earnest graham will be a total bust - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to Football Talk

earnest graham will be a total bust

Moderator: Football Moderators

Re: earnest graham will be a total bust

Postby sappisgod » Thu Jul 31, 2008 9:35 pm

biju wrote:I think all of those positives about Caddy for this year were a smoke screen from the cheap-o's down in Tampa who were trying to lower the contract Graham signed. It worked, and Caddy will soon be on the PUP, then IR this year.


Huh? Bruce Allen is pretty stingy on his cap management, and Graham had little leverage to being with. We didn't need to hype up Caddy to get Graham's price down because....well, you see what he signed for. We obviously weren't going to offer much more than what he went for, regardless of the situation. Caddy seems like he will start on the PUP, but there's really no reason why he shouldn't see SOME PT later on in the season. He seems to still be on the same track he was during the Graham negotiation, so I don't really see the conspiracy theory mumbo jumbo.

biju wrote:I disagree on Turner however. Some of the questions are the same, such as whether he'll be able to produce over a full season; some are different, such as whether the Atlanta offense will allow Turner to see anything other than 7 man fronts; but I believe the Atlanta coaching staff wants to hand Turner the ball, which is a big difference from Tampa who have made it clear that Graham might not even get the lion's share of carries and have structured a contract such that they could even drop him from the team before the season starts and be out nothing (IIRC).


Why do you put so much stock into the contract numbers? Like a team is going to sit a guy playing well for 2 mil, because he's not making enough? Graham is clearly the starter going into the season. Dunn, and to a lesser extent Bennett, will see a lot of time in receiving situations and Dunn will be the spell back, but what gives you the slightest idea that either might start over Graham?

biju wrote:I'm not on the Dunn love wagon either, trust me. I don't think he's got much left to offer and he certainly isn't a back that can take the punishment of 15 carries a game. But do I think he's going to get 8 touches a game anyway? Yes. Why? Because Gruden, for some unknown reason, doesn't seem to believe in Graham. I think Gruden got comfortable with the idea because as a head coach you need to be able to take injuries as part of the game. With a full offseason however, I just get that feeling Gruden isn't comfortable with Graham.

I could be proven completely wrong here. And if that's the case and Graham does end up with the majority of carries each game, I think he'll get somewhere in the neighborhood of 3.8 ypc, average around 16-18 carries a game to be good for a little over 1000 yards this year and probably about 8 TDs. That's a great RB for round 4.

But if he starts off in a funk they will be quick to start dishing out his carries. Michael Turner would need to work out of his funk if he gets into one--Atlanta isn't going to pay him that kind of money to sit on the bench. But even if Graham were to start performing at that point, Gruden could just as easily say "he's a 10-12 carry back only" and keep it that way.

I believe you're correct that there isn't anyone on that TB roster that can carry the ball 20 times. But they do have 4 guys that can all carry the ball 7 or 8 times just fine, killing all of their value. For me, that is the big reason why I would much rather invest a early/mid 3rd round pick (mid/late 2nd is a little too early) on Turner. (By the way, I'm high on Turner for this year).


Hmmm....now you're starting to show signs of deerayfan-like paranoia of Gruden. ;-D

And why exactly would Graham's YPC go DOWN? Our run blocking should be better than ever. Sears was a rookie last year, and he was a beast. Faine isn't great against the run, but he's much better than John Wade was. We added John Gilmore who is a better run blocking TE than either Alex Smith or Jerramy Stevens who got most of the PT last year. Davin and Trueblood are two of the better run blockers in the entire NFC. Askew is a Pro Bowl FB and a very underrated lead blocker.

Also, Gruden made Pittman THE back when he came here and it made people complain about the lack of use of Alstott. Then Caddy. Then Graham. It doesn't seem like he's ever wanted a bunch of guys carrying 7-8 times at all, or anything close, since he's been here. Quite the opposite. Even when Pittman came back, a no doubt Gruden favorite, Graham still saw the vast majority of the carries.

