Cooley put on IR

CrustyRedskin · 10-26-2011, 12:29 PM

And the hits just keep on coming, but under a pile of enormous setbacks lie great opportunities.

JoeRedskin · 10-26-2011, 01:42 PM

Green Bay is 7-0 and I would argue that they have only 3 "stud playmakers" on the most prolific offense this year: Jennings, Rogers, and Finchley (possibly J. Nelson). On defense, their NT (whose name I forget) and Clay Mathews are the only "stud playmakers" I can think of. You'll note they do NOT have a "playmaker" at RB.

They have several good and very good players but none other than those named that would be instant starters on any team in the league (which is what a "stud playmaker" means to me).

My point being, solid players, not playmakers, are what make the team. Name me a team today that has 7 playmakers on both sides of the ball. Ain't happening. Get and lock in the good players and the playmakers will come.

skinsfan69 · 10-26-2011, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Green Bay is 7-0 and I would argue that they have only 3 "stud playmakers" on the most prolific offense this year: Jennings, Rogers, and Finchley (possibly J. Nelson). On defense, their NT (whose name I forget) and Clay Mathews are the only "stud playmakers" I can think of. You'll note they do NOT have a "playmaker" at RB.

They have several good and very good players but none other than those named that would be instant starters on any team in the league (which is what a "stud playmaker" means to me).

My point being, solid players, not playmakers, are what make the team. Name me a team today that has 7 playmakers on both sides of the ball. Ain't happening. Get and lock in the good players and the playmakers will come.

Yeah but that have one GREAT player in Rogers and he plays the most important position on the field.

SirClintonPortis · 10-26-2011, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Green Bay is 7-0 and I would argue that they have only 3 "stud playmakers" on the most prolific offense this year: Jennings, Rogers, and Finchley (possibly J. Nelson). On defense, their NT (whose name I forget) and Clay Mathews are the only "stud playmakers" I can think of. You'll note they do NOT have a "playmaker" at RB.

They have several good and very good players but none other than those named that would be instant starters on any team in the league (which is what a "stud playmaker" means to me).

My point being, solid players, not playmakers, are what make the team. Name me a team today that has 7 playmakers on both sides of the ball. Ain't happening. Get and lock in the good players and the playmakers will come.

Tramon Williams and Charles Woodson would start on many teams. But even so, I'm operating under a definition than you are.

You do not need to be a Pro Bowler to be a playmaker. Justin Smith of San Fran is a playmaker in my eyes, even if he'll never sniff the Pro Bowl. What are merely "good players" to you are playmakers to me. The impact on the game the player provides is what makes him a playmaker or not.

Ruhskins · 10-26-2011, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Green Bay is 7-0 and I would argue that they have only 3 "stud playmakers" on the most prolific offense this year: Jennings, Rogers, and Finchley (possibly J. Nelson). On defense, their NT (whose name I forget) and Clay Mathews are the only "stud playmakers" I can think of. You'll note they do NOT have a "playmaker" at RB.

They have several good and very good players but none other than those named that would be instant starters on any team in the league (which is what a "stud playmaker" means to me).

My point being, solid players, not playmakers, are what make the team. Name me a team today that has 7 playmakers on both sides of the ball. Ain't happening. Get and lock in the good players and the playmakers will come.

Green Bay has six playmakers: Rodgers, Jennings, Finley, Matthews, Raji and Woodson. Personally, I don't think we have a single playmaker, we only have a few solid players (Rak, Landry, and Fletch), but none of them on offense. This team lacks talent period.

SirClintonPortis · 10-26-2011, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

Green Bay has six playmakers: Rodgers, Jennings, Finley, Matthews, Raji and Woodson. Personally, I don't think we have a single playmaker, we only have a few solid players (Rak, Landry, and Fletch), but none of them on offense. This team lacks talent period.

Fletcher is more than solid. He's the MVP or co-MVP of the defense and would be for many other teams. Rak and Landry are debatable for now, but there frequent flashes from them.

CRedskinsRule · 10-26-2011, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

Green Bay has six playmakers: Rodgers, Jennings, Finley, Matthews, Raji and Woodson. Personally, I don't think we have a single playmaker, we only have a few solid players (Rak, Landry, and Fletch), but none of them on offense. This team lacks talent period.

Looking at those 6:
Rodgers - 1st round (24th overall) 2005 (not going there carlos/campbell)
Jennings - 2nd round (52nd overall) 2006 (we got McIntosh in the 2nd)
Finley - 3rd round (91st overall) 2008 (we got Davis in the 2nd, and he sat behind Cooley under Zorn)
Matthews - 1st round(26th overall) 2009 (we got Orakpo at 13)
Raji -1st round (9th overall) 2009
Woodson -8yr starter picked up in 2006

my point is, these playmakers weren't playmakers year one, the team was built, and it took time to get the system in place, and the qb groomed enough that the team is where it is today. We all know that this team has been to the bottom and back, but in building we have to give the young players a chance before we just look at them and dismiss them. It's hard, especially at WR, because we've seen so many flame out here, but I want to believe that out of our current young group 1, 2 or 3 will develop into a playmaker status. I have high hopes for Austin, Paul, and medium hopes for AA and Hankerson. It would be nice to see some faith made into reality.

