Vonta Leach a Saint?

[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.

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 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!

[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?