I'm not huge on Graham. I think he's a little overrated, more of a product of our offensive line becoming one of the best run blocking units in the league. But he has little competition (Dunn and Bennett are both good receivers, but barely passable rushers at this point), he's got great young blocking, he's a good receiver, he's going to get goalline carries regardless, and it seems Gruden is finally committed to running the ball. The downside doesn't seem to compare at all with that.
sappisgod
Special Teams Staff
Special Teams Staff

User avatar

Posts: 260
Joined: 7 Feb 2004
Home Cafe: Football

Re: earnest graham will be a total bust

Postby biju » Fri Aug 01, 2008 12:35 am

sappisgod wrote:
biju wrote:I think all of those positives about Caddy for this year were a smoke screen from the cheap-o's down in Tampa who were trying to lower the contract Graham signed. It worked, and Caddy will soon be on the PUP, then IR this year.


Huh? Bruce Allen is pretty stingy on his cap management, and Graham had little leverage to being with. We didn't need to hype up Caddy to get Graham's price down because....well, you see what he signed for. We obviously weren't going to offer much more than what he went for, regardless of the situation. Caddy seems like he will start on the PUP, but there's really no reason why he shouldn't see SOME PT later on in the season. He seems to still be on the same track he was during the Graham negotiation, so I don't really see the conspiracy theory mumbo jumbo.


Wait. IMO your argument doesn't make sense, unless I'm not understanding you correctly (which could be the case). Are you saying that TB pumping up Caddy, signing Graham for cheap, and then promptly putting Caddy on the PUP wasn't a management move because...Graham signed so cheaply? I think the logic would state that at the very least, it is impossible to state exactly what you're saying. If Graham had held out until Caddy was put on the PUP and then signed for chump change I would agree with you, but the timing of all the Caddy reports and then the sudden disappearance of them after Graham's signing makes me think otherwise.

sappisgod wrote:
biju wrote:I disagree on Turner however. Some of the questions are the same, such as whether he'll be able to produce over a full season; some are different, such as whether the Atlanta offense will allow Turner to see anything other than 7 man fronts; but I believe the Atlanta coaching staff wants to hand Turner the ball, which is a big difference from Tampa who have made it clear that Graham might not even get the lion's share of carries and have structured a contract such that they could even drop him from the team before the season starts and be out nothing (IIRC).


Why do you put so much stock into the contract numbers? Like a team is going to sit a guy playing well for 2 mil, because he's not making enough? Graham is clearly the starter going into the season. Dunn, and to a lesser extent Bennett, will see a lot of time in receiving situations and Dunn will be the spell back, but what gives you the slightest idea that either might start over Graham?


Because most contract include some sort of signing bonus. Big contracts tend to get more guaranteed money. GMs also have to answer for personnel costs and generally don't keep their jobs if they spend a ton of money on a player that costs a lot of money, sits on the bench and then get cut the next year. That's why big contract players tend to play out their contracts instead of getting cut, at least for the first few seasons. Cedric Benson is a great example of this. So is Alex Smith. Troy Williamson and Mike Williams had 3 years of garbage time before finally getting the hook. This is just from the 2005 draft...the list goes on.

On the other hand, GMs don't tend to look stupid if a coach benches a player they got for cheap due to a bluff in the offseason. ;-D

sappisgod wrote:
biju wrote:I'm not on the Dunn love wagon either, trust me. I don't think he's got much left to offer and he certainly isn't a back that can take the punishment of 15 carries a game. But do I think he's going to get 8 touches a game anyway? Yes. Why? Because Gruden, for some unknown reason, doesn't seem to believe in Graham. I think Gruden got comfortable with the idea because as a head coach you need to be able to take injuries as part of the game. With a full offseason however, I just get that feeling Gruden isn't comfortable with Graham.

I could be proven completely wrong here. And if that's the case and Graham does end up with the majority of carries each game, I think he'll get somewhere in the neighborhood of 3.8 ypc, average around 16-18 carries a game to be good for a little over 1000 yards this year and probably about 8 TDs. That's a great RB for round 4.

