HyponGrey
Caseus Locutus Est
Meh, just means it's a lunch break instead of a coffee break. Stop by the water cooler etcLOL.... I don't know any stinkin time zones.
Meh, just means it's a lunch break instead of a coffee break. Stop by the water cooler etcLOL.... I don't know any stinkin time zones.
You may be alone in that assessment.I think McCarthy made a poor choice on holding Rodgers out.
You may be alone in that assessment.
Didn't watch or listen to the game as I worked but glad I didn't. Looked to be very ugly from the stat sheet and everyones updates about the game.
Was listening to the after the game radio show, and I heard Mark Tauscher contend there is a good chance Jolly doesn't make the cut if the Packers don't keep 6 d-lineman.
The Packers will keep at least 6 d-lineman and Jolly is now a lock to make the team. He is a proven commodity while Neal is all hype.
The performance of the offensive line tonight was abysmal , horrific, inexplicably pathetic.
I also see that Andy Reid didn't play any of his starters and the Packers still got squashed. Everyone that is saying its only preseason is being overly simplistic. Its only preseason TOO for the Chiefs. You'd think you'd get a better showing than this for a 'top tier' team in the NFC.
Normally I could see not playing Rodgers in the final preseason game but due to the fact that he hadn't had the time to build timing with his TOP TWO wideouts (especially considering the retooled O-line this season) I think McCarthy made a poor choice on holding Rodgers out.
Unless the Pack are purposely struggling to throw off the 49ers I am very concerned about the depth and petrified by our offensive line.
Only because he didn play much last week. There was the mistake. Stupid Harrell eating snaps.Doubt it. Others were also suggesting Rodgers play anywhere between 10 to 20 snaps last night.
No, it's not overly simplistic. It's pre-season. It doesn't matter if it's also pre-season for Chiefs. It's pre-freaking-season. The time where 4-0 teams turn into losers and 1-3 teams end up winning the Super Bowl.
http://content.usatoday.com/communi...mes-havent-mattered-since-1994/1#.UiCLAZJvOZc
"Offering an answer to a long-running sports-bar argument, statistics suggest that NFL preseason games have been truly meaningless, injuries aside, since 1994."
Why we continue to do this every year is beyond me. The Atlanta Falcons went 0-4 this pre-season, the Jets went 3-1, along with the Browns, Panthers, Lions, and Cardinals. I don't care if Andy Reid played backups or not. I know many of the backups will not even be on the team next game. The offensive line performance, while very poor, was almost all comprised of guys who will be cut tomorrow.
I want to rant, I`m entitled to rant, and I`m gonna rant. I`m 56. Okay, deep breaths hereWell, calm down.....have a smoke, a cup of warm tea and a crumpet.....go read the newspaper and relax.
Doubt it. Others were also suggesting Rodgers play anywhere between 10 to 20 snaps last night.
Dude you have a very flawed understanding of what preseason is. It's really less about preparation than it is evaluation and development. Get your young guys reps in YOUR system in actual game situations, see what your fringe players offer and who can be an upgrade. You do realize shortening the preseason undermines all of that, right? Different schemes? Chiefs play a 34, and everybody plays vanilla.I am not referring exclusively to the relevancy of the preseason . I think it should be shortened to 2 games personally. It IS a chance for NFL squads to better prepare their 1st and 2nd year players against schemes that they don't employ on their own team's defense. There is a purpose for it and despite your distaste for the preseason it will remain.
So we shouldn't be able to derive any prevailing thoughts or conclusions about let's say the offensive line's progress from watching the preseason either? This is why I stated that it is over simplistic to say "its only preseason".
I don`t drink tea either....lol A large scotch maybeDude. It's noon there.
Other NFL coaches or NFL personnel?
NO! Members of this forum in the chat room last week. Good enough for ya!
