Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=The Goat;974505]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?[/quote]

Paul gets what, maybe 1-2 looks a game? Who cares.

They obviously feel more comfortable with Cooley blocking. Or maybe they've had some plays with him involved in the passing game and things just haven't gone his way for whatever reason.

Why does there always have to be some sort of conspiracy with you?

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]
..........I KNOW, right?

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=The Goat;974505]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?[/quote]

Paul has only been targeted four times in the past 5 games, how is that taking passes away from anyone? Please explained in a coherent way with facts. Thanks.

(Keep in mind that I don't like Paul)

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=REDSKINS4ever;974512]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.[/quote]what about shockey, he's healthy

winslow is healthy

todd heap?

gonzalez is the rare exception.

gates is 32 and has already fallen off

Re: Chris Cooley
 

How about they make Cooley a fullback and put Darrell Young back at LB?

Re: Chris Cooley
 

This is how irrelevant this TE discussion is...

Targets in the past 5 games by receivers:

Garcon 36
Morgan 30
[B]Paulsen 16[/B]
Hank 14
Moss 12
[B]Paul 4[/B]
Robinson 4

RG3's top targets are Garcon and Morgan. After that, RG3 is going to distribute the ball, so it really doesn't matter who's playing at TE other than Davis. And even then, I don't think RG3 was looking his way a lot.

Re: Chris Cooley
 

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

And again, you don't think that Bob has his receivers he's comfortable with? My guess is that Bob has an attitude similar to Shanahan's. I am going to go to the guys I trust and who I know will be where they were in practice. Seems like he has thrown to a number of TE's, but also that he has "his" guys, Garcon, and Davis clearly were his first guys. By the time he gets down to Cooley, I think he is debating whether he is better off running or tossing.

(all speculation on my part)

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=The Goat;974508][B]Truly one of the dumbest posts I've ever read here.[/B] 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.[/quote]

You obviously don't read your own stuff.

Boom.

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk;974515]Paul gets what, maybe 1-2 looks a game? Who cares.

They obviously feel more comfortable with Cooley blocking. Or maybe they've had some plays with him involved in the passing game and things just haven't gone his way for whatever reason.

[B]Why does there always have to be some sort of conspiracy with you?[/[/B]QUOTE]

You didn't have (sarcasm) in there, so I assume you're serious? WTF...I'm not talking conspiracy. What are you talking about? It's not a conspiracy when the coaches decide to leave a player out of the passing game. It could be a mistake, especially when you keep going back to a different player who doesn't execute. I thought that's what we're discussing here, no?

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=The Goat;974508]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.[/quote]

Oh this is rich

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=Ruhskins;974517]Paul has only been targeted four times in the past 5 games, how is that taking passes away from anyone? Please explained in a coherent way with facts. Thanks.

(Keep in mind that I don't like Paul)[/quote]

Can I just read your post back hehe? He's been targeted four times. One was a gimme TD on blown coverage. That leaves three that I presume were drops or catches that didn't go for any yardage. Do you have more on this, Sherlock?

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=The Goat;974530]You didn't have (sarcasm) in there, so I assume you're serious? WTF...I'm not talking conspiracy. What are you talking about? It's not a conspiracy when the coaches decide to leave a player out of the passing game. [B]It could be a mistake, especially when you keep going back to a different player who doesn't execute.[/B] I thought that's what we're discussing here, no?[/quote]

How is targeting Niles Paul FOUR times in the last five games going to a player that doesn't execute. Please explain.

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=REDSKINS4ever;974512]he's all of a sudden not in this regime's plans even if he is still capable of contributing a great deal.[/quote]

Again I'll ask. What basis do you have to think at this point he is capable of doing more than he currently is? I mean other than Goat's imaginations?

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=Mattyk;974529]You obviously don't read your own stuff.

Boom.[/quote]

Roasted

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=Mattyk;974529]You obviously don't read your own stuff.

Boom.[/quote]

Actually, I gotta say there's been little substance thrown my way here, you included. I posted Cooley's stats and referenced them. The counter has been nonsense, and some stupidity about a conspiracy that you or someone else brought up.

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=The Goat;974530][QUOTE=Mattyk;974515]Paul gets what, maybe 1-2 looks a game? Who cares.

