Moron Files: Greg Bedard

[pbmax]

JSO Blog - Greg Bedard - Sept 19, 2010 accessed 8:19 PM CDT

3. No major injuries: Let's face it, the Eagles and Bills haven't exactly been elite teams the first few weeks. Packers had two season-ending injuries in Week 1 (Ryan Grant, Justin Harrell); none today. Health will be a key factor for this team this year. Probably moreso than for other teams because of the way Ted Thompson constructs his teams.

I think this may be a demonstrably false statement. Bedard is taking another dig at Thompson's preference not to fill roster depth with veterans.

But a team of younger starters and key backups is less likely to get injured in the first place. The best indicator of potential injuries is probably past injuries (not definitive, but I would bet it has the highest correlation). And while Bedard worships at the alter of the veteran backup, they are always limited and can be exposed over time with film study. They are also more likely to be available because of an injury history.

Younger players would more likely be exposed early (Shields and Burnett) and learn from their mistakes.

There is no single right way to build a team. But Bedard seems to believe that Thompson's approach is a combination of fetish and tarot card reading. I wish he would stop drawing conclusions in the face of his continued inability to understand the approach.

[retailguy]

Bitching about a RB is a really bad way to talk about his point. We had a good stable of backs to start the season, plus we have a promising rookie on PUP.

No reason to panic.

But Bedard's point is not wrong, necessarily. When you don't bring in experienced players your choices are to play shorthanded or to have someone step up. Ted isn't seeking some retread free agent. So, no injuries makes it less risky, and more predictable.

There are several areas of this team where the backups don't have much experience, and a couple where the backup depth is more than suspect. Another injury at corner, and this team could be in trouble. Do you really think that Ted would make a trade or find a veteran?

I think that Sam Shields would be on PFT with toast for hands, before either of those things would happen.

But again, his example is retarded. RB is a very solid area of this team. You can't lose a starting RB and have it not hurt, and you can't go acquire a starting RB in week 2. (Marshawn Lynch is NOT a starting RB.)

[mraynrand]

Re: Moron Files: Greg Bedard

JSO Blog - Greg Bedard - Sept 19, 2010 accessed 8:19 PM CDT

3. No major injuries: Let's face it, the Eagles and Bills haven't exactly been elite teams the first few weeks. Packers had two season-ending injuries in Week 1 (Ryan Grant, Justin Harrell); none today. Health will be a key factor for this team this year. Probably moreso than for other teams because of the way Ted Thompson constructs his teams.

I think this may be a demonstrably false statement. Bedard is taking another dig at Thompson's preference not to fill roster depth with veterans.

But a team of younger starters and key backups is less likely to get injured in the first place. The best indicator of potential injuries is probably past injuries (not definitive, but I would bet it has the highest correlation). And while Bedard worships at the alter of the veteran backup, they are always limited and can be exposed over time with film study. They are also more likely to be available because of an injury history.

Younger players would more likely be exposed early (Shields and Burnett) and learn from their mistakes.

There is no single right way to build a team. But Bedard seems to believe that Thompson's approach is a combination of fetish and tarot card reading. I wish he would stop drawing conclusions in the face of his continued inability to understand the approach.

It's just flat out stupid. No team in the NFL can survive extensive injuries. But different teams just have different depth. Packers can better withstand injury at fullback or defensive tackle, Bills can withstand losing a running back. But no team can lose quality starter(s) plural - Recall the '96 Packers scraping by for a stretch playing without Brooks, Freeman, and Chmura. They looked like crap for about five weeks, and were saved by getting Rison and getting Freeman and Chmura back on the field. NO NFL TEAM has anything CLOSE to a 'second team.' Lose a few guys and you are shit out of luck. Packers were lucky that Harrell is a back up and that Grant is not a absolutely essential cog of their offense. Bedard should know better. He should be ashamed of himself.

[RashanGary]

I agree it's stupid. The Packers are one of the best teams in the NFL. If they don't win the SB this year, they're poised to have many chances. Injuries happen and hurt every team who has them, no matter how they build their team. The Vikings do exactly what Bedard wants Ted to do and they're hurt badly by injuries right now. It's just a reality of the game. Only 1 team wins the SB and it's always a healthy team that does it.

[Lurker64]

Thought experiment time.

If they lost their #1 running back for the season, how many teams in the NFL would be better off than the Packers sans Ryan Grant?

[ThunderDan]

Considering that GBP leads the league in cuts getting picked up by other teams it seems to show that we have pretty talented backups. When guys who can't even make your team play somewhere else that tends to be a very strong message about the team you are building.

[HowardRoark]

Speaking of shameful, is Cleft dropping the ball this year? What happened to his post game insights?

If he happened to die from a drug reaction or prescription mistake, then may he rest in peace.

[Patler]

Bedard's comment is wrong, flat out wrong.

Did TT really short a position? Not really.
Does Bedard expect the team to have no rookies? If they are to have rookies, guess what? There will be some positions with inexperienced backups.

Lets look at the roster as originally constructed.

QB - Flynn is in his third year. He might be inexperienced in game time play, but is now at the stage where he should be ready to play and play well. ABout as solid for a QB backup as you can hope for.

RB/FB - Very experienced. Heck, Jackson is reaching middle age for an NFL back. People may have questioned the FB/RB mix, but how many elite backs are out there, and who would be available?

WR - Exceptionally experienced backups in Jones and Nelson. Really couldn't ask for better depth.

