Mark Roman is butt-hurt because we signed Marquand Manual

[Harlan Huckleby]

If he's going to be a disruption, let him go.

the man made a mild comment of disgruntlement about poor communication. This is "disruption?!"

Bow down before the authority figure. Sung from the front pew of the First Church of Packer Football.

[Patler]

Hell no they don't. Not before the decisions are made. After the fact, sure. But not in advance.

Wow, this is tedious. For the third time: I did not suggest that management should consult employees before making decisions.

If some change dramatically effects somebody's job or job security, a smart manager will have a talk with that individual so they know what is coming. You leave people to speculate, minds tend to wander into negative areas.

You are right, this is tedious. I don't know what world you are in, but it is not the real world. More often than not the talk with individuals comes after the fact. Have you ever been part of a layoff, a corporate downsize, a merger, a corporate purchase, a sell-off? Corporate "refocusing", outsourcing, etc. etc. all dramatically impact many employees jobs or job securities. The fact is in most situations management can not "prepare" the affected employees in advance. Only after the fact can they sit down with the employees, explain the what and why of the action and how it will impact them.

I've been on both sides of many of these situations. It never changes. Only in the most insignificant of situations can you do as you suggest, and more often than not, it isn't any better for the affected individuals anyway.

[Patler]

If he's going to be a disruption, let him go.

the man made a mild comment of disgruntlement about poor communication. This is "disruption?!"

Bow down before the authority figure. Sung from the front pew of the First Church of Packer Football.

He asked to be released! He has boycotted workouts because of it! That's mild???

[Harlan Huckleby]

You are right, this is tedious. I don't know what world you are in, but it is not the real world. More often than not the talk with individuals comes after the fact.

This is stunning. I will try for a 4th time: yes, the talk is only likely to happen after the fact.

You keep repeating this strawman argument about managers making decdisions in the real world without consulting employees. Did I ever argue this was not the case?

[Harlan Huckleby]

He asked to be released! He has boycotted workouts because of it! That's mild???

I know nothing about these facts. I did not call this behavior mild - this is another strawman argument you have constructed.

[RashanGary]

I don't think Thompson should call each starter every time he signs a new player at their position.

I thought it was a generally accepted fact that teams are always trying to get better and are going to constantly have a revolving door of talent comeing and going.

The problem seems to be that Roman doesn't want copetition. He wants his job to be handed to him and not to be open to competition. He's in la la land really.

[RashanGary]

TT "Hey Mark, I brought in a new saftey through FA and another through the draft. We plan on starting the player who plays the best"

Roman "OK, I thought maybe my job was secure and I would never have competition. Thank you for the heads up"



Maybe Roman was considered a top talent for some stupid ass reason by Sherman and now he feels he should be treated like one of the premier players by the new regime. I don't know what his problem is but he needs to come in and win the job. Whining is just lame.

[Patler]

HH, you wrote, "I don't know exactly what Roman's beef is, but he cites a lack of communication, perhaps he was mislead. I find his comment mild, not worthy of a character ripping."

People were ripping him for hisd actions and his comments.

You keep changing your argument. Why don't you trying picking one and staying with it???

[Harlan Huckleby]

I have not changed my argument one inch. I simply repeat it because you mistate it.

[Tarlam!]

On the principle matter, I side with HH on this one. I do this cause I was too quick to bash DD when "news" broke he was looking for more cash publicly.

I don't know for sure what happened between Roman and the team, what (if any) promises were made, if he intends to boycott anything or if he is really looking for a new team.

BTW, if anyone here felt they were doing a great job and a replacement was hired under their nose, they would be seriously pssied, too. In fact, most would be on the phone complaining to their spouses within a quarter of an hour. That evening, most would be on the net dialing up Monster.com and getting their resumés in order. YES I MEAN YOU !

Guiness picked it in his mail, when he cited what was in the article as Roman's main beef: Communication. But here's the deal; the new coach gets into town and tells EVERYONE how important they are. Why, because you don't wanna incite a mass exodus until you know who you want to leave...

[Merlin]

Since I make my living off of companies with bad management/poor communication skills I think the blue dog has a very valid point.

Everyday I praise jesus for stupid companies. They make my life so much easier. Employees, in general, are usually happy where they are, but make a move for issues other than salary, i.e., being passed over for promotion, lack of opportunity to advance, more challenging work, etc.

Roman isn't upset about having to compete, but in the manner in which he was told about it. Put yourself in his shoes, your boss comes to you and says that you are going to be a key player this upcoming year (stroking you like a good manager does), next thing you know they have hired a new guy who is now the key player, your role isn't just diminished but pretty much non existent.

If you aren't upset about that, then I would say resign your career to mediocrity. I would have my resume updated and start networking immediately. That is all Roman is doing.

