Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=REDSKINS4ever;974420]Ruhskins, my point of emphasis here is that in place of Fred Davis, Cooley should be starting. Not Logan Paulsen.[/quote]

I honestly don't think Cooley is that much ahead of Paulsen in terms of talent at this point (Cooley in his prime is a different story). Furthermore, given how complex the offense seems to be, I can see why Paulsen is starting and obviously he's been solid. Finally, I think Cooley may be doing a better job at blocking than Paul, so I think they may need him there, rather than catching passes.

I like Cooley a lot and I do hope that he gets involved in the passing game more (and I am not one to easily say that "he's done"). But I don't think he'd be much of an improvement over Paulsen right at this moment. In the end, RG3 spreads the ball so much among receivers, that honestly I don't think it matters who is starting (outside of Garcon) at TE or WR2/WR3.

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=Defensewins;974424]REDSKINS4ever, you need to take your emotion out of the conversation. You are such a big Cooley fan that it clouds your judgement of him.
You and GOAT are so caught up with TE being a receiver that you lose sight that the main reason Shanahan has Paulsen and Paul in there instead of Cooley is because they are [B][U]winning [/U][/B]and Paulsen & Paul are good blockers and pass protectors. If it ain't broke don't fix it. Ever heard of that?
It is no coincidence that our offense changed and in turn solidified when Fred Davis and Cooley (not known for their blocking) were either injured or cut.
You guys really underestimate the value of good run blocking TE's in THIS offense even if they are not pass catchers. Up to know we have had enough production through the ground game and RGIII and our WR's, that we can win with out our TE's being heavily involved in the passing attack.
If it works why change it?[/quote]

I give up. Sure, Paul is a good blocker, even though he doesn't do it on gameday. He's also an all pro pass catcher, a fulbright scholar, and a superb chef.

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=The Goat;974428]I give up. Sure, Paul is a good blocker, even though he doesn't do it on gameday. He's also an all pro pass catcher, a fulbright scholar, and a superb chef.[/quote]

And Cooley is a probowl players and teams were fighting over him when we cut him.

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=Defensewins;974424]REDSKINS4ever, you need to take your emotion out of the conversation. You are such a big Cooley fan that it clouds your judgement of him.

You and GOAT are so caught up with TE being a receiver that you lose sight that the main reason Shanahan has Paulsen and Paul in there instead of Cooley is because they are [B][U]winning [/U][/B]and Paulsen & Paul are good blockers and pass protectors. If it ain't broke don't fix it. Ever heard of that?

It is no coincidence that our offense changed and in turn solidified when Fred Davis and Cooley (not known for their blocking) were either injured or cut.
You guys really underestimate the value of good run blocking TE's in THIS offense even if they are not pass catchers. Up to know we have had enough production through the ground game and RGIII and our WR's, that we can win with out our TE's being heavily involved in the passing attack.
If it works why change it?[/quote]

Paulsen is good at blocking and passing. Paul, not so much. While Cooley may not be back (I hope he does), Fred Davis will be back next season.

Re: Chris Cooley
 

Based on what we saw in preseason Cooley can't really run much anymore. Not sure why he'd be getting opportunities over other more serviceable guts like Paul and Paulsen. What makes anyone think he is better than either? What he DID BEFORE is meaningless. What he can DO NOW matters most.

Re: Chris Cooley
 

So the argument now is Cooley is older which means he's slower. He can't run routes, run off the line of scrimmage as a flanker like he used to. The experience that he's had throughout his career doesn't help him now? He can't catch the damn football? I saw both Paulsen and Paul each drop passes in the Monday Night game against the Giants a week ago that Cooley would have hauled in.

Some of you are making it seem like Chris Cooley is some has-been senior citizen playing TE for the Redskins or something.

[QUOTE=Ruhskins;974431]Paulsen is good at blocking and passing. Paul, not so much. While Cooley may not be back (I hope he does), Fred Davis will be back next season.[/QUOTE]

What type of money/years do you think Davis gets?

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=Defensewins;974430]And Cooley is a probowl players and teams were fighting over him when we cut him.[/quote]

Correction: Cooley was a probowl player who had his best season in 2010 with Mike Shanahan and he said after being released he preferred to stay in DC to live and play for the Skins again.

See how those darn facts make it so much different than the nonsense you wrote?

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=REDSKINS4ever;974389]So you're saying that Logan Paulsen is just as good as Antonio Gates, Martellis Bennett, Jason Witten, Growkoski for the Pats, Jimmy Graham, or Tony Gonzales? Come on, man. Gonzales is undoubtedly the oldest TE starting in the NFL and at 36 he hasn't lost anything. Mike Shanahan has rewarded the starting job to Paulsen because he's worked hard in practice and has been on the team for 3 years. But Logan Paulsen is still not better the Chris Cooley.

