Vonta Leach a Saint?

[gbpackfan]

I was listening to TT's presser when he stated "I don't know if you guys have heard, but Vonta will back in Lambeau on Sunday."

I am assuming that the Saints claimed Vonta and have been rewarded him. I can't find "proof" of this anywhere though. Anyone heard anything?

[packrulz]

I was listening to TT's presser when he stated "I don't know if you guys have heard, but Vonta will back in Lambeau on Sunday."

I am assuming that the Saints claimed Vonta and have been rewarded him. I can't find "proof" of this anywhere though. Anyone heard anything?

On Fox 11 they said he was picked up by the Saints.

[red]

great

we let a guy go thats knows all our plays, and maybe some of our game plan, and he runs off and joins the team we play this week

how odd

[SkinBasket]

great

we let a guy go thats knows all our plays, and maybe some of our game plan, and he runs off and joins the team we play this week

how odd

Your thoughts match mine exactly. just how bad does NO want revenge for that obscene spanking last year?

[Fritz]

When I saw the title of this thread I thought the Pope had nominated him or something.

[falco]

I think the pickup had something to do with NO losing both fullbacks to injury last week...

[Fosco33]

I said this on another thread, but if KRob doesn't play this weekend, this was stupid, IMO.

[Fritz]

What does Vonta Leach know about the west coast system that the Saints' defensive coordinator doesn't know?

Does anyone think MM really did any team-specific game planning for the Saints before Leach was cut?

[Joemailman]

great

we let a guy go thats knows all our plays, and maybe some of our game plan, and he runs off and joins the team we play this week

how odd


If they kept a 2004 playbook around, they would probably know our plays anyway, since McCarthy was the OC there.

[gbpackfan]

I really think that you guys are making too big of a deal out of Leach getting cut. It's one thing if you liked the way he played, which VERY FEW PEOPLE DID. But to be worried that he is going to share all of our secrets? Come on! Any informed fan can watch the Packers' games on TiVo and figure out what the audibles are. In fact, by looking at the coverage you can sometimes figure it out. Audibles change and the Packers know that Leach is over there right now. You don't think they will change their audibles? A lot of the audbiles don't even change the play, they just yell them out to try and trick the opposing D. Players get released all the time and feed info. to their new teams all the time. Vonta Leach and his little black book of secrets won't be the difference in the game Sunday!

[wist43]

Leach being released is nothing short of inexplicable.

They're carrying 4 TE's, only one of whom is a decent blocker. Reports are that Martin has begun working as more of an H-back, and will likely serve as a lead blocker for Green, but Martin isn't anywhere near the calibur of blocker that Leach is.

Leach was the Packers best lead blocker - he's gone, and the Packers are going to go thru the whole season with Tory Humphrey inactive on game day???

TT is well on his way to running himself out of town... I can't begin to fathom what he's thinking. The Packers are now one of the two or three worst teams in the league, and given that TT has worked diligently to run our best players out of town (Wahle and Walker), I can only conclude that his goal is to run this team right into the ground. On that score, he succeeding fabulously!! :evil:

[MJZiggy]

There's just one thing to remember if you're wondering why TT cut him. Leach can't catch. Not in the preseason, how many catches did he have on Sunday? Maybe TT just wants someone who can catch out of the backfield on the short out.

[gbpackfan]

To piggy back off my other post, it is crazy how many people miss Leach now that he is gone. After the preseason game, and during, SO MANY OF YOU WANTED HIM CUT! Where are you now? I am convinced that most posters just want to rip TT no matter what moves he makes. Pathetic!

[Bretsky]

To piggy back off my other post, it is crazy how many people miss Leach now that he is gone. After the preseason game, and during, SO MANY OF YOU WANTED HIM CUT! Where are you now? I am convinced that most posters just want to rip TT no matter what moves he makes. Pathetic!

I think those arguing to cut Leach were also figuring Beach would be kept as well as the Crapper.

This is puzzling; I think my explanation still makes sense. TT's playing for the future and didn't see Leach as a long term solution so he just cut bait regardless of how it will effect us short term.

[MJZiggy]

Or maybe he wanted a fullback he could send on a passing route.

[vince]

Leach being released is nothing short of inexplicable.

