Moron Files: Greg Bedard

[cheesner]

If TT went out and signed veteran backups, what FAs would we have lost to other teams because some veteran took up much more salary cap than a minimum wage low round draft pick? What players would have been cut to have a roster spot for these veterans? What players would not have developed into starters if an average veteran got his reps in practice and playing time?

[mraynrand]

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.

Word has it that even Cleft has some pride. He'll work for 63 cents/hour, but not for a fourth rate web page that doesn't even have a working homepage, the capacity to draw in new people from searches, or make it reasonably easy for them to register.

[mission]

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.

Word has it that even Cleft has some pride. He'll work for 63 cents/hour, but not for a fourth rate web page that doesn't even have a working homepage, the capacity to draw in new people from searches, or make it reasonably easy for them to register.

Cleft is that you?

[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?

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.

Just to finish this thought (though I also misunderstood Lurker's question):

Arizona definitely qualifies, but Cleveland (Hillis), NO (Bush), Oak (Bush) and the Giants (I'll say Bradshaw backs up the injured Jacobs) I think struggle with #2 more than the Pack with Jackson. Baltimore, I am not sure about McGahee.

But I don't like New England's backs over Jackson if Maroney goes down, though Faulk might be one of the best 3rd down backs of his era and while I like both Miami's options, both are very quickly approaching mediocre and the gap would be small.

[packerbacker1234]

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.

Um, no, we had a horrible stable of RB's to start the season. It was Grant and no one else - don't fool yourself. There is a reason we are one of the few teams left in the NFL that is a primarily single back team, even though our main back isn't an elite rb like AP or Chris Johnson. It's because we DON'T have anyone else that is even close to how good Grant is.

BJack was far from a good piece to have in a "stable" system and he showed that today against a BAD team. Kuhn started getting the call more because they naturally felt he was more effective, even if he is a straight north and south runner with zero speed. Bottom line is, we did not have a stable amount of RB's, because since grant got here he had never been hurt, so we didn't need to worry about it.

After grant, this game showed we have no one. A good table of RB's would be like the bears (chester taylor, and "you know who") or like the jets (shonne green and LT) or hell, the cardinals and texans. All teams that have multiple backs that can take the load if need be and be pretty effective. In GB, it was Grant... and then nothing. There was always the small hope that Jackson would stop looking like he has since he got here, but he hasn't changed.

Point is, RB is a weak position on this roster not just due to bad luck (losing grant), but due to TT not thinking it was a position to worry about. Last year he felt differently. He brought in Green half way through the year - and you know why? Because the people behind grant were non-factors. End of story.

We have a promising rookie, sure, but he starts his career on the pup list. That's not really a promising start in my book. Justin Harrell anyone?


I don't hate TT, but we are pretty weak in several areas if we lose one guy. We sort of knew about CB and I don't fault him for that, you can only do what you do and hope the young guys step up (shields obviously was the one to step up. Looked great today), but in week one look at the DL problem. We had to run nickle due to not having enough DL to field a base defense for more than a play or two after ONE major injury. What about if Matthews goes down? Do we even have anyone who could remotely replace him? Hell, we don't have anyone who could replace Brad Jones honestly. MLB has depth (much to Hawk's chagrin). Every team has a weakness if they lose someone, of course.

It's just ironic, because a good backup to Grant has been an issue for 2 to 3 seasons now,a dn this year specifically there were a couple vets (still are a couple vets) who you would think are at least worth looking at for depth.

[Guiness]

NYJ - LT/Greene

A bit of love by you and pbmax for LT. I haven't seen him, or heard anything from the Jets camp. Does he appear to have something left? I got the impression he dropped off the end of the table like a pool ball, a la Sean Alexander.

[mission]

NYJ - LT/Greene

A bit of love by you and pbmax for LT. I haven't seen him, or heard anything from the Jets camp. Does he appear to have something left? I got the impression he dropped off the end of the table like a pool ball, a la Sean Alexander.

LT?? He's looked great. Better than Greene 4x.

Makes you think he was dogging it a bit in SD at the end.

[Guiness]

Speaking of Jolly here - did we ever learn any more about the reasons for his suspension?

I don't think I've ever seen someone dealt with that harshly when they don't even have a conviction. It was opinionated that maybe he was already in the drug program and violated it?

