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]