Hamlin signs with cowboys

[Patler]

Re: Manuel

As far as our difference of opinion on Manuel, I prefer to deal in FACT and what my eyes have seen. When debating a point, it does help one to have facts on their side as compared to opinion. Then again, if some people incorperated facts into their arguements, I'd have ANOTHER heart attack!(note: comment not directed at you).

I read virtually everything on the net from former players who are now analysts to everything that's said in the ESPN chats. Yes, some of them are idiots but not all. I have never read a negative on Hamlin's character or play on the field. In fact, EVERYTHING I've read states Hamlin is a very good saftey with above avg cover skills. Now I could post everything that the "experts" have said about Hamlin but think that would be reduntant. I would rather challenge the nay-sayers to post all the negatives stated about him.

As for his injury, he suffered head trauma so your point about the injury factor not having to do with teams shying away from him is wrong. He has a concussion risk associated with him. This was on ESPN and also in a Seattle newspaper posted on the ESPN local newspaper site.

Now as far as the "young guys" go, that is subjective to opinion since there is NOTHING to go on in their NFL playing history. They might turn out great or they might turn out busts. Now since we already have one saftey with question marks (Collins), I prefer to have someone with QUALITY PROVEN NFL PLAYING EXPERIENCE at the other position. May-be it does'nt bother you to watch oppossing WR's running wild in our secondary but it bugs the hell outta me! When it comes to our saftey pass coverage from 2006, ANY grass is greener on the other side. Again, not my opinion but FACT! Re-run the tape my friend. As painfull as it is to watch, it speaks volumes.

As for your point about Thompson, I am not one (contrary to popular opinion) to criticize his every move. He deserves credit for signing Woodson, helping to free up cap space (even if it is'nt used) and re-signing Kampman and Jenkins to name a few. However, he has made his share of mistakes and while batting .500 in baseball is astounding, it does'nt quite cut it for an NFL GM.

Last but not least, my opinions here are well documentated and for the most part more times than not, end up being correct. I was one of the few who argued with the Favre bashers after the 2005 season that he still had some gas in the tank and his 2006 season was proof of that. I argued with almost everyone here that Walker would recover from his injury ahead of time and was right about that. I also argued with almost everyone here that he would not only play but produce. I believe the #'s he posted with a terrible QB and then with a rookie QB were quite an accomplishment. I said he was still a blue chip WR and most experts share that opinion. Finally, when the debate was raging about which coach to hire, I was all over Payton and the guy ends up being HC of the year. These are just a few examples. I believe my record speaks for itself............

Being a bit defensive, perhaps??

You comments about Hamlin don't follow. First you wrote:

Hamlin is a good player. The only reason he did'nt get the big contract is because he did suffer a very serious head injury. Signing a 1 year contract is the same as Johnson. Prove your health and then collect a big check.

Now you write:

As for his injury, he suffered head trauma so your point about the injury factor not having to do with teams shying away from him is wrong. He has a concussion risk associated with him. This was on ESPN and also in a Seattle newspaper posted on the ESPN local newspaper site.

On the one hand you suggest his low contract was a one year thing as he recovered from injury to "then collect a big check." But he already had his year to prove that, and he did not collect. Your second post more accurate identifies the real problem...he will be a concussion risk for the rest of his playing days and may never see a big money, long term contract. In fact, an article out of Seattle at the end of the year indicated the team would let him leave because although his numbers were good, he was not the same player, didn't tackle the same as before etc. As I recall, it was touch and go with him for a day or two as to if he would live after his injury. I'm not sure he is a good investment.

It's easy to just blame Manual everytime you saw him trailing a play, and it is easy to fault the safeties when plays go long. Not all were his fault. Against the Bears, Harris admitted that the long one seemingly surrendered by Manual was actually his fault. Another toward the end of the year was clearly on someone else, maybe Harris, because Harris dropped coverage to pick up no one, after completely missing the guy when he tried to hold him up on his release off the line. Manual scrambled to get to the guy Harris released, but couldn't. Again, Manual looks to be the culprit, but likely was not. Several times linebackers released guys outside,when clearly they should have forced them inside toward the coverage picking them up.

I'm not a big fan of Manuals by any means, but there was more wrong in the pass coverage last years then just one safety. If they get it worked out, they guys they have may be fine. If they don't get it worked out, it won't matter who is back there, be it Mark Roman, Marquand Manual or someone else. It looked the same as the 2004 backfield coached by Schottenheimer and Washington, but the only hold-over player from 2004 was Harris. Three new players, same result.

I argued after 2004 that Roman was not as bad as it seemed, and I think he showed that in 2005 (not that he was great by any means). Similarly, Manual is not as bad as he was made to look at times last year.