Must've been double secret probation.

[pbmax]

Speaking of Jolly here - did we ever learn any more about the reasons for his suspension?

I don't think I've ever seen someone dealt with that harshly when they don't even have a conviction. It was opinionated that maybe he was already in the drug program and violated it?

Must've been double secret probation.

The prevailing theory among those that cover the team is that Jolly had pending positive tests from the NFL's program. Then there was the kerfluffle over the terms of his probation in Texas and that Nightclub ad plus pictures of him out partying. Some combo of the two sent him past a 4-8 game suspension to a year. It was under the Drug Policy and not the Personal Conduct Policy that he was sanctioned.

[pbmax]

NYJ - LT/Greene

A bit of love by you and pbmax for LT. I haven't seen him, or heard anything from the Jets camp. Does he appear to have something left? I got the impression he dropped off the end of the table like a pool ball, a la Sean Alexander.

mission is right. LdT looked great against the Pats. And ran better than Greene versus the Ravens.

[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.

Um, no, we had a horrible stable of RB's to start the season. It was Grant and no one else - don't fool yourself. There is a reason we are one of the few teams left in the NFL that is a primarily single back team, even though our main back isn't an elite rb like AP or Chris Johnson. It's because we DON'T have anyone else that is even close to how good Grant is.

BJack was far from a good piece to have in a "stable" system and he showed that today against a BAD team. Kuhn started getting the call more because they naturally felt he was more effective, even if he is a straight north and south runner with zero speed. Bottom line is, we did not have a stable amount of RB's, because since grant got here he had never been hurt, so we didn't need to worry about it.

After grant, this game showed we have no one. A good table of RB's would be like the bears (chester taylor, and "you know who") or like the jets (shonne green and LT) or hell, the cardinals and texans. All teams that have multiple backs that can take the load if need be and be pretty effective. In GB, it was Grant... and then nothing. There was always the small hope that Jackson would stop looking like he has since he got here, but he hasn't changed.

Point is, RB is a weak position on this roster not just due to bad luck (losing grant), but due to TT not thinking it was a position to worry about. Last year he felt differently. He brought in Green half way through the year - and you know why? Because the people behind grant were non-factors. End of story.

We have a promising rookie, sure, but he starts his career on the pup list. That's not really a promising start in my book. Justin Harrell anyone?


I don't hate TT, but we are pretty weak in several areas if we lose one guy. We sort of knew about CB and I don't fault him for that, you can only do what you do and hope the young guys step up (shields obviously was the one to step up. Looked great today), but in week one look at the DL problem. We had to run nickle due to not having enough DL to field a base defense for more than a play or two after ONE major injury. What about if Matthews goes down? Do we even have anyone who could remotely replace him? Hell, we don't have anyone who could replace Brad Jones honestly. MLB has depth (much to Hawk's chagrin). Every team has a weakness if they lose someone, of course.

It's just ironic, because a good backup to Grant has been an issue for 2 to 3 seasons now,a dn this year specifically there were a couple vets (still are a couple vets) who you would think are at least worth looking at for depth.

I can't tell you how strongly I disagree with you. Jackson is a perfect 3rd down back. Kuhn is just fine as a fill in for a 3rd back. Starks shows a lot of promise and will be back in week 7.

there is NOTHING wrong with the depth at RB. You can't have two Ryan Grants unless you're in Carolina.

I do dislike Ted Thompson, and even I can't fault the situation at RB.

[mission]

Reggie Bush is a perfect 3rd down back. LT is a perfect 3rd down back. Jahvid Best is a perfect 3rd down back.

Brandon Jackson is a pretty decent 3rd down back IMO.

[Guiness]

Speaking of Jolly here - did we ever learn any more about the reasons for his suspension?

I don't think I've ever seen someone dealt with that harshly when they don't even have a conviction. It was opinionated that maybe he was already in the drug program and violated it?

Must've been double secret probation.

The prevailing theory among those that cover the team is that Jolly had pending positive tests from the NFL's program. Then there was the kerfluffle over the terms of his probation in Texas and that Nightclub ad plus pictures of him out partying. Some combo of the two sent him past a 4-8 game suspension to a year. It was under the Drug Policy and not the Personal Conduct Policy that he was sanctioned.

