Lets see, were a little over a month out...hmmm, from what I've seen, I would say 0 to 25% , every game after that I would raise it 25 %..I would probabaly bet some cash on a return right after the bye, game 5.
I'm not nearly as down on Omar as most people as I've gotten to know him better over the years but sometimes it's frustrating. First off it's absolutely amazing how consistent it is that his opinion is chided on places like here and elsewhere online when he doesn't say something that jives with what people want to hear, but then when he says something that supports all the sudden he's cited like "See, even Omar agrees with me!" Second it's frustrating he's got such a broad platform and that makes it all the more impactful when he shoots from the hip and gets it completely wrong. I mean we all do that sometimes, but not all of us are always in front of an audience of 37,000 people when we do it. Latest incident is he's trying to talk about what this offense brings to the table and he starts chiding people for thinking the Eagles offensive line is good and says basically the same offensive line gave up 48 sacks in 2012 and the only difference was the offense. Sorry, but no. That line featured guys like Dallas Reynolds, King Dunlap, Dennis Kelly, Jake Scott, Demetrius Bell and Danny Watkins taking up 3958 of 5795 snaps. That means only 30% of the OL snaps in 2012 were taken by players who were even still on the team in 2013. And the thing to keep in mind about Todd Herremans' 543 snaps in 2012 is he played them at right tackle, whereas he played right guard in 2013 and many believe that to be a better spot for him (hence their drafting Lane Johnson). So really Evan Mathis was the only guy kept on from 2012 to 2013.
some people called it false bravado, but sometimes context is everything, the way a man describes his past transgressions, the confidence in what he's actually saying and how he's saying it, certain gestures, expressions, can mean a lot..for me all offseason I said he would return to form because I felt confident that he was sure that his body was healthy and was also confident when he talked about the reasons why his play fell off in st Louie..
I've actually grown to like Omar. He still gets annoying and arrogant but I do appreciate his work, and he can be funny. No one, and I mean NO ONE is worse than Andrew Abramson.
That makes sense. It goes furthering the chiding his opinion. "Even this idiot who barely knows what he talks about agrees with me!"
Am I wrong to think counting interceptions in practice is silly? I mean, most of this stuff is trial and error and trying to get the timing right and everyone on the same page. I guess it's too early for me to really be worried about what's happening with the offense. These guys are all learning a new system, including Tannehill who has never known a different system.
And then when you stop to think about it, you realize that the idiot who barely knows what he talks about is arguing the same thing you're arguing...and maybe you should be arguing something different. That would be the rational way to approach it. The irrational way to approach it is to constantly chide his opinions and point out how stupid and wrong he is but then cite him as supporting evidence when he agrees with you.
An interesting, but misdirected rationale. A broken clock being right twice a day would be a rationale you use to explain how you can possibly be correct when someone who is never correct agrees with you. That's when you say, well even a broken clock is right twice a day. That's not the situation here. The situation here would be you insisting that it's 3 o'clock, and then pointing to that broken clock which says 3 o'clock and saying see it says 3 o'clock right there. Except you know that clock is broken, and so you know the fact the clock says 3 o'clock does not make it any more likely that it is actually 3 o'clock. In fact one could argue it makes it less likely, since that clock is only correct twice a day and therefore what are the chances right now is one of those two times?
In my opinion...yes counting Ints in practice is beyond silly Games are all that counts folks. Dear lord we analyze players to death during the games..to do that for practice is a practice in insanity.
I think a lot of Omar Kelly's analysis is poor, but I agree that it's silly that people selectively hold him up when they dont like what he has to say. I agree that Abramson is pretty bad, too.
It is not rational for someone in Omar's position to be "never correct". Unless you just want to be disagree just to disagree, it stands to reason even if he is bad at his job, that sometimes he is on point. Even a blind referee makes the right call, every once and a while.
I want him to move to ESPN so he can be the personality he wants to be. Man I miss Joe Schad. I can't believe it has been 10 years since he left. I am so old.
Abramson is a good person. He is working for a paper that has a fraction of the resources at its disposal when it comes to sources and clout, getting the right people to talk to you, etc. It's hard to compete with the Herald and Sun Sentinel that way. I think sometimes he makes it worse by trusting sources that he should know not to trust. As a result he's got some very bad misfires over the last year or two.
Again, why would you want to cite a source that is SOMETIMES correct as support for your opinion? You just admitted that the odds are if your opinion is aligned with this source's opinion, you're going to be wrong most of the time...because that source is only right SOMETIMES.
When you usually dress only 7 linemen on game day, versatility is very important. Garner having experience and being moderately functional at all 5 spots, makes him an ideal backup on game day.
Be careful here because essentially what you just said invalidates the entire idea of having two guys compete for a job in camp.