They're carrying 4 TE's, only one of whom is decent blocker. Reports are that Martin has begun working as more of an H-back, and will likely serve as a lead blocker for Green, but Martin isn't anywhere near the calibur of blocker that Leach is.

Leach was the Packers best lead blocker - he's gone, and the Packers are going to go thru the whole season with Tory Humphrey inactive on game day???

TT is well on his way to running himself out of town... I can't begin to fathom what he's thinking. The Packers are now one of the two or three worst teams in the league, and given that TT has worked diligently to run our best players out of town (Wahle and Walker), I can only conclude that his goal is to run this team right into the ground. On that score, he succeeding fabulously!! :evil:
This is funny. Almost not worth a response, but out of fairness, I don't want to throw out an accusation without an explanation, so here goes... I apoligize ahead of time for the harshness of which I'm sure this will come across, but I don't know how to soften it.

1. It is the height of the combination of ignorance and arrogance when posters presume to know more about who can help the team succeed more than those professionals who watch practice every day, scout talent for a living, coach various segments of the team, study extensive hours of film, share notes, strategize about team goals, strengths and weakness, strategies and tactics, and observe and interact with players about their roles 18 hours a day.

These posters apparently don't know what they don't know - yet can't wait to judge - the worst kind of ignorance.

2. Not only do these posters know for an absolute fact that by watching one or two preseason games and reading a few articles by people who stir pots for a living, he/she knows more than all these professionals put together, but their decisions are "nothing short of inexplicable." These posters know more than the entire coaching and scouting staff about the offensive scheme that the Packers should be running, how they should run it, and who is most qualified to fit specific roles.

3. This type of post is not only both ignorant and arrogant, but it reaks of an individual who also has become emotionally invested in a specific position about whether these people are any good at what they do that even the most mundane decisions are positioned as "over the top" decisions that obviously reinforce the position in which their heels are well dug into.

Rooting for specific players to succeed is one thing, but IMO, anyone who honestly thinks they know more about which players are qualified to contribute have no idea whatsoever about what they speak...

Nothing personal...

[vince]

Before anyone responds, I want to apologize about the previous post. I flew off a little too quickly. I realize that doing the things I damned above is a lot of what makes these forums so interesting.

While I think there's some truth in the post, it was ill-advised. Sorry about that.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Your post was pretty mild. My guess is that wist can handle it. BTW, your analysis of wist is spot on.
:lol:

[Harlan Huckleby]

TT's playing for the future and didn't see Leach as a long term solution so he just cut bait regardless of how it will effect us short term.

yep, exactly right. I'm OK with this approach, but I just have a detail question.

I understand him wanting to protect all those rookies with potential hanging-on to the end of the roster. The future.

But WTF gives with Noah Herron????? Even if you convince me he is servicable for this season - and you have your work cut out doing that - it is impossible to believe that Herron is a long term prospect. Why not dump Herron?????? He has less short term value than Leach.

[Joemailman]

In this offense, the FB is as much of a pass receiver as he is a lead blocker. Leach isn't here for the same reason Ben Steele isn't here. He couldn't catch the damn ball. That is why they brought back William Henderson, even though he isn't the blocker he once was. Henderson has developed into a very good pass receiver. Leach would not have made the team to begin with if Henderson hadn't gotten hurt.

[AKfaust]

"In this offense, the FB is as much of a pass receiver as he is a lead blocker. Leach isn't here for the same reason Ben Steele isn't here. He couldn't catch the damn ball."

And what makes you think M3 is going to call pass plays?

[wist43]

I do, in fact, wish I could be more positive about the state of our beloved team, but there just isn't much there to hang your hat on.

That said, I was one of the few people that saw the Chicago game in a somewhat more positive light than most of the Packer beat writers and posters on this site. My hope for this team this year is to see steady improvement. W's and L's are incidental.

However, the reality is that this team has been in a tailspin for several years... When I've pointed out deficient moves, I've been all but tarred and feathered on these sites... Sadly, time has proven me correct much more often than not. I've got a long track record of posts on both web sites, and I'd put my analysis and track record up against anybody's.

Shoot the messenger if you must... but, back it up with something substantive to rebut my comments. I enjoy a good debate.

[gbpackfan]

Vince,

I loved your first post. Dont be sorry. The first thing that comes out of your mouth is probably the truth. That is the great thing about this forum, no need to pull punches. We are all big boys, we can take it!