But if he starts off in a funk they will be quick to start dishing out his carries. Michael Turner would need to work out of his funk if he gets into one--Atlanta isn't going to pay him that kind of money to sit on the bench. But even if Graham were to start performing at that point, Gruden could just as easily say "he's a 10-12 carry back only" and keep it that way.

I believe you're correct that there isn't anyone on that TB roster that can carry the ball 20 times. But they do have 4 guys that can all carry the ball 7 or 8 times just fine, killing all of their value. For me, that is the big reason why I would much rather invest a early/mid 3rd round pick (mid/late 2nd is a little too early) on Turner. (By the way, I'm high on Turner for this year).


Hmmm....now you're starting to show signs of deerayfan-like paranoia of Gruden. ;-D

And why exactly would Graham's YPC go DOWN? Our run blocking should be better than ever. Sears was a rookie last year, and he was a beast. Faine isn't great against the run, but he's much better than John Wade was. We added John Gilmore who is a better run blocking TE than either Alex Smith or Jerramy Stevens who got most of the PT last year. Davin and Trueblood are two of the better run blockers in the entire NFC. Askew is a Pro Bowl FB and a very underrated lead blocker.

Also, Gruden made Pittman THE back when he came here and it made people complain about the lack of use of Alstott. Then Caddy. Then Graham. It doesn't seem like he's ever wanted a bunch of guys carrying 7-8 times at all, or anything close, since he's been here. Quite the opposite. Even when Pittman came back, a no doubt Gruden favorite, Graham still saw the vast majority of the carries.

I'm not huge on Graham. I think he's a little overrated, more of a product of our offensive line becoming one of the best run blocking units in the league. But he has little competition (Dunn and Bennett are both good receivers, but barely passable rushers at this point), he's got great young blocking, he's a good receiver, he's going to get goalline carries regardless, and it seems Gruden is finally committed to running the ball. The downside doesn't seem to compare at all with that.


Interesting points. You may be right about him starting and keeping on one guy. It should, by contrast, also give you pause into how Gruden uses his RBs since all of those RBs have experienced significant injuries resulting in games missed.

:-D

I'm certainly not saying that Gruden won't commit to him early. I'm just saying, and I think this is what I've been saying all along, is that Gruden will only be committed to him while he's producing. If his numbers do slip and running game and offense struggle, how much time is he going to give him to turn it around?

Again, I could certainly be wrong and I would actually be happy if that was the case (given where I get to keep him I will almost certainly be a lock for the playoffs), but as with any player that comes on strong mid-season I have to give real pause as to whether they'll be just as good when everyone is fresh. It's the same reason why I'm worried about Grant too.
Image
biju
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterSweet 16 Survivor
Posts: 5941
Joined: 6 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Seattle - Ballard

Re: earnest graham will be a total bust

Postby moochman » Fri Aug 01, 2008 10:02 am

Biju, the one thing I have always felt about Gruden is that he wants no player to be a star. He doesn't want any one mistaking the teams success stemming from any other reason than the sheer brillance of the man of a thousand faces-Chucky Gruden. For that reason Chucky will be much more ready to bail on any player, or most likely simply have many RB share duties. Keep them all in line and prove once again the immense intellect that his Chucky.
I think Graham is being undervalued in many drafts becuase of this as I don't see Dunn being a totally different RB that Graham, and Ernest should still get the majority of goalline duties.
Image


I think, therefore I am. I think fantasy, therefore I am unreal?
moochman
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterSurvival Of The Fittest WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 16302
(Past Year: 82)
Joined: 20 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Living in the shame only a Lions fan knows

Re: earnest graham will be a total bust

Postby sappisgod » Fri Aug 01, 2008 7:26 pm

biju wrote:Wait. IMO your argument doesn't make sense, unless I'm not understanding you correctly (which could be the case). Are you saying that TB pumping up Caddy, signing Graham for cheap, and then promptly putting Caddy on the PUP wasn't a management move because...Graham signed so cheaply?