I disagree with everything you said.[/quote]

Are you saying Cooley is as good as those TE's at this point in his career?

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=Gtothearry;974435]What type of money/years do you think Davis gets?[/quote]

I think that's going to be the tough part in bringing Davis back. I just don't see how you don't bring Davis back with RG3 at the helm. I mean imagine next year Garcon, Davis, and both RG3 and Morris with a year under their belt? That's going to be an INSANE offense (especially since we are a top 5 offense right now).

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;974437]Are you saying Cooley is as good as those TE's at this point in his career?[/quote]so you're saying niles paul is as good as carlester crumpler, zeron flemister, and ernie conwell?

Re: Chris Cooley
 

i'd like to see a little more of Cooley too . . . the last 2 weeks Paulsen has multiple dropped passes and multiple penalties . . . he has been bad recently!!

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=Gtothearry;974435]What type of money/years do you think Davis gets?[/quote]i think he deserves something in the aaron hernandez neighborhood.

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=Defensewins;974430]And Cooley is a probowl players and teams were fighting over him when we cut him.[/quote]

i read that Cooley turned down quite a few offers, to start even, telling teams if he was going to play again if would be for the Redskins and no one else . . .

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;974437]Are you saying Cooley is as good as those TE's at this point in his career?[/quote]

I know you didn't ask me, but when has that ever made a difference lol. I don't think Cooley was ever elite. His only pro bowl nod was in 2007 because he was a TD machine. But his best overall season was 2010 IMO.

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=The Goat;974410]Who knows? We all know Mike runs a pretty tight ship, and Cooley has a rep for slacking. All I'm saying is Cooley looks quicker than I remember him and Paul looks like shit, but we still see them working Paul into the passing game rather than Cooley.

Mike likes to be right, who doesn't? [B] But if "results" matter more or less for different players (gameday results) [/B]I think it's hard to keep a team together. We've seen the guys come together over the last four weeks. Personally, I think it has more to do with locker room leadership (RG and London would be my guesses) than Mike or anything with coaching. Just talking about focus and intensity here.

Coaching/play-calling has definitely improved as well, both offense and defense. I think we're closer to firing on all (available) cylinders than ever before, but forcing a guy like Paul into the mix doesn't help.[/quote]

I was being sarcastic before, but of course Mike and Kyle are watching the Tight Ends, and results are not limited to Game Day, Mike always wants guys who practice every day like it's game day. I don't think Cooley has ever done that before now (and I don't know whether he is doing it now or not).

If you watch the America's Game episodes of the Bronco's two superbowls you hear what Shanahan expects, and how much respect he gets from top to bottom of the roster because he doesn't play favorites much.

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=REDSKINS4ever;974434]So the argument now is Cooley is older which means he's slower. He can't run routes, run off the line of scrimmage as a flanker like he used to. The experience that he's had throughout his career doesn't help him now? He can't catch the damn football? I saw both Paulsen and Paul each drop passes in the Monday Night game against the Giants a week ago that Cooley would have hauled in.

Some of you are making it seem like Chris Cooley is some has-been senior citizen playing TE for the Redskins or something.[/quote]

Is your argument that he isn't slow and incapable of effectively getting open? If so, I'd like to know how you've decided this considering he doesn't really run routes anymore. Stop living in the past.

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=The Goat;974436]Correction: Cooley was a probowl player who had his best season in 2010 with Mike Shanahan and he said after being released he preferred to stay in DC to live and play for the Skins again.

See how those darn facts make it so much different than the nonsense you wrote?[/quote]

How? Please explain.

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=SkinsGuru;974451]i read that Cooley turned down quite a few offers, to start even, telling teams if he was going to play again if would be for the Redskins and no one else . . .[/quote]

Citation?

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=los panda;974442]so you're saying niles paul is as good as carlester crumpler, zeron flemister, and ernie conwell?[/quote]

No, I am saying Niles Paul is as good as John f'ing Beck baby!

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=FRPLG;974460]Citation?[/quote]

[url=http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/10/22/chris-cooley-set-to-return-to-redskins/]Chris Cooley Believes He Can Help Redskins as Soon as Sunday « CBS DC[/url]

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=Ruhskins;974462][url=http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/10/22/chris-cooley-set-to-return-to-redskins/]Chris Cooley Believes He Can Help Redskins as Soon as Sunday « CBS DC[/url][/quote]

So Cooley said this. Ok. In any case he doesn't seem to be able to unseat either guy he originally got cut for. That should tell us something.

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=FRPLG;974467]So Cooley said this. Ok. In any case he doesn't seem to be able to unseat either guy he originally got cut for. That should tell us something.[/quote]

If you're saying Davis or Paulsen, I would agree. Paul...I don't know. Although I guess b/c of his special teams play he (Paul) may have an edge.