[retailguy]

The acid test for TT comes on the opening day of the regular season. If Manual trots out as a starting safety, there will be hell to pay.

Perhaps. The sad thing is it will be impossible to do anything about it at that point. For 2007 anyhow.

[vince]

Re: Manuel

I was one of the few who argued with the Favre bashers after the 2005 season that he still had some gas in the tank and his 2006 season was proof of that. I argued with almost everyone here that Walker would recover from his injury ahead of time and was right about that. I also argued with almost everyone here that he would not only play but produce. I believe the #'s he posted with a terrible QB and then with a rookie QB were quite an accomplishment. I said he was still a blue chip WR and most experts share that opinion. Finally, when the debate was raging about which coach to hire, I was all over Payton and the guy ends up being HC of the year. These are just a few examples. I believe my record speaks for itself............

You and Arrigo are the Packer-world finalists for the "throw enough shit against the wall, something's bound to stick" award. The only difference is that Arrigo just throws shit about future transactions. You throw shit about anything and everything, but it's always shit.

You sure were right when you ranted about how TT ran Favre into retirement because of the direction he's taken the team, weren't you? Oh yeah, Favre decided to come back for another year, BECAUSE HE"S EXCITED ABOUT THE DIRECTION OF THIS TEAM.

Remember that one, nut?

Then you completely miss the point about the entire Walker situation, seemingly understanding nothing whatsoever about the team concept and the future problems that giving in to the ridiculous selfish tactics he employed would have on the rest of the team.

You consistently state your opinions as "FACT"s, apparently not understanding what a fact is, and denigrate anyone who could possibly disagree with you - actually believing in your mind that you possess the end-all be-all self-righteous, holy goddessness of opinions on all things Packers.

Give us all a break, nut - please. Your self righteous schpeal has worn out.

[Patler]

Re: Manuel

Last but not least, my opinions here are well documentated and for the most part more times than not, end up being correct. I was one of the few who argued with the Favre bashers after the 2005 season that he still had some gas in the tank and his 2006 season was proof of that.

Vince's reply reminded me that I wanted to check this statement, because I didn't remember a big difference between Favre '05 and Favre '06. Other than ints., he was the same QB in '06 as he was in '05.

'05/ '06

attempts - 607/613
completions - 372/343
yards - 3881/3885
TDs - 20/18
Ints. - 18/29

What did he really prove in '06 that wasn't shown in '05?
Nothing. Fewer interceptions, but a significant drop in completion %.

So what insight did you give us? That Favre was the same in '06 as in '05?

Quite frankly, his inconsistent accuracy last year worries me a little. He was often late or behind receivers on routes that were his bread and butter throws for years. I think it was Marino (maybe Simms) who said the first thing that goes is accuracy, and it happens most in the off-season. You pick up the ball in the fall, and suddenly it won't go where it is supposed to, and it never comes back I am anxious to see if this happens to Favre. I hope not yet..

[MJZiggy]

I thought the first thing to go was the legs??

[esoxx]

The acid test for TT comes on the opening day of the regular season. If Manual trots out as a starting safety, there will be hell to pay.

Perhaps. The sad thing is it will be impossible to do anything about it at that point. For 2007 anyhow.

True. However, I feel if Manual does indeed start and the Packers stagger about and finish south of .500, TT's honeymoon is over and things will get ugly in Packerland.

It's one thing to put stumblebums like Klemm & Whittacker at guard and call them "starters." He got a mulligan for that and no one really knew how they would perform.

But we know how Manual performs, and he won't get a mulligan this time around.

[Packnut]

Re: Manuel

As far as our difference of opinion on Manuel, I prefer to deal in FACT and what my eyes have seen. When debating a point, it does help one to have facts on their side as compared to opinion. Then again, if some people incorperated facts into their arguements, I'd have ANOTHER heart attack!(note: comment not directed at you).

I read virtually everything on the net from former players who are now analysts to everything that's said in the ESPN chats. Yes, some of them are idiots but not all. I have never read a negative on Hamlin's character or play on the field. In fact, EVERYTHING I've read states Hamlin is a very good saftey with above avg cover skills. Now I could post everything that the "experts" have said about Hamlin but think that would be reduntant. I would rather challenge the nay-sayers to post all the negatives stated about him.

As for his injury, he suffered head trauma so your point about the injury factor not having to do with teams shying away from him is wrong. He has a concussion risk associated with him. This was on ESPN and also in a Seattle newspaper posted on the ESPN local newspaper site.