I'm saying we were never going to offer any more than he signed for. Caddy was going to PUP as a best case scenario from OTAs, he's still making a very nice comeback as his career was in jeopardy with the injury and he's not on IR for the season. Was anyone saying he was going to come back for TC or pre-season? Caddy himself maybe, but it's not like the TB coaches were playing up how he was going to be back.

biju wrote:I think the logic would state that at the very least, it is impossible to state exactly what you're saying. If Graham had held out until Caddy was put on the PUP and then signed for chump change I would agree with you, but the timing of all the Caddy reports and then the sudden disappearance of them after Graham's signing makes me think otherwise.


It was a storyline that the fans were interested. Of course people wanted to know how the recent "franchise" back was doing in his recovery of a possibly career-threatening injury. And his recovery was going better than expected. It still is. I just think you're being overly skeptical of this. Everyone knew Graham was going to cave because he's got a little over half a season of production and the team didn't value him all that much. They don't really believe he's a special talent, but he IS the best we have at this point.

biju wrote:Because most contract include some sort of signing bonus. Big contracts tend to get more guaranteed money. GMs also have to answer for personnel costs and generally don't keep their jobs if they spend a ton of money on a player that costs a lot of money, sits on the bench and then get cut the next year. That's why big contract players tend to play out their contracts instead of getting cut, at least for the first few seasons. Cedric Benson is a great example of this. So is Alex Smith. Troy Williamson and Mike Williams had 3 years of garbage time before finally getting the hook. This is just from the 2005 draft...the list goes on.


Well, now that we've stated the obvious, let's get to the point of how it's relevant HERE:

biju wrote:On the other hand, GMs don't tend to look stupid if a coach benches a player they got for cheap due to a bluff in the offseason. ;-D


And do they look stupid for playing the best option, who happens to be producing at an above average level? If you draft a Marques Colston in the 7th round and he plays great, is there more reason to bench him because you don't have a ton of cash invested in him? No. So why would Graham's small contract be a reflection of how unstable his job might be? I would see your point if we had a back who we invested $40 mil in behind him, but we don't. He's our youngest back (except Darby, who won't make much of an impact), he's our best rusher under contract, he's the only one who can handle a full slate of carries, he's our best blocker, he's our biggest back, he's our returning feature back. How does his contract affect any of that OR the possibility of him being benched?

I still don't buy your "bluff" conspiracy theory though...

biju wrote:Interesting points. You may be right about him starting and keeping on one guy. It should, by contrast, also give you pause into how Gruden uses his RBs since all of those RBs have experienced significant injuries resulting in games missed.

:-D


Pittman? He was here from the Super Bowl season until last year and only injured for a short time in the Indy game last year. Caddy was injury prone before he got here.....

biju wrote:I'm certainly not saying that Gruden won't commit to him early. I'm just saying, and I think this is what I've been saying all along, is that Gruden will only be committed to him while he's producing. If his numbers do slip and running game and offense struggle, how much time is he going to give him to turn it around?

Again, I could certainly be wrong and I would actually be happy if that was the case (given where I get to keep him I will almost certainly be a lock for the playoffs), but as with any player that comes on strong mid-season I have to give real pause as to whether they'll be just as good when everyone is fresh. It's the same reason why I'm worried about Grant too.


If his numbers slip, the running game struggles, and the offense struggles, yes that would be bad. For any back really. But why would it? We have arguably the best line in the team's history, some of the best run blockers in the conference, a Pro Bowl FB, a very good blocking TE, and a coach finally dedicated to running the ball. This is the same as posing the question of what if Jacksonville can't run or what if Pittsburgh can't run? We're still going to go with our best option, and that is undoubtedly Graham right now.

Do you think Dunn is going to start if Graham falters for a couple games? Or Bennett? I don't think thats very likely. Do you?
sappisgod
Special Teams Staff
Special Teams Staff

User avatar

Posts: 260
Joined: 7 Feb 2004
Home Cafe: Football

Re: earnest graham will be a total bust

Postby sappisgod » Fri Aug 01, 2008 7:38 pm

moochman wrote:Biju, the one thing I have always felt about Gruden is that he wants no player to be a star. He doesn't want any one mistaking the teams success stemming from any other reason than the sheer brillance of the man of a thousand faces-Chucky Gruden. For that reason Chucky will be much more ready to bail on any player, or most likely simply have many RB share duties. Keep them all in line and prove once again the immense intellect that his Chucky.
I think Graham is being undervalued in many drafts becuase of this as I don't see Dunn being a totally different RB that Graham, and Ernest should still get the majority of goalline duties.