SIDE NOTE


I wonder how Ben Brown is doing. Maybe they see something in him?

[Joemailman]

"In this offense, the FB is as much of a pass receiver as he is a lead blocker. Leach isn't here for the same reason Ben Steele isn't here. He couldn't catch the damn ball."

And what makes you think M3 is going to call pass plays?


Actually, the Packers threw the ball more than they ran it Sunday. I know they only threw it 5 times in the 1st half Sunday, but they didn't have the ball much, plus Favre was sacked 3 times.

[VegasPackFan]

The way I see it right now is that we basically have no halfback / true running back except Green. That is it. This new guy - will he have to learn our whole offense scheme and terminology now? I know Houston runs a ZBS blocking scheme, but that doesnt mean that the whole offense is the same.

If Herron has to step in for Green, we are flat out screwed.

So now it seems we have absolutley no depth at all in the WR and RB positions.

Am I right?

[Harlan Huckleby]

So now it seems we have absolutley no depth at all in the WR and RB positions.
Am I right?

The situation reminds me a bit of the movie "The Three Amigos". They didn't have enough soldiers to defend the fort, so they sewed uniforms, and put them on stick-men holding rifles. Maybe the solution is to, "Sew, sew like the wind!"

[Guiness]

This is funny. Almost not worth a response, but out of fairness, I don't want to throw out an accusation without an explanation, so here goes... I apoligize ahead of time for the harshness of which I'm sure this will come across, but I don't know how to soften it.



So...we shouldn't even bother discussing it because all of the right decisions have been made by people smarter than us? I guess we might as well just shut down the board now. It's useless anyways. :crazy:

[vince]

This is funny. Almost not worth a response, but out of fairness, I don't want to throw out an accusation without an explanation, so here goes... I apoligize ahead of time for the harshness of which I'm sure this will come across, but I don't know how to soften it.



So...we shouldn't even bother discussing it because all of the right decisions have been made by people smarter than us? I guess we might as well just shut down the board now. It's useless anyways. :crazy:
That's why I semi-retracted the statement, but when it comes to who makes the team, the people making those decisions have so much more information and perspective from which to operate, that, yeah, you could say they're smarter than us - on these decisions. People will question these moves, but it's ignorant - and entertaining - to do so.

[MJZiggy]

Vince, isn't there a difference between questioning the moves while discussing therm and saying TT is a moron, doesn't do anything right ever should be run out of town for being an idiot and there's no way the team he fielded will be any better than 2-14.

[wist43]

In retrospect, was it a good idea to run Wahle and Walker out of town???

This stuff isn't rocket science, and no one can deny that TT has completely dismantled this team to the point where it is one of the worst teams in the league.

Now if you want to make the argument that TT is breaking down a rotted edifice, and systematically replacing it with new and improved pieces, then go ahead and make that argument - but, there can be no denying that TT has made many, many questionable moves in that process.

Wahle and Walker were both pro bowl calibur players and TT gave them short shrift... ultimately replacing them with Adrian Klemm and Rod Gardner - both of whom are now gone as well. Jennings was a very nice pick, but to just punt Walker out of town is just as inexplicable as leaving your roster barren of a blocking FB.

I'm not ready to give up on TT, but to just blindly accept everything the guy does is nothing short of dim witted. The majority of people on these boards blindly accepted everything that Sherman did - when those of us who knew Sherman was making mistake after mistake criticized him, we in turn were tarred and feathered on these sites.

As it turns out, history has proven the critics correct and Sherman wrong. Just b/c we're not on the pay roll, doesn't mean that we don't know football and what we're talking about.

[Rastak]

This is funny. Almost not worth a response, but out of fairness, I don't want to throw out an accusation without an explanation, so here goes... I apoligize ahead of time for the harshness of which I'm sure this will come across, but I don't know how to soften it.



So...we shouldn't even bother discussing it because all of the right decisions have been made by people smarter than us? I guess we might as well just shut down the board now. It's useless anyways. :crazy:
That's why I semi-retracted the statement, but when it comes to who makes the team, the people making those decisions have so much more information and perspective from which to operate, that, yeah, you could say they're smarter than us - on these decisions. People will question these moves, but it's ignorant - and entertaining - to do so.