Beemnseven · 10-26-2011, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Green Bay is 7-0 and I would argue that they have only 3 "stud playmakers" on the most prolific offense this year: Jennings, Rogers, and Finchley (possibly J. Nelson). On defense, their NT (whose name I forget) and Clay Mathews are the only "stud playmakers" I can think of. You'll note they do NOT have a "playmaker" at RB.

They have several good and very good players but none other than those named that would be instant starters on any team in the league (which is what a "stud playmaker" means to me).

My point being, solid players, not playmakers, are what make the team. Name me a team today that has 7 playmakers on both sides of the ball. Ain't happening. Get and lock in the good players and the playmakers will come.

You think we're lacking solid players?

Hog1 · 10-26-2011, 02:01 PM

The Skins won a few SB's with arguably NO superstars.......

SirClintonPortis · 10-26-2011, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hog1

The Skins won a few SB's with arguably NO superstars.......

Playmakers=/=superstars.

Art Monk. Superstar? maybe. Playmaker? **** yeah.
The Hogs. Superstar? No. Playmakers? **** yeah
Manley and Mann. Superstars? maybe. Playmakers? **** yeah
Riggo. Superstar? Maybe. Playmaker? **** yeah.
Dave Butz. Superstar? No. Playmaker? **** yeah.

CrustyRedskin · 10-26-2011, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hog1

The Skins won a few SB's with arguably NO superstars.......

Different, era. Different coachin style.

Hog1 · 10-26-2011, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrustyRedskin

Different, era. Different coachin style.

Really? How has quality player aquisition, chemistry changed? Not to mention quality coaching?

SirClintonPortis · 10-26-2011, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hog1

Really? How has quality player aquisition, chemistry changed? Not to mention quality coaching?

Playmaker is a term orginally from soccer used to describe players who score a lot or help their team score a lot. Since football has different players playing defense and offense, the term needs to be adapted just a little bit to fit on both sides of the ball. The Hogs were playmakers. When a marginal running back puts up a 200+ yard performance in the Super Bowl, that means the OL were playmakers that game. Drafting to find playmakers has been around since the beginning of football. Only the Redskins eschewed the draft and preferred to try and find playmakers primarily through free agency.

Beemnseven · 10-26-2011, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hog1

The Skins won a few SB's with arguably NO superstars.......

Disagree totally. The Hogs are probably the most famous offensive line in league history. In their day, 'The Posse' was among the best trio of receivers in the league. Mann and Manley, and Darrell Green and Martin Mayhew, formed defensive tandems that were consistently at or near the top season after season.

Now, were they *Superstars* -- depends on how you define that. But they absolutely were playmakers.

SirClintonPortis · 10-26-2011, 05:01 PM

Playmakers are usually the most technically sound players of their position. Ed Reed probably studies a ton of film to diagnose the play and then make his interceptions. Darelle Revis isn't a shutdown corner without his positioning and other coverage skills. Peyton Manning can diagnose defenses better than most other QBs.

10-26-2011, 12:29 PM	#1
CrustyRedskin Playmaker Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: RatherbeinDC, TX Posts: 3,062	Re: Cooley put on IR And the hits just keep on coming, but under a pile of enormous setbacks lie great opportunities. __________________ Lafayette, we're here. HTTR. You wern't a bunch of losers on 10-27-14.

10-26-2011, 01:42 PM	#2
JoeRedskin Contains football related knowledge Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Second Star On The Right Age: 62 Posts: 10,401	Re: Cooley put on IR Green Bay is 7-0 and I would argue that they have only 3 "stud playmakers" on the most prolific offense this year: Jennings, Rogers, and Finchley (possibly J. Nelson). On defense, their NT (whose name I forget) and Clay Mathews are the only "stud playmakers" I can think of. You'll note they do NOT have a "playmaker" at RB. They have several good and very good players but none other than those named that would be instant starters on any team in the league (which is what a "stud playmaker" means to me). My point being, solid players, not playmakers, are what make the team. Name me a team today that has 7 playmakers on both sides of the ball. Ain't happening. Get and lock in the good players and the playmakers will come. __________________ Strap it up, hold onto the ball, and let’s go.

10-26-2011, 02:01 PM	#9
Hog1 Quietly Dominating the East Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Naples, Florida Posts: 10,675	Re: Cooley put on IR The Skins won a few SB's with arguably NO superstars....... __________________ Goodbye Sean..........Vaya Con Dios thankyou Joe....... *“God made certain people to play football. He was one of them.” – Joe Gibbs*

10-26-2011, 05:01 PM	#15
SirClintonPortis Pro Bowl Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 6,052	Re: Cooley put on IR Playmakers are usually the most technically sound players of their position. Ed Reed probably studies a ton of film to diagnose the play and then make his interceptions. Darelle Revis isn't a shutdown corner without his positioning and other coverage skills. Peyton Manning can diagnose defenses better than most other QBs. __________________ Analysis using datasets (aka stats) is an attempt at reverse-engineering a player's "goodness". Virtuosity remembered, douchebaggery forgotten. The ideal character profile shoved down modern Western men and women's throats is Don Juan.

Cooley put on IR

Locker Room Main Forum