Dude you have a very flawed understanding of what preseason is. It's really less about preparation than it is evaluation and development. Get your young guys reps in YOUR system in actual game situations, see what your fringe players offer and who can be an upgrade. You do realize shortening the preseason undermines all of that, right? Different schemes? Chiefs play a 34, and everybody plays vanilla.
Backup OL who'll never work in this town again. Gerhart Hughes and Datko will probably be gone by the end of the day. You get to see who wins 1 on 1's above the x's and o's. Remember that the scheme is over simplified as well. Had the starters played like that you'd have legit concerns, especially since it's very easy to get a bead on your bigs on both sides of the ball. Not only that, but you can also evaluate the individual pieces of the line easily to do some troubleshooting, and even experiment with substitutions. So yes, you have a point, but you have to take preseason with a grain of salt, since it doesn't cater to the player's favor.
I am not referring exclusively to the relevancy of the preseason . I think it should be shortened to 2 games personally. It IS a chance for NFL squads to better prepare their 1st and 2nd year players against schemes that they don't employ on their own team's defense. There is a purpose for it and despite your distaste for the preseason it will remain.
So we shouldn't be able to derive any prevailing thoughts or conclusions about let's say the offensive line's progress from watching the preseason either? This is why I stated that it is over simplistic to say "its only preseason".
They arent NFL people, so their opinion on how much Rodgers should have played means nothing..
Doubt it. Others were also suggesting Rodgers play anywhere between 10 to 20 snaps last night.
Dude you have a very flawed understanding of what preseason is. It's really less about preparation than it is evaluation and development. Get your young guys reps in YOUR system in actual game situations, see what your fringe players offer and who can be an upgrade. You do realize shortening the preseason undermines all of that, right? Different schemes? Chiefs play a 34, and everybody plays vanilla.
Backup OL who'll never work in this town again. Gerhart Hughes and Datko will probably be gone by the end of the day. You get to see who wins 1 on 1's above the x's and o's. Remember that the scheme is over simplified as well. Had the starters played like that you'd have legit concerns, especially since it's very easy to get a bead on your bigs on both sides of the ball. Not only that, but you can also evaluate the individual pieces of the line easily to do some troubleshooting, and even experiment with substitutions. So yes, you have a point, but you have to take preseason with a grain of salt, since it doesn't cater to the player's favor.
Thats not the point. The post I was commenting on said I may be the ONLY one suggesting such a thing. I answered to the contrary with reasoning for it. I'll stand behind my opinion. Again quit putting words in peoples mouths. To suggest more time to for Rodgers and his wideouts to garner timing with each other is NOT freaking out it is basing an opinion that the Packers offense could be rusty going into the 49ers game and a little more simulated game experience may have helped ready the offense.
I'd say you are OVER-reacting to a reasoned opinion.
Where did I ever say I had a distaste for pre-season? I simply said as is well known, that there is no correlation between pre-season and regular season performance.
Prevailing thoughts are fine, but what conclusions can you draw about our regular season offensive line from last night?
I think I saw the starters or potential starters -- Sitton, Lang, EDS, Barclay, Newhouse, Bahkriati -- out there for 3 plays, correct me if I'm wrong but it wasn't much more than that.
Almost everyone you saw after that is probably gone anyway. Who is really going to stay from Hughes, Datko, Lane, Van Roten and Lewis?
Van Roten? Maybe Lane? Strictly as backups, that's for sure.
So you described the O-line performance last night as "abysmal , horrific, inexplicably pathetic" and yet you would have wanted Rodgers to get 10 or 20 snaps behind them?
I think I saw the starters or potential starters -- Sitton, Lang, EDS, Barclay, Newhouse, Bahkriati -- out there for 3 plays, correct me if I'm wrong but it wasn't much more than that.
Almost everyone you saw after that is probably gone anyway.
Yeh, but they only put the starters in for about 3 plays on the offensive line from what I've been told. Leave your ENTIRE starting team in for 10-20 plays together. The abysmal part referred to the backups on O-line.