Chris Cooley

[MTK]

Mike is clearly holding Cooley back.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Mike is clearly holding Cooley back.

Right

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Mike is clearly holding Cooley back.

I mean, what's obvious is Mike/Kyle have left him out of the passing game. Instead, they work in Paul who drops passes, bobbles after the catch and doesn't get any YAC, etc.

Is there a meaningful difference between the statements?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by The Goat

I mean, what's obvious is Mike/Kyle have left him out of the passing game. Instead, they work in Paul who drops passes, bobbles after the catch and doesn't get any YAC, etc.

Is there a meaningful difference between the statements?

Paul gets what, maybe 1-2 looks a game? Who cares.

They obviously feel more comfortable with Cooley blocking. Or maybe they've had some plays with him involved in the passing game and things just haven't gone his way for whatever reason.

Why does there always have to be some sort of conspiracy with you?

[The Goat]

[QUOTE=Mattyk;974515]Paul gets what, maybe 1-2 looks a game? Who cares.

They obviously feel more comfortable with Cooley blocking. Or maybe they've had some plays with him involved in the passing game and things just haven't gone his way for whatever reason.

Why does there always have to be some sort of conspiracy with you?[/QUOTE]

You didn't have (sarcasm) in there, so I assume you're serious? WTF...I'm not talking conspiracy. What are you talking about? It's not a conspiracy when the coaches decide to leave a player out of the passing game. It could be a mistake, especially when you keep going back to a different player who doesn't execute. I thought that's what we're discussing here, no?

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by The Goat

You didn't have (sarcasm) in there, so I assume you're serious? WTF...I'm not talking conspiracy. What are you talking about? It's not a conspiracy when the coaches decide to leave a player out of the passing game. It could be a mistake, especially when you keep going back to a different player who doesn't execute. I thought that's what we're discussing here, no?

How is targeting Niles Paul FOUR times in the last five games going to a player that doesn't execute. Please explain.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

How is targeting Niles Paul FOUR times in the last five games going to a player that doesn't execute. Please explain.

It isn't but Goat doesn't like Shanny so he only sees what he wants to see. Shanny could say 2+2=4 and Goat would argue with him about it.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

You didn't have (sarcasm) in there, so I assume you're serious? WTF...I'm not talking conspiracy. What are you talking about? It's not a conspiracy when the coaches decide to leave a player out of the passing game. It could be a mistake, especially when you keep going back to a different player who doesn't execute. I thought that's what we're discussing here, no?

How is targeting Niles Paul FOUR times in the last five games going to a player that doesn't execute. Please explain.

Again, you've answered your own question.

A more important question is why did he even get those four opportunities, given the preceding games? All season it's been missed blocks (some of which put RG on the ground), dropped passes, stutter steps after the one or two catches.

I mean the real question is why Paul is on the field at all, let alone (still) getting passes thrown his way, right?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by The Goat

Again, you've answered your own question.

A more important question is why did he even get those four opportunities, given the preceding games? All season it's been missed blocks (some of which put RG on the ground), dropped passes, stutter steps after the one or two catches.

I mean the real question is why Paul is on the field at all, let alone (still) getting passes thrown his way, right?

So what's your reason? Enlighten us.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by The Goat

Again, you've answered your own question.

A more important question is why did he even get those four opportunities, given the preceding games? All season it's been missed blocks (some of which put RG on the ground), dropped passes, stutter steps after the one or two catches.

I mean the real question is why Paul is on the field at all, let alone (still) getting passes thrown his way, right?

Your argument makes no sense given that:

A. Paul is not much involved in the offense

B. RG3 targets his WRs WAY more than his TEs

I'm sorry, but your argument that Paul is taking from Cooley makes no sense whatsoever. Even if you were unbiased about Shanny, I'd be making the same counter argument.

If you want to say that Paul shouldn't be on the field, that's one thing. But you're argument is that Paul is taking away from Cooley's time. That's just not the case and both player are irrelevant to the passing game given their target #'s.

[MTK]

[quote=The Goat;974530]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Paul gets what, maybe 1-2 looks a game? Who cares.

They obviously feel more comfortable with Cooley blocking. Or maybe they've had some plays with him involved in the passing game and things just haven't gone his way for whatever reason.

Why does there always have to be some sort of conspiracy with you?[/QUOTE]

You didn't have (sarcasm) in there, so I assume you're serious? WTF...I'm not talking conspiracy. What are you talking about? It's not a conspiracy when the coaches decide to leave a player out of the passing game. It could be a mistake, especially when you keep going back to a different player who doesn't execute. I thought that's what we're discussing here, no?

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.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

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 didn't know having 4 balls thrown your way in the past 5 games counted as being involved.

[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

[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?

[SCRedskinsFan]

[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

Man, it must be tough to be you over the past month or so. Your Shanahan hate will not abate (hey, that rhymes), and there's just nothing that'll change that. Apparently ever. Too bad, your problem, though.

Obviously Paul hasn't produced, even with the little action he's seen. But just maybe his coach sees something in practice that, as a young guy, he could replicate in games. Like catching the ball. Turn Paul around though, you'll have a tough (we know that from ST) tight end, with speed that Cooley could only dream about even in his best days. So just maybe they're trying to develop a player. Think of the concept!

And tell me again how my posts make no sense, you make my day!