And what is that based on? Thats what's getting me. Did Gruden have a problem with Gannon playing great or Caddy when he broke out? The concern in 05 was that he was OVER-using Caddy, and he hyped the kid to the moon during that time. And stuck with him through the 06 downs and into 2007. So that "wants no player to be a star" stuff sounds like BS.

I dislike Gruden's short-comings as much as the next guy. He plays favorites, which is the only reason Michael Clayton is still on the team and why Stovall has barely seen the field since drafted. He's failed to develop the passing game. He's been very flaky and not committed to the run in the past. His penchant for over-the-hill QBs who only fit his system has stunted our offensive growth for a while, after Brad Johnson had the most success here and he wasn't ideal for Gruden's offense.

His ego does get in the way of some things, but why wouldn't he want a player who can help his team to become a star? Guys who have done well under him here (Caddy, Galloway, Jeff, Brad, once upon a time Clayton) he's had endless good things to say about them to the media and he's relied heavily upon them come game-time.

I'm starting to think I stumbled into some Gruden-hating tin foil hat convention. :-D J/k, but I don't really see what you guys are basing these opinions off of....
sappisgod
Special Teams Staff
Special Teams Staff

User avatar

Posts: 260
Joined: 7 Feb 2004
Home Cafe: Football

Re: earnest graham will be a total bust

Postby LS2throwed » Fri Aug 01, 2008 7:44 pm

Yea I don't know why everyone thinks Gruden likes to always use all these RB's and always has...Last time I checked he was rushiing Caddy(who was a rookie) 37 times in games before he broke down, that hardly sounds like a guy who is trying to spread the wealth around...I think he will stay committed to Graham and that Offensive line is legit...It's not like they are going to come out and pass the ball all over the place, i'm expecting Graham to produce 10 TD's at least and that at least gives him the value that Barber had last year.
Image
Current Cafe Dynasties:
4th and Goal
Fourth & Inches
Double D
Any Given Dynasty
Eat Cheese Dynasty
NFL's Finest
Cafe Very Special Forces
LS2throwed
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterCafe Musketeer
Posts: 5373
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Arlington, Texas

Re: earnest graham will be a total bust

Postby moochman » Fri Aug 01, 2008 9:46 pm

sappisgod wrote:
moochman wrote:Biju, the one thing I have always felt about Gruden is that he wants no player to be a star. He doesn't want any one mistaking the teams success stemming from any other reason than the sheer brillance of the man of a thousand faces-Chucky Gruden. For that reason Chucky will be much more ready to bail on any player, or most likely simply have many RB share duties. Keep them all in line and prove once again the immense intellect that his Chucky.
I think Graham is being undervalued in many drafts becuase of this as I don't see Dunn being a totally different RB that Graham, and Ernest should still get the majority of goalline duties.


And what is that based on? Thats what's getting me. Did Gruden have a problem with Gannon playing great or Caddy when he broke out? The concern in 05 was that he was OVER-using Caddy, and he hyped the kid to the moon during that time. And stuck with him through the 06 downs and into 2007. So that "wants no player to be a star" stuff sounds like BS.

I dislike Gruden's short-comings as much as the next guy. He plays favorites, which is the only reason Michael Clayton is still on the team and why Stovall has barely seen the field since drafted. He's failed to develop the passing game. He's been very flaky and not committed to the run in the past. His penchant for over-the-hill QBs who only fit his system has stunted our offensive growth for a while, after Brad Johnson had the most success here and he wasn't ideal for Gruden's offense.