Now as far as the "young guys" go, that is subjective to opinion since there is NOTHING to go on in their NFL playing history. They might turn out great or they might turn out busts. Now since we already have one saftey with question marks (Collins), I prefer to have someone with QUALITY PROVEN NFL PLAYING EXPERIENCE at the other position. May-be it does'nt bother you to watch oppossing WR's running wild in our secondary but it bugs the hell outta me! When it comes to our saftey pass coverage from 2006, ANY grass is greener on the other side. Again, not my opinion but FACT! Re-run the tape my friend. As painfull as it is to watch, it speaks volumes.

As for your point about Thompson, I am not one (contrary to popular opinion) to criticize his every move. He deserves credit for signing Woodson, helping to free up cap space (even if it is'nt used) and re-signing Kampman and Jenkins to name a few. However, he has made his share of mistakes and while batting .500 in baseball is astounding, it does'nt quite cut it for an NFL GM.

Last but not least, my opinions here are well documentated and for the most part more times than not, end up being correct. I was one of the few who argued with the Favre bashers after the 2005 season that he still had some gas in the tank and his 2006 season was proof of that. I argued with almost everyone here that Walker would recover from his injury ahead of time and was right about that. I also argued with almost everyone here that he would not only play but produce. I believe the #'s he posted with a terrible QB and then with a rookie QB were quite an accomplishment. I said he was still a blue chip WR and most experts share that opinion. Finally, when the debate was raging about which coach to hire, I was all over Payton and the guy ends up being HC of the year. These are just a few examples. I believe my record speaks for itself............

Being a bit defensive, perhaps??

You comments about Hamlin don't follow. First you wrote:

Hamlin is a good player. The only reason he did'nt get the big contract is because he did suffer a very serious head injury. Signing a 1 year contract is the same as Johnson. Prove your health and then collect a big check.

Now you write:

As for his injury, he suffered head trauma so your point about the injury factor not having to do with teams shying away from him is wrong. He has a concussion risk associated with him. This was on ESPN and also in a Seattle newspaper posted on the ESPN local newspaper site.

On the one hand you suggest his low contract was a one year thing as he recovered from injury to "then collect a big check." But he already had his year to prove that, and he did not collect. Your second post more accurate identifies the real problem...he will be a concussion risk for the rest of his playing days and may never see a big money, long term contract. In fact, an article out of Seattle at the end of the year indicated the team would let him leave because although his numbers were good, he was not the same player, didn't tackle the same as before etc. As I recall, it was touch and go with him for a day or two as to if he would live after his injury. I'm not sure he is a good investment.

It's easy to just blame Manual everytime you saw him trailing a play, and it is easy to fault the safeties when plays go long. Not all were his fault. Against the Bears, Harris admitted that the long one seemingly surrendered by Manual was actually his fault. Another toward the end of the year was clearly on someone else, maybe Harris, because Harris dropped coverage to pick up no one, after completely missing the guy when he tried to hold him up on his release off the line. Manual scrambled to get to the guy Harris released, but couldn't. Again, Manual looks to be the culprit, but likely was not. Several times linebackers released guys outside,when clearly they should have forced them inside toward the coverage picking them up.

I'm not a big fan of Manuals by any means, but there was more wrong in the pass coverage last years then just one safety. If they get it worked out, they guys they have may be fine. If they don't get it worked out, it won't matter who is back there, be it Mark Roman, Marquand Manual or someone else. It looked the same as the 2004 backfield coached by Schottenheimer and Washington, but the only hold-over player from 2004 was Harris. Three new players, same result.

I argued after 2004 that Roman was not as bad as it seemed, and I think he showed that in 2005 (not that he was great by any means). Similarly, Manual is not as bad as he was made to look at times last year.

Not being defensive at all. Just stating my position for the record so that at some point in time we can re-visit. As far as Hamlin, when it comes to a concussion risk, one season of proof ain't gonna cut it. I thought this is fairly obvious but I guess it's not to everyone. Most teams view head injuries much different than say a torn ACL. I never disputed the severity of his injury or the fact that he is high risk. However, a one year contract takes the risk away imo.

Now onto Mr Manuel and your defense of him. Do you remember all the glowing reports from Teddy right after he signed Manuel? Let me refresh your memory. "FIELD GENERAL" was used by Mr Thompson several times. Manuel's strength according to Teddy was to make everyone be in the right place and be assignment sure. That did not happen. This is FACT my friend-not my opinion. Now, please don't tell me Manuel did'nt have a big problem with biting on play action several times last season cause if you did, you'd be lying.

May I also refresh your memory about a certain little article which I believe was from either JSO or Packernews.com about the "friction" in the Packer secondary and the inuendo was that Harris and Woodson did'nt care for Manuel.

If that ain't enough, then for goodness sake let's just use our God given ability to judge his play on what we actually saw last season. Manuel is SLOW. It's that simple. He always seemed to be a step late. To be honest, I am stunned that you would defend his play at all. Your better than that.