Good call in your semi-retraction. The entire point of the forum is to question stuff....but I agree, the coaching staff has much more information than anyone on this board. Just like most media people have direct access to people (scouts and coaches) so they sometimes have more information. Of course, covering all 32 teams leaves them very thin on any specific team which makes them wrong way too often. I heard an expert on fox sports radio indicate Burleson is a deep threat and not a possesion reciever for Seattle which is pure BS.

One thing though Vince, because the coaching staff has more info doesn't always make them right, a poster here could still be correct in the analysis
because with Tivo, you can still break down the game somewhat.
Notice I said somewhat, it isn't at the nfl film level obviously.


Anyway, my two cents....

[pbmax]

I generally agree with giving T2 the benefit of the doubt, and have come to expect that we are looking at a T2 plan of 3-5 years rebuiliding, much like the Seahawks when Holmgren went there. Minus the initial playoff appearance.

But Leach was cited for whiffing on a block on one of the debilitating 3rd down failures. The fullback may be expected to catch the ball in this offense, but he is obviously expected to make key blocks as well.

By dropping the best blocker, is McCarthy saying we can't run for a first on third and short? We have to pass?

Is the threat of Vernand sufficient to make teams think pass first?

[pbmax]

And a fourth, inactive, TE (if that is the way it plays out) sounds about as important as a second string punter.

[MJZiggy]

Wist, what if before he was released, Mike Wahle went into TT's office and said, "I know you don't have the money to pay my bonus. I don't like the system here and I want to play somewhere else. I am not going to renegotiate my contract with you." What does he do then? Force him to stay? Wasn't it near the end of the contract anyway? He'd be gone by now anyway as he'd have left in FA last year.

What if a couple days before the draft (as it was reported he had done earlier in the season) JW walked into TT's office and said "No amount of money you offer me will get me to play for this team again. I will hold out and then retire."

You can think you have the better answer, but you can't guarantee me that these things did not happen. TT has more info than we do and we can't say for certain that he "ran them out of town." Reportedly neither wanted to be here and one of them was damn loud about it. Do we force JWalk to stay and have him be our Jerry Porter?

[pbmax]

I don't have a problem letting Walker go. He played his contract as bad as it could be played. He isn't Moss or TO, or even Steve Smith.

Players love to say they have outplayed their contract. They never give back money they earned while they stunk.

Wahle is tougher. T2 clearly has failed to replace him. But to sign Wahle to a new contract, or just to pay him the $6 mil would have given us another backloaded Sherman contract, a monster one, at guard. This was Wahle's third (maybe fourth) contract. He had already done a hometown discount once. He wasn't doing it again.

And let me make a Logan Mankins corollary. Neither Wahle nor Mankins have led their team to a Super Bowl. And in both cases last year, the running games suffered for both despite their presence. Wahle was even moved to tackle due to injuries along the line.

Wahle earned and was worth the $6 million. But no guard makes that kind of difference on a sub 500 team.

[wist43]

Wist, what if before he was released, Mike Wahle went into TT's office and said, "I know you don't have the money to pay my bonus. I don't like the system here and I want to play somewhere else. I am not going to renegotiate my contract with you." What does he do then? Force him to stay? Wasn't it near the end of the contract anyway? He'd be gone by now anyway as he'd have left in FA last year.

What if a couple days before the draft (as it was reported he had done earlier in the season) JW walked into TT's office and said "No amount of money you offer me will get me to play for this team again. I will hold out and then retire."

You can think you have the better answer, but you can't guarantee me that these things did not happen. TT has more info than we do and we can't say for certain that he "ran them out of town." Reportedly neither wanted to be here and one of them was damn loud about it. Do we force JWalk to stay and have him be our Jerry Porter?

Ziggy,

All we have to go on is what we hear in press conferences, interviews, and newspaper articles... from all accounts, including quotes from TT and Wahle himself, Wahle wanted to stay, but TT discounted his value and as quickly as that, Wahle was gone.

Regardless of whether a team is rebuilding or not, a primary responsibility of any GM is to acquire the best talent he can w/in the confines of the salary cap. Of course, fit w/in the scheme is certainly a consideration, but that doesn't apply in Wahle's case b/c he's simply a great football player that can fit into any blocking scheme.