His ego does get in the way of some things, but why wouldn't he want a player who can help his team to become a star? Guys who have done well under him here (Caddy, Galloway, Jeff, Brad, once upon a time Clayton) he's had endless good things to say about them to the media and he's relied heavily upon them come game-time.

I'm starting to think I stumbled into some Gruden-hating tin foil hat convention. :-D J/k, but I don't really see what you guys are basing these opinions off of....


Thought I was pretty clear. This is just a sense I get from watching Bucs games and Gruden's foibles. I think his ego is so out of control that there are not enough cameras in Tampa to support his lust for face time and a player. I could be totally wrong, but I have seen nothing in Chuckie to make me feel any different.
As for the hating, you are correct sir. I hate Chuckie and all the control freak, egomanical head coaches out there who insist on dumbing down the game, playing not to lose and over using specialization of players. They fear trusting the player to make the play so opt for safe 6 yard pass rather than a 20 yard route. They ask their QB to "manage the game" instead of making big plays to win the darn thing. It all adds up to letting the other team stay close enough that a mix up in the 4th quarter can lose a game that had no business being in dispute. They take a lot of the fun out of the game. If that makes me a hater, guilty as charged.
Image


I think, therefore I am. I think fantasy, therefore I am unreal?
moochman
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterSurvival Of The Fittest WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 16302
(Past Year: 82)
Joined: 20 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Living in the shame only a Lions fan knows

Re: earnest graham will be a total bust

Postby sappisgod » Sat Aug 02, 2008 7:34 pm

moochman wrote:Thought I was pretty clear. This is just a sense I get from watching Bucs games and Gruden's foibles. I think his ego is so out of control that there are not enough cameras in Tampa to support his lust for face time and a player. I could be totally wrong, but I have seen nothing in Chuckie to make me feel any different.
As for the hating, you are correct sir. I hate Chuckie and all the control freak, egomanical head coaches out there who insist on dumbing down the game, playing not to lose and over using specialization of players. They fear trusting the player to make the play so opt for safe 6 yard pass rather than a 20 yard route. They ask their QB to "manage the game" instead of making big plays to win the darn thing. It all adds up to letting the other team stay close enough that a mix up in the 4th quarter can lose a game that had no business being in dispute. They take a lot of the fun out of the game. If that makes me a hater, guilty as charged.


See, that just seems to me that your opinion is rooted in your personal hatred of the guy more so than his tendencies which indicate he isn't against star players. I've noted a good portion of what I dislike about the guy, his tendencies, and results, but you've got to at least try to be objective at some point.

We have thrown down field when our QB has been capable. Griese back in 04 wasn't dink and dunk, and neither was McCown in his time. Simms had a hell of an arm, but didn't play all that much and had that release point problem. But it seems that guys like Brad Johnson, Jeff Garcia, and Bruce Gradkowski ESPECIALLY all have very lacking arm-strength. Making a point to go down field more with their arms wouldn't seemingly be the most logical idea. I can tell you right now, along with anyone who saw the 06 Cowboys Thanksgiving day game, that Bruce Gradkowski can't throw the ball accurately at all past 15 yards. Just can't do it. Garcia has one of the weaker arms in the league at this point and last season. Playing conservatively with guys like that at the helm, really is our best chance at winning. The long and short of it being, we're not going to take a lot of chances and air it out when our receivers have been lacking since Meenan and Keyshawn were teaming up and our QBs have had some of the weakest arms in the league. I'm sorry that's not a "fun" offense to watch at home, but I direct you to the old Herm Edwards sound byte. You don't play to look fun, you "play to win the game".....