They obviously feel more comfortable with Cooley blocking. Or maybe they've had some plays with him involved in the passing game and things just haven't gone his way for whatever reason.

[B]Why does there always have to be some sort of conspiracy with you?[/[/B]QUOTE]

You didn't have (sarcasm) in there, so I assume you're serious? WTF...I'm not talking conspiracy. What are you talking about? It's not a conspiracy when the coaches decide to leave a player out of the passing game. It could be a mistake, especially when you keep going back to a different player who doesn't execute. I thought that's what we're discussing here, no?[/quote]

You obviously think CC should be more involved, at least more than Paul. You can't seem to fathom why Paul is more involved than Cooley. It's a Mike thing with coaches/players. Sounds like conspiracy talk to me, especially with your track record around here.

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=Ruhskins;974533]How is targeting Niles Paul FOUR times in the last five games going to a player that doesn't execute. Please explain.[/quote]

It isn't but Goat doesn't like Shanny so he only sees what he wants to see. Shanny could say 2+2=4 and Goat would argue with him about it.

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=Mattyk;974539]

You obviously think CC should be more involved, at least more than Paul. You can't seem to fathom why Paul is more involved than Cooley. It's a Mike thing with coaches/players. Sounds like conspiracy talk to me, especially with your track record around here.[/quote]

I didn't know having 4 balls thrown your way in the past 5 games counted as being involved.

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=Ruhskins;974533]You didn't have (sarcasm) in there, so I assume you're serious? WTF...I'm not talking conspiracy. What are you talking about? It's not a conspiracy when the coaches decide to leave a player out of the passing game. [B]It could be a mistake, especially when you keep going back to a different player who doesn't execute.[/B] I thought that's what we're discussing here, no?

How is targeting Niles Paul FOUR times in the last five games going to a player that doesn't execute. Please explain.[/quote]

Again, you've answered your own question.

A more important question is why did he even get those four opportunities, given the preceding games? All season it's been missed blocks (some of which put RG on the ground), dropped passes, stutter steps after the one or two catches.

I mean the real question is why Paul is on the field at all, let alone (still) getting passes thrown his way, right?

Re: Chris Cooley
 

i would like smoot to print this thread, and read it aloud to shanny and cooley, on camera

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=The Goat;974543]Again, you've answered your own question.

A more important question is why did he even get those four opportunities, given the preceding games? All season it's been missed blocks (some of which put RG on the ground), dropped passes, stutter steps after the one or two catches.

[B]I mean the real question is why Paul is on the field at all, let alone (still) getting passes thrown his way, right?[/B][/quote]

So what's your reason? Enlighten us.

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=The Goat;974538]Actually, I gotta say there's been little substance thrown my way here, you included. I posted Cooley's stats and referenced them. The counter has been nonsense, and some stupidity about a conspiracy that you or someone else brought up.[/quote]

What stats? Where?

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=The Goat;974543]Again, you've answered your own question.

A more important question is why did he even get those four opportunities, given the preceding games? All season it's been missed blocks (some of which put RG on the ground), dropped passes, stutter steps after the one or two catches.

I mean the real question is why Paul is on the field at all, let alone (still) getting passes thrown his way, right?[/quote]

Your argument makes no sense given that:

A. Paul is not much involved in the offense

B. RG3 targets his WRs WAY more than his TEs

I'm sorry, but your argument that Paul is taking from Cooley makes no sense whatsoever. Even if you were unbiased about Shanny, I'd be making the same counter argument.

If you want to say that Paul shouldn't be on the field, that's one thing. But you're argument is that Paul is taking away from Cooley's time. That's just not the case and both player are irrelevant to the passing game given their target #'s.

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=Ruhskins;974517]Paul has only been targeted four times in the past 5 games, how is that taking passes away from anyone? Please explained in a coherent way with facts. Thanks.

(Keep in mind that I don't like Paul)[/quote]

By putting Paul in the game as a viable scripted receiving option, [I]Kyle[/I] is removing Cooley's ability to be a final slower checkdown for RGIII which is occuring because b/c Griffin doesn't have time to go through all his progressions which, in turn, is occurring b/c [I]Mike[/I] Shanahan signed Garcon rather than Winston & Gaffney which would have allowed RGIII time to go through all his progressions and hit the checkdown man who normally would have been Gaffney except, since Gaffney is slow as molasses, he would have been covered forcing RGIII to throw the ball to the unscripted wide-open TE Cooley on every other play.