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=FRPLG;974455]Is your argument that he isn't slow and incapable of effectively getting open? If so, I'd like to know how you've decided this considering he doesn't really run routes anymore. Stop living in the past.[/quote]

All TEs are not athletic like Fred Davis and Vernon Davis. TEs are not fast runners to begin with. That's how I decided this considering that Cooley doesn't run routes anymore. He doesn't run routes anymore because he's not in the game most of the time anymore. That's not saying that he can't. If his number is called, he surely could.

Re: Chris Cooley
 

Cooley isn't the same player he was 3-4 years ago. Sorry to the Cooley kool-aid drinkers, but he's just not.

Re: Chris Cooley
 

If the argument is that we should give Cooley a shot to see if he is better I can understand that. If the argument is some variation of "Cooley is better than this or that guy" then I think you're nuts because we haven't seen one iota of information to lead any of us to believe that.

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=Mattyk;974477]Cooley isn't the same player he was 3-4 years ago. Sorry to the Cooley kool-aid drinkers, but he's just not.[/quote]

Nor is he our only receiving option like he was in the pre-Shanny years.

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=REDSKINS4ever;974474]He doesn't run routes anymore because he's not in the game most of the time anymore. That's not saying that he can't. If his number is called, he surely could.[/quote]

Why do think this is?

Re: Chris Cooley
 

Mike is clearly holding Cooley back.

:doh:

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=Mattyk;974484]Mike is clearly holding Cooley back.

:doh:[/quote]

Right

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=SCRedskinsFan;974387]Had someone made him a real offer, he would have signed. Bank on it.

This loyalty thing is way over rated when compared to cash on the kitchen table.

IMHO[/quote]

[quote]“I’ve had offers,” he said. “I said to my agent, ‘You know what I want. And you don’t need to call me if it’s not something I want.’ I don’t have that much interest in the interest there is in me so far. If I could go somewhere and start, I’d probably do that. That’d be fun.”[/quote]

Granted my memory was wrong, sort of. He said that he would consider it if a team offered him a starting position, but if it is not the case then he would not. While Redskins offered him a spot as back-up, he took it immediately. Which says something about loyalty, something that you thought it to be overrated. Although it might be overrated for almost all cases, but I think it's pretty obvious that Cooley really loves Redskins.

[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/football-insider/wp/2012/09/20/cooley-says-he-thinks-it-would-take-a-significant-injury-for-the-redskins-to-re-sign-him/]Cooley says he thinks it would take a significant injury for the Redskins to re-sign him[/url]

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=FRPLG;974455]Is your argument that he isn't slow and incapable of effectively getting open? If so, I'd like to know how you've decided this considering he doesn't really run routes anymore. Stop living in the past.[/quote]

You'll see Cooley open and the ball forced elsewhere. Happened (again) in the Ravens game.

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=FRPLG;974481]Why do think this is?[/quote]

Because Paulsen is a little younger. But he's not better. But with the exception of Tony Gonzales, no other starting TE is still starting from the time they started in 2004. Not even Jeremy Shockey.

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=REDSKINS4ever;974495]Because Paulsen is a little younger. But he's not better. But with the exception of Tony Gonzales, [B]no other starting TE is still starting from the time they started in 2004. Not even Jeremy Shockey[/B].[/quote]and that means cooley should be

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=The Goat;974493]You'll see Cooley open and the ball forced elsewhere. Happened (again) in the Ravens game.[/quote]

Was this before or after you watched the game?

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=The Goat;974493]You'll see Cooley open and the ball forced elsewhere. Happened (again) in the Ravens game.[/quote]

Right. When the other TEs are in the game Bob is cool with getting them the ball but when CC is in the game he is trying so hard not to that he'll force it elsewhere. So not only is Shanny holding CC back he has a conspiracy with RGIII to do so.

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=Mattyk;974484]Mike is clearly holding Cooley back.

:doh:[/quote]

I mean, what's obvious is Mike/Kyle have left him out of the passing game. Instead, they work in Paul who drops passes, bobbles after the catch and doesn't get any YAC, etc.

Is there a meaningful difference between the statements?

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=FRPLG;974503]Right. When the other TEs are in the game Bob is cool with getting them the ball but when CC is in the game he is trying so hard not to that he'll force it elsewhere. So not only is Shanny holding CC back he has a conspiracy with RGIII to do so.[/quote]

Truly one of the dumbest posts I've ever read here. Do you not watch us play? Cooley is rarely targeted, but myself and others have seen him open. It's pretty simple. All the nonsense you added is just...nonsense.

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=los panda;974500]and that means cooley should be[/quote]

In place of Davis, yes he should be. Cooley lost his way when he ended up on IR two straight seasons. But it seems when he gets healthy and he's ready to play, he's all of a sudden not in this regime's plans even if he is still capable of contributing a great deal.

Re: Chris Cooley
 

it's getting heated in here.

coo-ley! coo-ley! coo-ley!