I also find the accusation of him "dumbing down the game" to be a little off. In the past, one of the biggest complaints from the fanbase of him was that he was too complicated. He over-thought things, and was constantly trying to outsmart the other teams instead of K.I.S.S. He's got a ridiculously thick playbook, entirely too complicated play calls, and uses more unnecessary shifts and motions than just about any other OC out there. I'm sure deeray would love to tell you all about that. :-b
sappisgod
Special Teams Staff
Special Teams Staff

User avatar

Posts: 260
Joined: 7 Feb 2004
Home Cafe: Football

Re: earnest graham will be a total bust

Postby moochman » Sun Aug 03, 2008 10:39 am

sappisgod wrote:
moochman wrote:Thought I was pretty clear. This is just a sense I get from watching Bucs games and Gruden's foibles. I think his ego is so out of control that there are not enough cameras in Tampa to support his lust for face time and a player. I could be totally wrong, but I have seen nothing in Chuckie to make me feel any different.
As for the hating, you are correct sir. I hate Chuckie and all the control freak, egomanical head coaches out there who insist on dumbing down the game, playing not to lose and over using specialization of players. They fear trusting the player to make the play so opt for safe 6 yard pass rather than a 20 yard route. They ask their QB to "manage the game" instead of making big plays to win the darn thing. It all adds up to letting the other team stay close enough that a mix up in the 4th quarter can lose a game that had no business being in dispute. They take a lot of the fun out of the game. If that makes me a hater, guilty as charged.


See, that just seems to me that your opinion is rooted in your personal hatred of the guy more so than his tendencies which indicate he isn't against star players. I've noted a good portion of what I dislike about the guy, his tendencies, and results, but you've got to at least try to be objective at some point.

We have thrown down field when our QB has been capable. Griese back in 04 wasn't dink and dunk, and neither was McCown in his time. Simms had a hell of an arm, but didn't play all that much and had that release point problem. But it seems that guys like Brad Johnson, Jeff Garcia, and Bruce Gradkowski ESPECIALLY all have very lacking arm-strength. Making a point to go down field more with their arms wouldn't seemingly be the most logical idea. I can tell you right now, along with anyone who saw the 06 Cowboys Thanksgiving day game, that Bruce Gradkowski can't throw the ball accurately at all past 15 yards. Just can't do it. Garcia has one of the weaker arms in the league at this point and last season. Playing conservatively with guys like that at the helm, really is our best chance at winning. The long and short of it being, we're not going to take a lot of chances and air it out when our receivers have been lacking since Meenan and Keyshawn were teaming up and our QBs have had some of the weakest arms in the league. I'm sorry that's not a "fun" offense to watch at home, but I direct you to the old Herm Edwards sound byte. You don't play to look fun, you "play to win the game".....

I also find the accusation of him "dumbing down the game" to be a little off. In the past, one of the biggest complaints from the fanbase of him was that he was too complicated. He over-thought things, and was constantly trying to outsmart the other teams instead of K.I.S.S. He's got a ridiculously thick playbook, entirely too complicated play calls, and uses more unnecessary shifts and motions than just about any other OC out there. I'm sure deeray would love to tell you all about that. :-b


No personal hatred, heck truth is I don't even know Chucky on a personal level. I just hate head coaches like him who think that they are more important than the players.
Having a play book full of complicated plays is an extension of his ego and has less to do with the success of his offence than it does his need to show how much he is the offence. You need only look at the stellar group of QBs you mentioned. Though there were some of mediocre talent, Gruden never really supported any of them enough to fully develop their skills. You see, the QB isn't important, it's the plays Chuckie calls.

The dumbing down the game comment was aimed at the majority of coaches who crawl into a shell when the game is afoot. Those who play not to lose rather than unleash the talent of the team. It makes for dull unispired football that is all to common in this league. Quoting a head coach to support playing to win is like quoting the used car salesmen when talking about why a car is good. The fact is most football coaches are control freaks who trust more in their ability to keep a team in a game than they do to trust in their players to win games. In doing so they talk of coaching to win games while in fact allowing the opponant a chance to stay in the game. They are in reality increasing the odds that their team will lose, assuming that they are the better team. The by-product is dull football.
Image


I think, therefore I am. I think fantasy, therefore I am unreal?
moochman
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterSurvival Of The Fittest WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 16302
(Past Year: 82)
Joined: 20 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Living in the shame only a Lions fan knows

Re: earnest graham will be a total bust

Postby sappisgod » Sun Aug 03, 2008 9:36 pm

moochman wrote:No personal hatred, heck truth is I don't even know Chucky on a personal level. I just hate head coaches like him who think that they are more important than the players.
Having a play book full of complicated plays is an extension of his ego and has less to do with the success of his offence than it does his need to show how much he is the offence.