It's a mofo'ing plot ... Mike AND Kyle are holding Cooley back.

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=The Goat;974538]Actually, I gotta say there's been little substance thrown my way here, you included. I posted Cooley's stats and referenced them. The counter has been nonsense, and some stupidity about a conspiracy that you or someone else brought up.[/quote]

Inset laugh. If it were only 2010!

[IMG]http://bestuff.com/images/images_of_stuff/210x600/mutley-27112.jpg?1173284720[/IMG]

Re: Chris Cooley
 

The part I don't get is this...maybe Paul is "taking" away from CC but it seems the argument being proposed is that CC is capable of being "better" in some way. I'll grant that he could "possibly" do better but based on the latest information I have seen he doesnt have a lot to offer in the passing game. I have no reason to actually think he could do anymore in the passing game than my grandad. And since we're talking about such a small aspect of the offense I am pretty fine with letting a younger more dynamic player develop.

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;974549]By putting Paul in the game as a viable scripted receiving option, [I]Kyle[/I] is removing Cooley's ability to be a final slower checkdown for RGIII which is occuring because b/c Griffin doesn't have time to go through all his progressions which, in turn, is occurring b/c [I]Mike[/I] Shanahan signed Garcon rather than Winston & Gaffney which would have allowed RGIII time to go through all his progressions and hit the checkdown man who normally would have been Gaffney except, since Gaffney is slow as molasses, he would have been covered forcing RGIII to throw the ball to the unscripted wide-open TE Cooley on every other play.

It's a mofo'ing plot ... Mike AND Kyle are holding Cooley back.[/quote]

:rofl:

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;974549]By putting Paul in the game as a viable scripted receiving option, [I]Kyle[/I] is removing Cooley's ability to be a final slower checkdown for RGIII which is occuring because b/c Griffin doesn't have time to go through all his progressions which, in turn, is occurring b/c [I]Mike[/I] Shanahan signed Garcon rather than Winston & Gaffney which would have allowed RGIII time to go through all his progressions and hit the checkdown man who normally would have been Gaffney except, since Gaffney is slow as molasses, he would have been covered forcing RGIII to throw the ball to the unscripted wide-open TE Cooley on every other play.

It's a mofo'ing plot ... Mike AND Kyle are holding Cooley back.[/quote]

Duh on me...I'm disappointed in myself for not realizing this earlier. Man what a rube I am.

Re: Chris Cooley
 

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

??? Citation ??? i work for Citation Technologies ([url=http://www.citation.com]Citation Technologies Inc. | Regulatory Compliance Software[/url]) if that is what you are asking??

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=SkinsGuru;974557]??? Citation ??? i work for Citation Technologies ([url=http://www.citation.com]Citation Technologies Inc. | Regulatory Compliance Software[/url]) if that is what you are asking??[/quote]

Are YOU holding CC back too?

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=FRPLG;974553]The part I don't get is this...maybe Paul is "taking" away from CC but it seems the argument being proposed is that CC is capable of being "better" in some way. I'll grant that he could "possibly" do better but based on the latest information I have seen he doesnt have a lot to offer in the passing game. I have no reason to actually think he could do anymore in the passing game than my grandad. [B]And since we're talking about such a small aspect of the offense I am pretty fine with letting a younger more dynamic player develop[/B].[/quote]

I think in the end that's what this all boils down to. They think Paul is worth developing.

Re: Chris Cooley
 

if paulsen and paul are rated higher than cooley on madden, then what's the problem?

it's simple math

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=Mattyk;974539][quote=The Goat;974530]

You obviously think CC should be more involved, at least more than Paul. You can't seem to fathom why Paul is more involved than Cooley. It's a Mike thing with coaches/players. Sounds like conspiracy talk to me, especially with your track record around here.[/quote]

I don't want to come across as overtly insulting so I won't explain what conspiracy means, or post a definition.

There's two different issues, which are intertwined. One is why Paul sees the field on offense? The other is why Cooley hasn't gotten more looks?

I tend to think Cooley should get more looks, like split targets with Lunch Pail. More strongly though, I don't see any evidence that Paul deserves to play on offense...anywhere.