What everyone concluded from that dismal episode was that TT simply wanted "his guys" in there, and really didn't seriously consider ever bringing Wahle back... He offered Wahle an insulting contract simply for the sake of being able to say "we tried"... That's BS. The contract offer was so undervalued wrt the market, that no one can say that TT was honestly trying to resign Wahle.

I'm hoping beyond all hope that TT knows what he's doing, b/c if he doesn't, that means that the Packers are going to be junk for several years to come - and then the rebuilding process will have to begin all over again under a new regime...

As I said, I'm not calling for his head, but if he keeps up these nonsensical moves, at some point you have to say enough is enough and pull the plug and start over.

[MJZiggy]

What everyone concluded from that dismal episode was that TT simply wanted "his guys" in there, and really didn't seriously consider ever bringing Wahle back... He offered Wahle an insulting contract simply for the sake of being able to say "we tried"... That's BS. The contract offer was so undervalued wrt the market, that no one can say that TT was honestly trying to resign Wahle.

I haven't seen the numbers yet on this insulting offer. I'm glad you have them as I've been wondering for a while. What did he offer?

[wist43]

Some of you people are unbelievable...

I think it was for $8 billion over 2 years... how's that for a smart ass answer???

[wist43]

Some of you people are unbelievable...

I think it was for $8 billion over 2 years... how's that for a smart ass answer???

Sorry Ziggy... just havin a very long day.

You're a good egg, and I enjoy your input - even if I may from time to time disagree with it.

[MJZiggy]

No worries....

[Fosco33]

Did anyone notice that the Saints signed a veteran FB - McIntyre recently (yesterday)? He's listed as the starter with Leach as the backup. SO, I guess we'll maybe see Poppinga vs. Leach :shock: If Poppinga can't shed Leach, he needs to be moved for Hunter/Barnett w/ Hodge going to the inside...

[KYPack]

I think Pop starts and plays against NO. If he is pathetic again, the Pack must make some kind of move.

I don't think Hodge is ready to start at any position.

That's a big problem with all these rooks. Some of 'em are a couple seasons from playing regularly. What do we do in meantime?

We need a 25 player Practice Squad.

[Fosco33]

I think Pop starts and plays against NO. If he is pathetic again, the Pack must make some kind of move.

I don't think Hodge is ready to start at any position.

That's a big problem with all these rooks. Some of 'em are a couple seasons from playing regularly. What do we do in meantime?

We need a 25 player Practice Squad.

Would you rather have?

Poppinga
Barnett
Hawk

Barnett
Hodge
Hawk

Taylor/White/Hunter
Barnett
Hawk

Taylor is the backup SAM. Hunter is behind Hodge as backup MLB.

[Terry]

It usually takes me a very long time on any forum to begin to recognize individuals in whom I take specific interest. I don't know why, maybe it's a quality that would make me a poor teacher, but I don't tend to tune in at first to who says something, but rather I focus on what is being said. Over time, however, I start to take particular note of some individuals - not that I'm not equally interested in what everyone else has to say, but just that for some reason, certain contributors make me tune in a little more closely, to hear (or read, rather) what they have to say. This can be for any number of reasons - a certain type of humour, an annoying habit, particularly well argued points, types of insights, etc... anything, really, that just catches my eye.

In this forum there are a number of such posters already, though I'm not around very long. One of these is you, Vince. I think you present your points solidly; your arguments are well reasoned; and you have a solid command of writing skills. In this case, however, I want to take you up on a couple of things.



I apoligize ahead of time for the harshness of which I'm sure this will come across, but I don't know how to soften it.

This is somewhat disingenuous, Vince, and I'm surprised you wrote it. Of course you knew how to soften it; how to make your point without punching a hole in someone. The reality is that you wanted to shred someone and you didn't know how to do it and not to do it at the same time. I'm not objecting or judging your intents - if you want to have a go at someone, hell, go ahead, but this sort of pretend elegance lead-in doesn't do you justice.



1. It is the height of the combination of ignorance and arrogance when posters presume to know more about who can help the team succeed more than those professionals who watch practice every day, scout talent for a living, coach various segments of the team, study extensive hours of film, share notes, strategize about team goals, strengths and weakness, strategies and tactics, and observe and interact with players about their roles 18 hours a day.