Lastly, in the NFL, with careers around 4 years, and those with longevity playing for multiple teams, 2 years with an employer with more years to come does warrant being treated decently.

I agrree with this. IMO, Roman had a pretty good year in 2005. I thought in 2004 "why did we sign this guy?". I think he will emerge and give Manual a run for his money. I think either one "can" be a great safety, it would be good if they both turned out to be great. I am not impressed with Manual and I tihk we over paid him just to get him in Green Bay. He hasn't even played a full year in a starting role.

[KYPack]

It's always a bad move to weigh in on other's fights, because there is always the possibility they both turn on you.

But here I go.

There was a point established earlier in this thread that i feel is totally wrong. Mark Roman did NOT have a decent year last year. He had the sme kind of year he's had his whole pro career. He was inconsistent and didn't show the kind of solid performance that you need from a veteran player.

He played very poorly at times. He got beat, blew coverages, and (the killer in my opinion) whiffed on tackles, one of which cost us a ball game. Roman has been a puzzle his whole pro career. He's got talent, but never puts together for a whole season. He makes the effort, but suffers from a lack of confidence or somthing, and falls apart at crucial times when it hurts you the most.

This was also doubly important last year, because they were looking for a stable partner for Nick Collins. That kid is a helluva a talent and they wanted Roman to show some leadership and have a consistent level of play as an example for the young guy. Instead, Roman did his usual "one good game, an average one, then a stinker" type of play he always shows.

You can't count on the guy in any area. Roman played so poorly, they went out and got a veteran safety to compete for his job. And they should have. Roaman's play was a disgrace for a vet of his experience.

As far as Roman's whiny complaints about communication...

To quote the late, great Joe Don Looney,

"You wanna send a message, call Western Union"

Pro Football is a cold blooded business. If you can't do the job, they will find someone who can.

[Patler]

KY, I both agree and disagree (how's that for taking a stand!)

I think Roman was better in 2005 than 2004, but improving the safety play (both spots) is certainly a legitimate team goal. Improvement won't come from Roman, he is what he is. Collins has potential to improve.

Roman missed a few tackles, all DBs do, but actually he had a decent year tackling and missed a lot fewer tackles than Nick Collins did while making more tackles than Collins. For some reason people want to ignore a relatively poor tackling performance by Collins while emphasizing Roman's misses. I think it is probably because we are jaded by Roman's 2004 performance, and Collins did enough to impress that we emphasize the negative of Roman and the positive from Collins.

Collins missed 19 tackles in 2005, second on the club to Barnett who had 20. Sharper never had more than 18 missed tackles. Roman had 12 misses in 2005. Roman had 90 tackles, Collins 84. If you look at the number of missed tackles relative to the number of tackling opportunities, Collins has a long way to go.

Roman had 2 interceptions, Collins 1 with several drops. Passes defensed were Roman 6, Collins 7.

I know everyone is high on Collins and down on Roman. In my opinion, Roman isn't awful, but you would like better, and Collins still has a chance to be a bust or a very good DB. That is the difference between the two. We know what Roman is. We hope Collins fulfills the potential that Roman has not, but Collins could turnout to be no better than Roman. The jury is still out.

Just for the record, so I am not misinterpretted, I like Collins as a player. He showed significant improvement last year during the season. I think he has a good chance to be a very good DB. But he is not there yet. This year will be important for him.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I agree that Roman was somewhere close to serviceable last year after a poor 2004, but a genius once said that statistics are for losers.

Unless you look at the film closely, nobody knows just how egregious the missed tackles were. What got classified as a missed tackle for Roman and what got classified as a missed tackle for Collins? The stats can say otherwise, but I felt more comfortable with Collins as a tackler than Roman.

The statistics say Derek Jeter is one of the worst defensive shortstops in baseball, but if you watch, I doubt he could be classified that poorly. He's probably somewhere close to average with a penchant for making big defensive plays in crunch time.

And I'm not a big Jeter backer/fan.

[Patler]

I agree that Roman was somewhere close to serviceable last year after a poor 2004, but a genius once said that statistics are for losers.

Unless you look at the film closely, nobody knows just how egregious the missed tackles were. What got classified as a missed tackle for Roman and what got classified as a missed tackle for Collins? The stats can say otherwise, but I felt more comfortable with Collins as a tackler than Roman.

The statistics say Derek Jeter is one of the worst defensive shortstops in baseball, but if you watch, I doubt he could be classified that poorly. He's probably somewhere close to average with a penchant for making big defensive plays in crunch time.

And I'm not a big Jeter backer/fan.

You are of course right Harvey. I should never have posted stats in support of an analysis, as they are totally meaningless. What you think you saw is of immensely more value than the statistics that are generated from a review of the tapes.

As you hinted, I am sure the statisticians were much more severe on Collins than on Roman, what they considered to be a missed tackle for Collins would have been ignored for Roman, because that is the way statisticians are.