To the last thing, yeah I still seriously doubt Shanahan will take us anywhere. Still happy to be wrong about it if things really come together, and I love wearing my Skins apparral right now btw. But no, I don't think Mike's going anywhere. My intuition is he's done just enough to keep his job into next year, and maybe even turn the team over to his kiddo afterward. I don't think we'll ever be a real contender with a Shanahan as HC, OC etc for myriad reasons that have been long debated here. I think better coaching prospects will be available next year, and the year after.

I don't mind being the minority in this regard, in part because I find the pro-Shanny posts/posters pretty amusing :)

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=los panda;974560]if paulsen and paul are rated higher than cooley on madden, then what's the problem?

it's simple math[/quote]

Of course.

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=los panda;974560]if paulsen and paul are rated higher than cooley on madden, then what's the problem?

it's simple math[/quote]

Do you have madden 2010? Cooley was unstoppable! Best year ever! These are facts!

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=The Goat;974562][quote=Mattyk;974539]

I don't want to come across as overtly insulting so I won't explain what conspiracy means, or post a definition.

There's two different issues, which are intertwined. One is why Paul sees the field on offense? The other is why Cooley hasn't gotten more looks?

I tend to think Cooley should get more looks, like split targets with Lunch Pail. More strongly though, I don't see any evidence that Paul deserves to play on offense...anywhere.

To the last thing, yeah I still seriously doubt Shanahan will take us anywhere. Still happy to be wrong about it if things really come together, and I love wearing my Skins apparral right now btw. But no, I don't think Mike's going anywhere. My intuition is he's done just enough to keep his job into next year, and maybe even turn the team over to his kiddo afterward. I don't think we'll ever be a real contender with a Shanahan as HC, OC etc for myriad reasons that have been long debated here. I think better coaching prospects will be available next year, and the year after.

I don't mind being the minority in this regard, in part because I find the pro-Shanny posts/posters pretty amusing :)[/quote]

Speaking of conspiracy... we all pretty much know what's behind your nitpicking over Cooley and Paul.

This past month must have been really painful for you eh?

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=FRPLG;974558]Are YOU holding CC back too?[/quote]

i'm lost . . . i have no clue what you are talking about . . .

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=Mattyk;974566][quote=The Goat;974562]

Speaking of conspiracy... we all pretty much know what's behind your nitpicking over Cooley and Paul.

This past month must have been really painful for you eh?[/quote]

I'm not an ego guy Matty, just don't have any real faith in the Shanahans. Winning has been awesome though.

Still don't get the conspiracy reference, though I suspect you don't really either. I feel like I'm listening to a randomn little kid trying to talk about sex right now lol...lots of inuendo w/o anything there.

Re: Chris Cooley
 

Just in my reading of this thread and other's quotations of Goat, it appears to have morphed as follows:

1. Cooley > Paul [Response: debatable, given Paul's youth, speed, athleticism. Paul's stone hands certainly make this arguably true]

2. Mike favors Cooley over Paul for reasons known only to Mike and, b/c Paul's production doesn't warrent playing time it demonstrates unwarranted favoritism. [Response: debatable, no on stats showing Cooley out performs Paul on field. No showing of Paul's v. Cooley's practice habits. Also, historically, Shanny's players have complimented him on his fairness]

3. Paul taking time from Cooley. [debatable, no showing that Cooley can get open on the routes run by Paul - just Goat's famed DVR skills].

It's the usual Goat. I have a position which I can manipulate anecdotal facts to support my position while ignoring data and statistics which support yours. He sees what he wants and ignores anything which may conflict with it - factual or otherwise.

Bottom line - I haven't seen anything quoted from Goat demonstrating the use of objective criteria to support any of the arguments he has posited.

Re: Chris Cooley
 

[quote=The Goat;974572][quote=Mattyk;974566]

I'm not an ego guy Matty, just don't have any real faith in the Shanahans. Winning has been awesome though.

Still don't get the conspiracy reference, though I suspect you don't really either. I feel like I'm listening to a randomn little kid trying to talk about sex right now lol...[B]lots of inuendo w/o anything there[/B].[/quote]

You once again somehow manage to sum up yourself without even realizing it.

Perfect.