I only quoted your first point because the remaining points were essentially the same point repeated, with slight variation.

I have to fundamentally disagree with you here. Though it may usually turn out to be so - that is, that in practice you are correct more often than not - it just ain't necessarily so, as they say. You're not arguing that the preceding poster was incorrect - you are arguing that by definition, he must be incorrect.

In short, your argument is a slight variation on the logical fallacy known as 'Appeal to Authority'. It is fallacious as a blanket statement. On the other hand, what muddies the water is that there are many types of presentation which are recognized as 'legitimate argument from authority' and your argument also falls within that category, so it cannot be summarily dismissed.

So, let's elaborate a little with real world type examples. I will use the word 'coach' to represent all forms of professional people involved in administration, coaching, or any of the off-field areas of expertise.

For one thing, if every coach were such an expert, they would all be like Vince Lombardi. Clearly this is not so. Thus, if one, say, retired coach who had been universally recognized as a superior coach were to say that X coach is wrong about something, would it make it necessarily true? Of course not. Inversely, the same holds by those with lesser knowledge than X coach.

Another thing is that the real world is replete with examples where the layman has an idea or an insight not 'thought of' by the expert. The layman may not have the tools to know exactly 'how' to implement such and such an idea, but it does not mean that the idea is incorrect. X coach may indeed overlook certain things, fall into certain patterns of thought, or have any number of blind spots. If X coach is truly smart, he will be receptive to any and all input, as it can only assist him in improvement - and he may indeed be the very person to implement some idea presented by the amateur. Unfortunately, this is not often the case, because of the universal curse - EGO.

Quite often the amateur can see things that are overlooked by all the experts. Sometimes the amateur can pursue an idea single-mindedly and actually develop more expertise in one tiny specific area, although he/she is not at all an authority on the subject in general. Lorenzo's Oil is the perfect real life example of both those principles. On a much wider basis, but far less known, most of us can fairly quickly study up on some ailment and know as much or even more than our local GP, simply because we are NOT doctors. We need not be concerned with the broader problem of keeping up with medical advances - we only have to worry about studying one specific ailment or disease: Our's.

IMHO, the phrase "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" is one of the most mis-used aphorisms in existence. It's usually used by the expert (or their loyal adherents) to refer to the layman - actually, it is more properly applied to the 'expert'. Obviously the layman doesn't know anything - that's never the problem. The problem is always among the knowledgable, who know themselves to be 'smart' in contrast to their fellows, but so easily forget that even they know very, very little. This phrase is most often misused by the 'experts' themselves.

It is simply untrue that the layman, or the 'punter' as they are known in this part of the world, cannot observe any spectator event - a sport, a theatrical or musical event, a scientific presentation, etc - and not see things amiss or missing.

That any given X coach may know the game, the players, the tactics and strategies better than almost any fan, as you argue, is a given. Nonetheless, the observations of a fan, including the disagreements or the creative ideas, can be on the button with sufficient frequency to be significant in number, is also true. And thus, all the presentations by the fans must be given their due respect, albeit that they may fall short of X coach's thinking on the same matter 98% of the time.

Furthermore, as someone already said, this is why we have forums. Not to sit around numbly nodding or reciting the news while remaining sycophants, but to discuss, argue, grumble, work off steam, and keep oneself involved in the distraction of the beloved sport. The entire logical consequence of your argument is that such forums are ridiculous in their very existence, that we should not be sitting around puffing up our opinionated chests about sports or politics or anything else except one another - which is similar to the areas of expertise that exists in most families: they're all experts on one another.

This entire post, of course, is an expert opinion, so I trust that all you 'punters' will not be so audacious as to argue the point! :cool:

[Harlan Huckleby]

Good lord! You just spent 20 paragraphs analysing the style, motives and logic of another poster. Couldn't you just call him a dick head and be done with it?

[Rastak]

Good lord! You just spent 20 paragraphs analysing the style, motives and logic of another poster. Couldn't you just call him a dick head and be done with it?



LOL....

[Fosco33]

Here's M3's take on Vonta being a Saint...

