QB can be NFL-ready like Luck or Manning or even RG3. I had Weeds in there as a developmental guy with Tannehill, and so far both guys have flashed the skills but both are over-whelmed right now.

Weeden has always had the tools, which is why I always said at least he's not McCoy. The tough part with Weeds is whether or not at his advanced age he'll have enough time to develop into a quality starter. I fully expect him to make some strides this year as he is forced to grow more quickly than he ever did in college. I just don't know whether or not he's going to overcome what I felt was his biggest negative in college, which is how he folds up when pressured. Some say "every QB is pressured in the NFL" but that isn't the problem. Yes, the numbers for every QB in the history of the league go down when the pressure goes up, but the good QB's in the league make higher percentages of good plays and lower percentages of negative plays than the bad QB's. The one's that never make it can't. Will Weeds get past his tendency to blow it when pressured? I see flashes that make me think he can, but I sure as Hell won't predict it.

To me, all the rookie QB's are playing exactly how I expected them to play, except for Wilson. I had no clue he'd be this good. I always thought Luck was a little over-hyped. I had believed RG3 would be a great passer but would fumble quite a bit until he learned the league. Of course I also think he'll miss time due to injuries but that's for another discussion, hehe. I thought Tannehill wasn't nearly ready to start and should sit a year, but the Fish felt otherwise. Whoops. And I thought Weeds would struggle with things that he's never seen in the NFL, and he has.

It wouldn't behoove anyone to make snap-judgments on Weeden this year. Yeah, I know what my sig says, but that's a slam on how highly we took him and all the pre-season over-the-top positive hype he received. He's going to struggle but at least he's shown flashes of being a top-flight starter. We didn't have to gamble so highly with where we took him, and it looks to be too late for this regime as they dug their own graves. However, Weeds has the makeup and tools to get the job done. It's all going to come down to two things: His accuracy on the intermediate-to-deep stuff and how he handles pressure.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It will be interesting to compare Weeden's first half with his second half and whether or not he improves or do teams "expose" him.

---

For the most part they already have. Jump the slant routes, get pressure, dare him to beat you over the top.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It will be interesting to compare Weeden's first half with his second half and whether or not he improves or do teams "expose" him.

---

For the most part they already have. Jump the slant routes, get pressure, dare him to beat you over the top.

---

Quote:

---

j/c

The goal to beating every single QB in the NFL is getting pressure on them. Let's not act like this is a Brandon Weeden only problem. All QB's fail under pressure most of the time, be it a sack, and incompletion, or an INT.

---

Quote:

---

That isnt funny

---

Quote:

---

The goal to beating every single QB in the NFL is getting pressure on them. Let's not act like this is a Brandon Weeden only problem. All QB's fail under pressure most of the time, be it a sack, and incompletion, or an INT.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The goal to beating every single QB in the NFL is getting pressure on them. Let's not act like this is a Brandon Weeden only problem. All QB's fail under pressure most of the time, be it a sack, and incompletion, or an INT.

---

It's not but more experienced QBs will make you pay for blitzing to get pressure once in a while, thus far we have not. There is supposed to be a RISK associated with blitzing, otherwise teams would do it on every play. Thus far we have not been able to capitalize on that.

---

Quote:

---

toad...yes I'm holding Haslam to his word

---

Quote:

---

toad...yes I'm holding Haslam to his word...why shouldn't I ?

---

Mac, I was ready to let this one go, but I suppose that wasn't ever possible

Why shouldn't you hold him to his word you ask...

It dawned on me exactly what's going on here. If you hated Mike Holmgren you wouldn't be taking this path. You'd be acknowledging the idiot-proof point that every fan in the world understands, which is that if you have a perennial losing team part of that equation is that you're also going to have a merry-go-round of coaching changes, then you'd leave it there. But no, that isn't what you're doing.

You think you're slick. But you can't outfox a fox.

You've SPUN Haslam's words to mean what YOU want them to mean. What YOU want them to mean are that he's now locked-in to keeping Holmgren, Heckert, Shurmur, and all the rest because that's what YOU want him to do. If you hated Holmgren and the rest you'd be singing a different tune.

It's a cute trick but it fails, as so many have already pointed out to you.

You show me one quote where he says clearly and plainly that he intended on keeping Mike Holmgren, Heckert, Shurmur, or any combination of coaches and FO people. Until you can do that, you've got nothing but spin and this little game of charades is exposed for what it is.

Repeatedly quoting Haslam's words over and over do nothing for you when those words don't really say what you WISH they'd say...

Quote:

---

toad...yes I'm holding Haslam to his word...why shouldn't I ?... because he didn't mean what he said about the importance of consistency in coaching or he wasn't really being honest about what he learned while a minority owner of the Steelers?

I believe Haslam to be a man of his word until he gives me reason to believe otherwise...

NOW TOAD, YOUR TURN...what does this mean...

---

It means he wants to maintain consistency with the staff... what it does not say or necessarily mean is that he wants it with THIS staff.

If I have a girlfriend... and my grandma asks me what I want out of life and I tell her that I want to get married, have kids, and have it last forever.... that doesn't necessarily mean that I plan to marry my current girlfriend....

Quote:

---

and my grandma asks me what I want out of life and I tell her that I want to get married, have kids, and have it last forever.... that doesn't necessarily mean that I plan to marry my current girlfriend....

---

According to Mac's logic that means you intend on marrying your grandmother

Mac understands. He FULLY understands. He doesn't need it to be explained to him. He knows quite clearly what he's doing, and that has nothing to do with what Haslam truly said.

Mac doesn't want Holmgren fired, so he's using that as a reason to take shots at Haslam. If he wanted Holmgren and Co. gone he wouldn't be singing this tune.

There's being ignorant and not understand something, then there's pure manipulation, spin, and deceit. Mac is quite clearly going for the latter...

Quote:

---

It means he wants to maintain consistency with the staff... what it does not say or necessarily mean is that he wants it with THIS staff.

---

Ding ding ding...we have a winner....

Quote:

---

Mac doesn't want Holmgren fired,

---

Neither do I really, but that doesn't prevent me from knowing what he meant.

Quote:

---

I can't believe this little argument is still raging...

---

Why not? It's between two guys who will never admit they might be wrong.

Hell, this baby will still be going on when Haslam appoints his son team president in 15 years......

Quote:

---

If you hated Mike Holmgren you wouldn't be taking this path.

---

Quote:

---

You think you're slick. But you can't outfox a fox.

---

Quote:

---

You've SPUN Haslam's words to mean what YOU want them to mean.

---

Quote:

---

What YOU want them to mean are that he's now locked-in to keeping Holmgren, Heckert, Shurmur, and all the rest because that's what YOU want him to do. If you hated Holmgren and the rest you'd be singing a different tune.

---

Quote:

---

You show me one quote where he says clearly and plainly that he intended on keeping Mike Holmgren, Heckert, Shurmur, or any combination of coaches and FO people. Until you can do that, you've got nothing but spin and this little game of charades is exposed for what it is.

---