Chris Cooley

[FRPLG]

The part I don't get is this...maybe Paul is "taking" away from CC but it seems the argument being proposed is that CC is capable of being "better" in some way. I'll grant that he could "possibly" do better but based on the latest information I have seen he doesnt have a lot to offer in the passing game. I have no reason to actually think he could do anymore in the passing game than my grandad. And since we're talking about such a small aspect of the offense I am pretty fine with letting a younger more dynamic player develop.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

By putting Paul in the game as a viable scripted receiving option, Kyle is removing Cooley's ability to be a final slower checkdown for RGIII which is occuring because b/c Griffin doesn't have time to go through all his progressions which, in turn, is occurring b/c Mike Shanahan signed Garcon rather than Winston & Gaffney which would have allowed RGIII time to go through all his progressions and hit the checkdown man who normally would have been Gaffney except, since Gaffney is slow as molasses, he would have been covered forcing RGIII to throw the ball to the unscripted wide-open TE Cooley on every other play.

It's a mofo'ing plot ... Mike AND Kyle are holding Cooley back.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

By putting Paul in the game as a viable scripted receiving option, Kyle is removing Cooley's ability to be a final slower checkdown for RGIII which is occuring because b/c Griffin doesn't have time to go through all his progressions which, in turn, is occurring b/c Mike Shanahan signed Garcon rather than Winston & Gaffney which would have allowed RGIII time to go through all his progressions and hit the checkdown man who normally would have been Gaffney except, since Gaffney is slow as molasses, he would have been covered forcing RGIII to throw the ball to the unscripted wide-open TE Cooley on every other play.

It's a mofo'ing plot ... Mike AND Kyle are holding Cooley back.

Duh on me...I'm disappointed in myself for not realizing this earlier. Man what a rube I am.

[SkinsGuru]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Citation?

??? Citation ??? i work for Citation Technologies (Citation Technologies Inc. | Regulatory Compliance Software) if that is what you are asking??

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by SkinsGuru

??? Citation ??? i work for Citation Technologies (Citation Technologies Inc. | Regulatory Compliance Software) if that is what you are asking??

Are YOU holding CC back too?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

The part I don't get is this...maybe Paul is "taking" away from CC but it seems the argument being proposed is that CC is capable of being "better" in some way. I'll grant that he could "possibly" do better but based on the latest information I have seen he doesnt have a lot to offer in the passing game. I have no reason to actually think he could do anymore in the passing game than my grandad. And since we're talking about such a small aspect of the offense I am pretty fine with letting a younger more dynamic player develop.

I think in the end that's what this all boils down to. They think Paul is worth developing.

[los panda]

if paulsen and paul are rated higher than cooley on madden, then what's the problem?

it's simple math

[The Goat]

[quote=Mattyk;974539]

Originally Posted by The Goat

You obviously think CC should be more involved, at least more than Paul. You can't seem to fathom why Paul is more involved than Cooley. It's a Mike thing with coaches/players. Sounds like conspiracy talk to me, especially with your track record around here.

I don't want to come across as overtly insulting so I won't explain what conspiracy means, or post a definition.

There's two different issues, which are intertwined. One is why Paul sees the field on offense? The other is why Cooley hasn't gotten more looks?

I tend to think Cooley should get more looks, like split targets with Lunch Pail. More strongly though, I don't see any evidence that Paul deserves to play on offense...anywhere.

To the last thing, yeah I still seriously doubt Shanahan will take us anywhere. Still happy to be wrong about it if things really come together, and I love wearing my Skins apparral right now btw. But no, I don't think Mike's going anywhere. My intuition is he's done just enough to keep his job into next year, and maybe even turn the team over to his kiddo afterward. I don't think we'll ever be a real contender with a Shanahan as HC, OC etc for myriad reasons that have been long debated here. I think better coaching prospects will be available next year, and the year after.

I don't mind being the minority in this regard, in part because I find the pro-Shanny posts/posters pretty amusing

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by los panda

if paulsen and paul are rated higher than cooley on madden, then what's the problem?

it's simple math

Of course.

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by los panda

if paulsen and paul are rated higher than cooley on madden, then what's the problem?

it's simple math

Do you have madden 2010? Cooley was unstoppable! Best year ever! These are facts!

[MTK]

[quote=The Goat;974562]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I don't want to come across as overtly insulting so I won't explain what conspiracy means, or post a definition.

There's two different issues, which are intertwined. One is why Paul sees the field on offense? The other is why Cooley hasn't gotten more looks?

I tend to think Cooley should get more looks, like split targets with Lunch Pail. More strongly though, I don't see any evidence that Paul deserves to play on offense...anywhere.

To the last thing, yeah I still seriously doubt Shanahan will take us anywhere. Still happy to be wrong about it if things really come together, and I love wearing my Skins apparral right now btw. But no, I don't think Mike's going anywhere. My intuition is he's done just enough to keep his job into next year, and maybe even turn the team over to his kiddo afterward. I don't think we'll ever be a real contender with a Shanahan as HC, OC etc for myriad reasons that have been long debated here. I think better coaching prospects will be available next year, and the year after.

I don't mind being the minority in this regard, in part because I find the pro-Shanny posts/posters pretty amusing

Speaking of conspiracy... we all pretty much know what's behind your nitpicking over Cooley and Paul.

This past month must have been really painful for you eh?

[SkinsGuru]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Are YOU holding CC back too?

i'm lost . . . i have no clue what you are talking about . . .

[The Goat]

[quote=Mattyk;974566]

Originally Posted by The Goat

Speaking of conspiracy... we all pretty much know what's behind your nitpicking over Cooley and Paul.

This past month must have been really painful for you eh?

I'm not an ego guy Matty, just don't have any real faith in the Shanahans. Winning has been awesome though.

Still don't get the conspiracy reference, though I suspect you don't really either. I feel like I'm listening to a randomn little kid trying to talk about sex right now lol...lots of inuendo w/o anything there.

[JoeRedskin]

Just in my reading of this thread and other's quotations of Goat, it appears to have morphed as follows:

1. Cooley > Paul [Response: debatable, given Paul's youth, speed, athleticism. Paul's stone hands certainly make this arguably true]

2. Mike favors Cooley over Paul for reasons known only to Mike and, b/c Paul's production doesn't warrent playing time it demonstrates unwarranted favoritism. [Response: debatable, no on stats showing Cooley out performs Paul on field. No showing of Paul's v. Cooley's practice habits. Also, historically, Shanny's players have complimented him on his fairness]

3. Paul taking time from Cooley. [debatable, no showing that Cooley can get open on the routes run by Paul - just Goat's famed DVR skills].

It's the usual Goat. I have a position which I can manipulate anecdotal facts to support my position while ignoring data and statistics which support yours. He sees what he wants and ignores anything which may conflict with it - factual or otherwise.

Bottom line - I haven't seen anything quoted from Goat demonstrating the use of objective criteria to support any of the arguments he has posited.

[MTK]

[quote=The Goat;974572]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I'm not an ego guy Matty, just don't have any real faith in the Shanahans. Winning has been awesome though.

Still don't get the conspiracy reference, though I suspect you don't really either. I feel like I'm listening to a randomn little kid trying to talk about sex right now lol...lots of inuendo w/o anything there.

You once again somehow manage to sum up yourself without even realizing it.

Perfect.