[Packnut]

Re: Manuel

Last but not least, my opinions here are well documentated and for the most part more times than not, end up being correct. I was one of the few who argued with the Favre bashers after the 2005 season that he still had some gas in the tank and his 2006 season was proof of that.

Vince's reply reminded me that I wanted to check this statement, because I didn't remember a big difference between Favre '05 and Favre '06. Other than ints., he was the same QB in '06 as he was in '05.

'05/ '06

attempts - 607/613
completions - 372/343
yards - 3881/3885
TDs - 20/18
Ints. - 18/29

What did he really prove in '06 that wasn't shown in '05?
Nothing. Fewer interceptions, but a significant drop in completion %.

So what insight did you give us? That Favre was the same in '06 as in '05?

Quite frankly, his inconsistent accuracy last year worries me a little. He was often late or behind receivers on routes that were his bread and butter throws for years. I think it was Marino (maybe Simms) who said the first thing that goes is accuracy, and it happens most in the off-season. You pick up the ball in the fall, and suddenly it won't go where it is supposed to, and it never comes back I am anxious to see if this happens to Favre. I hope not yet..

As far as answering vince, it's a waste of my time cause only a fool argues with a fool. However, out of respect I will clarify for you. When it comes to Favre, stats don't tell the story cause it was pretty obvious he had 1 freaking WR to throw to in 2005 and 2006. The difference was, he did cut down on his picks and at least tried to be more careful despite the lack of talent and experience around him.

Now let's go back to the end of the 2005 season. I recall Theisman, Jaworski and Salsbury all but claiming Favre dead. Is'nt that correct? They were pretty brutal in their criticism. Now, did those viewpoints change during the 2006 season? Your damn right they did. Why did they change? The stats were not all that different. The talent level around him did'nt change much. Yet, damn near everyone's opinion on a national level changed. Now you hear things like "Favre can play another few years". A far cry from them throwing the dirt on his coffin after 2005.

Now if I was wrong as you and vince claim, why did the perception change so much from 2005 to 2006? Obviously, Brett's play had to improve, otherwise their opinion's would not have changed. Is'nt that fairly obvious and quite logical? C'mon, you can do better than this....... :P

[vince]

Re: Manuel

Last but not least, my opinions here are well documentated and for the most part more times than not, end up being correct. I was one of the few who argued with the Favre bashers after the 2005 season that he still had some gas in the tank and his 2006 season was proof of that.

Vince's reply reminded me that I wanted to check this statement, because I didn't remember a big difference between Favre '05 and Favre '06. Other than ints., he was the same QB in '06 as he was in '05.

'05/ '06

attempts - 607/613
completions - 372/343
yards - 3881/3885
TDs - 20/18
Ints. - 18/29

What did he really prove in '06 that wasn't shown in '05?
Nothing. Fewer interceptions, but a significant drop in completion %.

So what insight did you give us? That Favre was the same in '06 as in '05?

Quite frankly, his inconsistent accuracy last year worries me a little. He was often late or behind receivers on routes that were his bread and butter throws for years. I think it was Marino (maybe Simms) who said the first thing that goes is accuracy, and it happens most in the off-season. You pick up the ball in the fall, and suddenly it won't go where it is supposed to, and it never comes back I am anxious to see if this happens to Favre. I hope not yet..

As far as answering vince, it's a waste of my time cause only a fool argues with a fool. However, out of respect I will clarify for you. When it comes to Favre, stats don't tell the story cause it was pretty obvious he had 1 freaking WR to throw to in 2005 and 2006. The difference was, he did cut down on his picks and at least tried to be more careful despite the lack of talent and experience around him.

Now let's go back to the end of the 2005 season. I recall Theisman, Jaworski and Salsbury all but claiming Favre dead. Is'nt that correct? They were pretty brutal in their criticism. Now, did those viewpoints change during the 2006 season? Your damn right they did. Why did they change? The stats were not all that different. The talent level around him did'nt change much. Yet, damn near everyone's opinion on a national level changed. Now you hear things like "Favre can play another few years". A far cry from them throwing the dirt on his coffin after 2005.

Now if I was wrong as you and vince claim, why did the perception change so much from 2005 to 2006? Obviously, Brett's play had to improve, otherwise their opinion's would not have changed. Is'nt that fairly obvious and quite logical? C'mon, you can do better than this....... :P

Patler brings facts about Favre's performance. You try to deflect them with media hyperbole.

I brring facts about some of your recent posts (You remember when you said your opinions are docmented?) You try to deflect them with unsubstantiated personal attacks.

Some things probably will never change. Your shit ain't stickin', nut.