TE - Lee is ideal for a #2, very experienced, decent player, good on ST. A perfect influence for the young #3 and #4 TE, who both show promise.

OL - a combination of experience and youth, but what's wrong with having your first round draft pick as a backup? Spitz is extremely experienced at two positions. Lang had enough playing time last year to be over the wide-eyed impression, which he never had anyway. Solid backs in those three. Beyond that, you can't really plan anyway.

DL- perhaps the one area that is too inexperienced, but I really think they expected Jolly would be lost for 3 games at most. If Jolly were there, the experience/youth blend would have been about right.

LB - Barnett, Hawk, Chiller, Bishop, Poppinga all very experienced. Mathews, ya, his inexperience is really killing him! Brad Jones has 1/4 of a season as a starter under his belt. Your 8th LB is a rookie, but again, you have to have some rookies, right?

CB - w/o Harris it is a bit of a problem, with Harris, it looks a lot different.

Safety - lots of experience there, just so happens that a rookie deserves to start right now.

For those who complain about not drafting a corner, how would you feel without Bulaga right now if Clifton isn't right? With Jolly suspended, Grant lost for the year and Bigby out, the value of the Neal, Burnett and Starks picks speak for themselves, even if Neal and Starks have yet to play.

Every team has depth problems somewhere, but having nonstarters like Flynn, Spitz, Lang, Bulaga, Jones, Nelson, Lee, Kuhn, Neal, Chiller, Williams/Harris, Bigby/Burnett, Peprah and Martin is a bit of a luxury, really. Lots of teams do not have that much quality on their bench.

[pbmax]

There are several areas of this team where the backups don't have much experience, and a couple where the backup depth is more than suspect. Another injury at corner, and this team could be in trouble. Do you really think that Ted would make a trade or find a veteran?

Nope, I am not saying he would change his approach. But as always, Bedard makes it sound like no one on this team has ever played for another team before, mimicking McGinn's throwaway line. The difference in approach amounts to about 5 players on the 53. That is not much given how many picks he stockpiled in his first three drafts.

But Bedard and other Thompson critics never seem to recall when a veteran signing fails. Say Cliff Christl's favorite CB Michael Hawthorne or Hardy Nickerson. Everyone thinks a vet backup is a sure thing because if you luck out, you never find out they have nothing left. Everyone expects young players to struggle and by the same token, for all vets to be able to compensate for injuries or diminished skills. Every year those same stories are written like they are prophecies from the Oracle of Delphi. Everyone forgets when the vet is completely finished.

Some parts of the roster are always under construction for the year. The question isn't depth, all teams have holes. The question is whether a vet with limitations is better than a largely untested young player. In the case of Left Tackle this year compared to last, the young player approach looks to be working better (not an entirely fair comparison since Bulaga is a #1 pick, but the vet he replaced at backup (Colledge) was a 2nd rounder.

It depends on the player, not on the back of their trading card.

[pbmax]

Thought experiment time.

If they lost their #1 running back for the season, how many teams in the NFL would be better off than the Packers sans Ryan Grant?

Dallas with Jones and Choice. Perhaps.
Redskins have Larry Johnson to replace Portis and the Jets have LdT to replace Greene but these guys have a lot of wear on their tires.
Miami has Brown/Williams.

Any others?

[superfan]

Thought experiment time.

If they lost their #1 running back for the season, how many teams in the NFL would be better off than the Packers sans Ryan Grant?

Quite a few actually. While BJack is a decent backup, the current running back by committee fad means a bunch of teams could manage with the loss of the primary RB. Just off the top of my head:

Buffalo - Jackson/Spiller/Lynch
NE - F. Taylor/Morris/K. Faulk
NYJ - LT/Greene
Mia - Ronnie/Ricky

That's the entire AFC East.

Ari - Wells/Hightower
Cle - Harrison/Hillis
NO - Thomas/Bush
Oak - McFadden/Bush
NYG - Bradshaw/Jacobs
Balt - Rice/McGahee

etc. Not a lot of separation between 1 and 1a on these teams.

In fact, the only teams that might be worse off than GB with an injured starting RB are the teams with true RB studs and a steep dropoff to the backup: Peterson, C Johnson, MJD, Gore, S. Jackson.

[Lurker64]

I think you're misconstruing my question. The question is not "who is better at running back than Green Bay without Grant if their #1 goes down" it was intended as "who is better as a team if their #1 running back goes down", and that list is not particularly long.

Buffalo would not be a better team than Green Bay no matter how many running back injuries occur in the NFL.

[mission]

3. Mindset: This team is developing a bad habit of playing down to the level of their opponent. You would have thought the Tampa game would have stopped that, but it apparently hasn't. They better be ready to play a full 60 minutes in Chicago. The Bears certainly will.

Uh..... where do I start with this one?

Did we not just win 34-7?

Winning in PHI for the first time in 300 years?

Since when were the Bears SB contenders? Didn't they basically lose to the Lions last week?

Bedard is such a clown.

[superfan]

Speaking of shameful, is Cleft dropping the ball this year? What happened to his post game insights?

If he happened to die from a drug reaction or prescription mistake, then may he rest in peace.

Bump. Should we organize a search party?

[superfan]

I think you're misconstruing my question. The question is not "who is better at running back than Green Bay without Grant if their #1 goes down" it was intended as "who is better as a team if their #1 running back goes down", and that list is not particularly long.

Buffalo would not be a better team than Green Bay no matter how many running back injuries occur in the NFL.

Thanks for the clarification. Agree, that would be a short list.