You answered my main question though - it's a theory. We usually find out the reason behind suspensions when they happen, don't we?

The probation and the nightclub ad would fall under the conduct policy, I would think. It's possible they took those transgressions into consideration when handing out the drug policy suspension.

[pbmax]

Speaking of Jolly here - did we ever learn any more about the reasons for his suspension?

I don't think I've ever seen someone dealt with that harshly when they don't even have a conviction. It was opinionated that maybe he was already in the drug program and violated it?

Must've been double secret probation.

The prevailing theory among those that cover the team is that Jolly had pending positive tests from the NFL's program. Then there was the kerfluffle over the terms of his probation in Texas and that Nightclub ad plus pictures of him out partying. Some combo of the two sent him past a 4-8 game suspension to a year. It was under the Drug Policy and not the Personal Conduct Policy that he was sanctioned.

You answered my main question though - it's a theory. We usually find out the reason behind suspensions when they happen, don't we?

The probation and the nightclub ad would fall under the conduct policy, I would think. It's possible they took those transgressions into consideration when handing out the drug policy suspension.

I suppose we do, but if its the Drug Policy, it can be dependent on the player releasing the info or confirming. While the info leaks at times, if the program works as designed, the player can choose to make it public. Really, all we don't know is when and how many he failed. We do know it was the drug policy.

I don't know if they can combine the probation thing under Personal Conduct with a Drug and Alcohol policy action. I do remember PFT saying that once the Drug/Alcohol policy is involved, it controls that incident. Not sure about subsequent incidents. But there must be some wiggle room, as I think Donte Stallworth was sanctioned under the Conduct policy despite the fact that he had been drinking.

[Bossman641]

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.

Um, no, we had a horrible stable of RB's to start the season. It was Grant and no one else - don't fool yourself. There is a reason we are one of the few teams left in the NFL that is a primarily single back team, even though our main back isn't an elite rb like AP or Chris Johnson. It's because we DON'T have anyone else that is even close to how good Grant is.

BJack was far from a good piece to have in a "stable" system and he showed that today against a BAD team. Kuhn started getting the call more because they naturally felt he was more effective, even if he is a straight north and south runner with zero speed. Bottom line is, we did not have a stable amount of RB's, because since grant got here he had never been hurt, so we didn't need to worry about it.

After grant, this game showed we have no one. A good table of RB's would be like the bears (chester taylor, and "you know who") or like the jets (shonne green and LT) or hell, the cardinals and texans. All teams that have multiple backs that can take the load if need be and be pretty effective. In GB, it was Grant... and then nothing. There was always the small hope that Jackson would stop looking like he has since he got here, but he hasn't changed.

Point is, RB is a weak position on this roster not just due to bad luck (losing grant), but due to TT not thinking it was a position to worry about. Last year he felt differently. He brought in Green half way through the year - and you know why? Because the people behind grant were non-factors. End of story.

We have a promising rookie, sure, but he starts his career on the pup list. That's not really a promising start in my book. Justin Harrell anyone?


I don't hate TT, but we are pretty weak in several areas if we lose one guy. We sort of knew about CB and I don't fault him for that, you can only do what you do and hope the young guys step up (shields obviously was the one to step up. Looked great today), but in week one look at the DL problem. We had to run nickle due to not having enough DL to field a base defense for more than a play or two after ONE major injury. What about if Matthews goes down? Do we even have anyone who could remotely replace him? Hell, we don't have anyone who could replace Brad Jones honestly. MLB has depth (much to Hawk's chagrin). Every team has a weakness if they lose someone, of course.

It's just ironic, because a good backup to Grant has been an issue for 2 to 3 seasons now,a dn this year specifically there were a couple vets (still are a couple vets) who you would think are at least worth looking at for depth.

I can't tell you how strongly I disagree with you. Jackson is a perfect 3rd down back. Kuhn is just fine as a fill in for a 3rd back. Starks shows a lot of promise and will be back in week 7.

there is NOTHING wrong with the depth at RB. You can't have two Ryan Grants unless you're in Carolina.

I do dislike Ted Thompson, and even I can't fault the situation at RB.

Do you really think we can count on Starks? Won't it have been almost 2 years since he played in a game?

I'm not planning on getting anything from Starks this year.