(Vonta now is with the Saints. Do teams pump players with information?) Absolutely. He'll go visit with the defensive coordinator, everybody does it. I don't even know if there's a rule against it. It's part of the business. I never found that I won a football game because of a player that we acquired from the team before. Vonta knows the intricacies of our offense, but quite frankly there's a number of other individuals that know a lot about our offense too. I spent five years there, so those are all things that factor into the game plan. Times change, your offense changes. Faces and conceptually within what you're trying to do changes almost year to year, so I don't feel like we're at a competitive disadvantage from a schematic standpoint with Vonta there.

(The potential for being caught short at fullback?) The way I look at it, and we've spoken about this before in here, you never want to be one player away from being out of a primary concept or a primary play you have in your game plan. With that in mind, between the fullback and tight end positions, we're carrying four players, so that gives us the ability to stay with that philosophy.

[vince]

WARNING - You probably won't be interested in this post, so you may want to just skip it...


It usually takes me a very long time on any forum to begin to recognize individuals in whom I take specific interest. I don't know why, maybe it's a quality that would make me a poor teacher, but I don't tend to tune in at first to who says something, but rather I focus on what is being said. Over time, however, I start to take particular note of some individuals - not that I'm not equally interested in what everyone else has to say, but just that for some reason, certain contributors make me tune in a little more closely, to hear (or read, rather) what they have to say. This can be for any number of reasons - a certain type of humour, an annoying habit, particularly well argued points, types of insights, etc... anything, really, that just catches my eye.

In this forum there are a number of such posters already, though I'm not around very long. One of these is you, Vince. I think you present your points solidly; your arguments are well reasoned; and you have a solid command of writing skills. In this case, however, I want to take you up on a couple of things.


Terry,

I'm sorry that I've had my real life's plate full that last few days, and haven't had time to peruse the forum, but I wanted to thank you for your critique and respond to your post... It is received as I believe it was intended - respectfully and openly.

First off, in terms of having interest in certain poster's posts, thank you for that, and I would say that I also read with interest your posts. Although we often disagree (which is a good thing), our styles seem to be somewhat similar. I still chuckle occasionally over your classic "none taken." post that you may recall a few weeks back...


The reality is that you wanted to shred someone and you didn't know how to do it and not to do it at the same time. I'm not objecting or judging your intents - if you want to have a go at someone, hell, go ahead, but this sort of pretend elegance lead-in doesn't do you justice.
You are somewhat correct, (and very observant), in your assessment here. I wanted to slam a specific poster, but was concerned about the thread denigrating into personal attacks about various analyses of different players, coaches, GM's etc. My intent was to keep the debate on ideas and not have it denigrate into personal attacks...

Anyway, regarding your comments about group think, egos, etc. I appreciate your perspective here. However, I want to address some of the points you made.


You're not arguing that the preceding poster was incorrect - you are arguing that by definition, he must be incorrect.I wasn't arguing that he was necessarily incorrect at all - just that his perspective comes from a position of ignorance, yet he was unwilling or unable to see that... Two ignorant people could argue different sides of an argument and one of them would be right. What I'm saying is that NONE OF US have as much information as the GM's, scouts and coaches, and it's ignorant and arrogant of us to think we know better than them. We don't.

I could have all the information in the world about something - and be completely wrong in my conclusions about it... I could have no information about something, and get lucky in my conclusions about it. I'm still ignorant.


For one thing, if every coach were such an expert, they would all be like Vince Lombardi. Clearly this is not so.
Obviously, every coach is not like the immortal one. However, your argument doesn't apply to my logic. Football is a zero sum game. For every winner (+1) there's a loser (-1). While every coach can have more information and make better decisions for their team (in theory) than the fans..., and hence be "experts" in the art and science of football - relative to laymen - not every coach can be the best there is at any time. It's impossible. For every winner, there's a loser.

Even though the Packers may lose more games than they win, the coach (continuing with your representation of the word) may very well still be (probably IS) the preeminent expert on all personnel decisions he makes.


Another thing is that the real world is replete with examples where the layman has an idea or an insight not 'thought of' by the expert. ... all the presentations by the fans must be given their due respect, albeit that they may fall short of X coach's thinking on the same matter 98% of the time.
My focus in the post was the 98% you reference above. I do want to respect all people's perspectives, not matter how ignorant. And just to be clear, I am using the term "ignorant" - not derogatorily, but by its strict definition meaning, "uninformed." No matter how intelligent someone is, they're "ignorant" on any number of issues.


IMHO, the phrase "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" is one of the most mis-used aphorisms in existence. It's usually used by the expert (or their loyal adherents) to refer to the layman - actually, it is more properly applied to the 'expert'. Obviously the layman doesn't know anything - that's never the problem. The problem is always among the knowledgable, who know themselves to be 'smart' in contrast to their fellows, but so easily forget that even they know very, very little. This phrase is most often misused by the 'experts' themselves.
Your point is noted, but what is more dangerous is people who are uninformed, but don't recognize it. People who don't know what they don't know are, IMHO, more dangerous than the experts. BIG mistakes happen to these people, and they have no idea how they got there, or how to get out of them. I don't believe that applies to the coach here...


The entire logical consequence of your argument is that such forums are ridiculous in their very existence, that we should not be sitting around puffing up our opinionated chests about sports or politics or anything else except one another - which is similar to the areas of expertise that exists in most families: they're all experts on one another.
Terry, this is why I wanted to follow up my post with a pseudo-retraction, because I completely understand this point. However, no matter how entertaining or otherwise beneficial these boards are - and I would not argue to get rid of them, I still stand by the assertation that we are usually positioning arguments from a position of relative ignorance. We'll often be right, but we're still (relatively) ignorant... I'm OK with that, but some people don't seem to understand or accept that fact.

Remember your reference to EGO? Expert or NOT, everyone's got one.

[MJZiggy]

I love threads like this one.

[Harlan Huckleby]

And just to be clear, I am using the term "ignorant" - not derogatorily, but by its strict definition meaning, "uninformed."

Ha ha ha ha! Vince, I dare you to call your boss "ignorant".

Vince & Terry have made a love connection.

[falco]

And just to be clear, I am using the term "ignorant" - not derogatorily, but by its strict definition meaning, "uninformed."

Ha ha ha ha! Vince, I dare you to call your boss "ignorant".

Vince & Terry have made a love connection.

To be fair Harlan, its not nearly as entertaining as you and Scott's. :shock:

[Rastak]

Your point is noted, but what is more dangerous is people who are uninformed, but don't recognize it. People who don't know what they don't know are, IMHO, more dangerous than the experts. BIG mistakes happen to these people, and they have no idea how they got there, or how to get out of them.

I like those that completely lie to themselves and talk themselves into believing stuff. Tex is a classic example. He's ignorant but actually believes half the crazy stuff he says. It might be a good case study for the local pysco department.

[Scott Campbell]

I'm reminded why Todd Christianson is no longer in broadcasting.

[Fosco33]

Here's M3's take on Vonta being a Saint...

(Vonta now is with the Saints. Do teams pump players with information?) Absolutely. He'll go visit with the defensive coordinator, everybody does it. I don't even know if there's a rule against it. It's part of the business. I never found that I won a football game because of a player that we acquired from the team before. Vonta knows the intricacies of our offense, but quite frankly there's a number of other individuals that know a lot about our offense too. I spent five years there, so those are all things that factor into the game plan. Times change, your offense changes. Faces and conceptually within what you're trying to do changes almost year to year, so I don't feel like we're at a competitive disadvantage from a schematic standpoint with Vonta there.

(The potential for being caught short at fullback?) The way I look at it, and we've spoken about this before in here, you never want to be one player away from being out of a primary concept or a primary play you have in your game plan. With that in mind, between the fullback and tight end positions, we're carrying four players, so that gives us the ability to stay with that philosophy.

Well, it appears that Martin's injury is bad enough that he didn't practice today - so now they have Humphrey getting reps at FB.... ehh :crazy:

M3's Conference Notes 9/20:


(If you don't have David Martin, how big of a blow is that considering his FB work?)
We're fortunate having four tight ends. Tory Humphrey got an amount of work today, so we feel very comfortable with the depth we have at that position.

(Has David Martin done what you needed in the passing game?)
We went into this past game with the tight ends as our primary option in our passing game as far as the primary receiver. That doesn't always mean they get the football, but they had I think 14 opportunities this past week. I thought his production was very good in the passing game this past week. Really, in the Chicago game, we never got going period as an offense so we really didn't get to the things that we would have liked to then. There is a reason we have five tight ends in our building, so they are a big part of what we do.

(What's Martin's injury?)
Knee, I think he'll be okay. He did not practice today, though.