He has a lot of plays because he's full of himself and doesn't value his players as much. Good lord, how am I supposed to respond to that? I guess by just letting you go off on your poorly-based tangent. Gruden does have a big ego, but where you take that and what you use that to base other "observations" on, goes well further than it should.

moochman wrote:You need only look at the stellar group of QBs you mentioned. Though there were some of mediocre talent, Gruden never really supported any of them enough to fully develop their skills. You see, the QB isn't important, it's the plays Chuckie calls.


Really, care to break them down? Because I'm POSITIVE you didn't look in-depth at that and just hoped it would be accepted.

Brad Johnson: Played at a Pro Bowl caliber level, won a SB, and played his best football under Gruden. His skills weren't fully developed? LOL. But in 2004, he had very little left. His below-average career arm strength dropped off the table, as did his performance. He's done very little since, although I think he's still on with the Cowboys.

Brian Griese: Took over for Brad in 04, and played the best football of his career. Single-handedly kept us in games that year. Was given an extension that off-season and looked like our new QB for a long while. But then his play dropped back off to Brian Griese-like levels while Caddy and the defense carried our team to a 5-1 record, then he tore a knee ligament against the Dolphins. There went his chance.

Chris Simms: Took over for Griese in 05 and actually showed a lot more than people thought he had in him. Gruden was never a big fan, but with Simms' performance and Griese's age and injury, Gruden let Griese loose and handed Simms the job for the foreseeable future. Then Simms' low, slow release that was a problem against Washington in the playoffs caught on and his play declined for 3 games until he ruptured his spleen, and is finally back to close to where he was before this off-season.

Bruce Gradkowski: Took over for Simms. Was never supposed to be an NFL back-up or starter, but Luke McCown suffered a season-ending knee injury weeks into camp and Simms had the aforementioned ruptured spleen. Bruce is a 3rd string QB with smarts, but no arm whatsoever.

Garcia and McCown have faired pretty well so far.

So with Brad, it was basically the end of his line. Griese just couldn't keep up a solid level of play. Simms had quite the flaw in mechanics and no protection. Grads had very limited talent in the first place, he's AFL or CFL material.

But none of them were held back by Gruden's ego. Thats just a poor attempt to vilify the guy, which is such a surprise in this topic. LAME. :-t

moochman wrote:The dumbing down the game comment was aimed at the majority of coaches who crawl into a shell when the game is afoot. Those who play not to lose rather than unleash the talent of the team. It makes for dull unispired football that is all to common in this league.


How does that make sense though? Our offense since Gruden has been here has consisted mainly of a short passing game and a building power run game. Of course we're not going to change that when we have a lead. As previously mentioned, we don't really have the personnel to be an offense who takes chances. If thats what gets us in the position to win, why would we try to do something that doesn't suit us as well when we're up. This is especially funny (or ironic) because if you try to change it up and lose, you will get bashed relentlessly for going away from what worked/got you the lead in the first place. That's only happened about a billion times. Damned if you do....

Seemingly, your argument is so that it's more entertaining to you. In the grand scheme of things, I don't think that means a whole lot.

moochman wrote:Quoting a head coach to support playing to win is like quoting the used car salesmen when talking about why a car is good. The fact is most football coaches are control freaks who trust more in their ability to keep a team in a game than they do to trust in their players to win games.


I'm not going to argue with you if you're that deeply rooted in your personal opinion. It's pointless saying "well, the other side of the coin is..." when you're seeing nothing but your own agenda.

moochman wrote:The by-product is dull football.


We won a division last year essentially by week 12 with "dull" football. I'm sure our fan base, front office, players, etc loved it.
sappisgod
Special Teams Staff
Special Teams Staff

User avatar

Posts: 260
Joined: 7 Feb 2004
Home Cafe: Football

PreviousNext

Return to Football Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 9:03 hours
(and 35 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


  • Fantasy Football
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact