Chris Cooley

[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.

[los panda]

it's getting heated in here.

coo-ley! coo-ley! coo-ley!

[REDSKINS4ever]

How about they make Cooley a fullback and put Darrell Young back at LB?

[mooby]

Originally Posted by REDSKINS4ever

How about they make Cooley a fullback and put Darrell Young back at LB?

I can't tell if you're being serious or if we're all being trolled here. Are you really being serious about this?

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by mooby

I can't tell if you're being serious or if we're all being trolled here. Are you really being serious about this?

amazing isnt it? Young is playing like a borderline probowler.

[DynamiteRave]

Originally Posted by mooby

I can't tell if you're being serious or if we're all being trolled here. Are you really being serious about this?

We need to put Doughty as RG3's back up and throw Trent Williams back at safety. We can put out an APB for Haynesworth and he can come back and play NT.

Dead serious.

[Ruhskins]

This is how irrelevant this TE discussion is...

Targets in the past 5 games by receivers:

Garcon 36
Morgan 30
Paulsen 16
Hank 14
Moss 12
Paul 4
Robinson 4

RG3's top targets are Garcon and Morgan. After that, RG3 is going to distribute the ball, so it really doesn't matter who's playing at TE other than Davis. And even then, I don't think RG3 was looking his way a lot.

[los panda]

i would like smoot to print this thread, and read it aloud to shanny and cooley, on camera

[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.

[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

[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!

[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.