I'm not worried about anybody being worried about Tannehill or being worried about Tannehil himself. What's gonna happen is gonna happen. Sit back and take it as it comes. No sense in anyone agonizing over Tannehill having an off day or agonizing over the fans who do choose to concern themselves with it.
Why be concerned about a practice we can't even see, based on tweets made by media guys we often spend most of the year criticizing?
Remember what the wildcat did for our run game, our team, our win total.. Run the freakin formation at least three times a game.
I am surprised that no one is mentioning the fact that the defensive backs are actually catching the ball. Dropped interceptions have been a problem for the last 5 years or so.
Which is ironic and irrational. His opinion is to be trashed and chided when he doesn't agree with you, and used as support when he does agree with you.
The opposite side of your argument is that there is a source ALWAYS 100% correct and that's who we should all listen too.
Well said. I do it though. It's just the only information we have. So it's all we can go by. Wish we had Darlington still..
But it's not too hard to speculate that what didn't work was specifically awesome Eagles stuff? You read too much into that, imo. Who the hell knows. Trial and error in the first week of August with a young QB under his first new OC, and when that OC has never done this job in the NFL.
That should have read: "(e.g. stuff Bill Lazor is bringing with him from Philadelphia)" instead of "(i.e. stuff Bill Lazor is bringing with him from Philadelphia)". I write one when I mean the other sometimes. And no, it absolutely is not hard to speculate that the stuff they worked on is stuff that Bill Lazor brought with him from previous experience. To the contrary, that's very easy to speculate (and be correct).
I always try to separate the person from their reporting. I don't think that Armando, Omar, or Abramson are good reporters. I don't know if they are good or bad people. Well, Armando at least kind of seems like a jerk and a liar (highfivegate, the email altercations...), but I'm not reading too much into that.
I'll get excited when they start doing it in real games. Sean Smith was always making picks in practice and the preseason, only to get butterfingers in the regular season.
I like Omar bc he has, for years, worked his *** off on getting out news. Much more than other writers that others hold in high regard. He tweets nonstop and before that posted to his blog nonstop. He does have an attitude which I can understand some don't like.
Not sure what you mean, but how I take it is that Bill Lazor's full box of magic tricks will be constrained by the limitations of our roster talent. Reminds me of the "blur" offense we were going to install in Philbin's first year, then shelved when the coaches couldn't get the players to a point where they were capable of executing it. So we dropped it and dialled down the difficulty. Maybe that happens again. Weak talent on a roster can really handcuff a coaches creativity... but if it's a GREAT coach they will get even more creative and resourceful
EXACTLY. Sometimes the players, not the coaches, are the constraint on creative playcalling. Sounds like the player in question is Tannehill. Sooo.... I'm not thrilled about that.
No, I actually think CK has gone with the most common, obvious, and probably correct inference. It's just not the one we like hearing.
That's how I took it. Understandably, many want to take the things they were trying as experimental, whacky, not important, etc...and therefore it's no big deal they needed to be scrapped. And yet others believe nothing's been scrapped at all and they will get back to working on that after they get done working on some other stuff. I think both of those are possible, but are hope-driven improbabilities rather than probabilities. I don't know if they're going to lose games because they couldn't execute those plays and so they can't be in the game plan. But I think I can be a tiny bit disappointed at the implication that they've got to throw away some things the coach would otherwise want to do and stick with some of the old ways because the players couldn't execute.
This is basically what I was saying in a thread that asked if the Kelly/Malzahn stuff is the future of the NFL. I don't think people realize how great those two coaches are, and both have had huge revolutionary success as HEAD coaches at several stages of football. Miami will be the guinea pig: Can you run full-on Chip Kelly stuff without Chip Kelly?
Im just asking this because I dont know..but..I guess to me it seems logical that a coach may have seen something in game tapes..and thought..maybe a route like this would work..obviously youd try it in practice...to decide that play was to risky to run..doesnt seem dissapointing...why cant it just be..oh well..looked better on paper kinda thing? Also..why does it have to mean they are sticking with old ways..because those plays didnt work..
Obviously, I agree with you on the big picture here. A couple things though: The first bolded part, I'd specifically add that these aren't just things the coach wants to do but things the coach brought with him from previous stops which are desirable and the reason he was hired, to a large extent. People are missing that. We bought 12 McNuggets and now may only get to eat 6. The second bolded part, I have to say we're making an *assumption* if we say Lazor will go back to the old ways. Perhaps he'll go back to something new he is bringing in, but that has a familiar concept at least. The question is, does he graft his new stuff onto existing concepts Tanny grasps, or does he try to plant a whole new concept. I think (sadly) what we have heard indicates that Lazor will be doing more grafting of new to old than installing totally new concepts in many cases. Hopefully there are other aspect of the offense, however, where the players CAN handle some fully new concepts.
Oh yeah, people give too much attention to the system itself and not enough to the importance of TEACHING the system!
