PDA

View Full Version : Underachieving Coaches/GMs


Shiver
11-25-2009, 01:47 AM
Who is doing the least with the most? Who is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?

http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2008/0310/nfl_u_kubiak_200.jpg

I don't know what is going on here, but the Texans should be three wins better than they are right now. I put a lot of the blame on Kubiak, his decision making has been suspect; last Monday's game had plenty to second guess, why was Chris Brown getting twice as many carries as Steve Slaton? Why not try and get closer for the potential game tying FG, with :08 seconds and 1 timeout?

http://apudgeisasandwich.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/tedthompson.jpg

I think he gets too much heat for the Favre fiasco, in the end he made the right call to go with Rodgers and it was definitely courageous on his part. That said, his drafts the past few years have been terrible. I like Clay Matthews, but did they really need another LB? I like Jordy Nelson, but they already had one of the best receiver corps. in the game. Brian Brohm, Justin Harrell, Brandon Jackson, high picks with no impact whatsoever. Meanwhile the team has gaping holes on the offensive line that have been ignored.

Saints-Tigers
11-25-2009, 01:53 AM
Steve Slaton stopped getting the ball because he couldn't run with it, or hang onto it.

diabsoule
11-25-2009, 01:55 AM
Add Jim Mora Jr to that list as well.

Giantsfan1080
11-25-2009, 01:59 AM
Kubiak's play calling at the end of the game Monday night was terrible.

KCJ58
11-25-2009, 02:01 AM
http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2008/0310/nfl_u_kubiak_200.jpg



funny thing Diab because at 1st glance i thought it was Jim Mora

Loggerhead
11-25-2009, 02:16 AM
Mike Tannenbaum/Rex Ryan, Jerry Angelo/Lovie Smith, and Jerry Reese/Tom Coughlin have underachieved as well.

diabsoule
11-25-2009, 02:47 AM
funny thing Diab because at 1st glance i thought it was Jim Mora

I thought it was too until I saw the Texans logo.

Shiver
11-25-2009, 02:50 AM
Don't get me started on Jim Mora. That guy is a joke and I pity the Seahawks for the two/three years he will be their head coach.

Gay Ork Wang
11-25-2009, 04:00 AM
John Fox. They have one of the best rushing attacks but keep relying on Delhomme. He had like 40 passes against Miami

TitanHope
11-25-2009, 05:59 AM
http://l.yimg.com/a/p/sp/editorial_image/f8/f892d0b3125d39b47f8cb4b0272a09f7/wade%20phillips.jpg

Over the past few seasons anyway. He's been pretty successful this year, I'll give him that.

Modano
11-25-2009, 07:26 AM
Over the past few seasons anyway. He's been pretty successful this year, I'll give him that.

You mean over the last season? He went 13-3 in his first year. The debacle was during the playoffs. But right now the underachieving one in the Cowboys coaching staff is Garrett.

619
11-25-2009, 07:40 AM
Mike Fox. They have one of the best rushing attacks but keep relying on Delhomme. He had like 40 passes against Miami

You mean John Fox. He played right into the hands of Miami's gameplan on defense. Just terrible on his part and it seems like that's now becoming a constant theme with that offense.

CJSchneider
11-25-2009, 08:00 AM
http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/180904/Jimmy_Raye_Approval_Rating_medium.jpg

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/42518/Singletary_Approval_Rating.jpg

These two had better get on the same sheet of music.

Gay Ork Wang
11-25-2009, 08:04 AM
You mean John Fox. He played right into the hands of Miami's gameplan on defense. Just terrible on his part and it seems like that's now becoming a constant theme with that offense.
yea john fox, no idea where the Mike came from

Sniper
11-25-2009, 09:00 AM
Seriously? We got this far without an Andy Reid mention?

scottyboy
11-25-2009, 09:14 AM
Mike Tannenbaum/Rex Ryan, Jerry Angelo/Lovie Smith, and Jerry Reese/Tom Coughlin have underachieved as well.

http://msp153.photobucket.com/albums/s238/bradly2795/lol_wut.jpg

Gay Ork Wang
11-25-2009, 09:49 AM
You mean over the last season? He went 13-3 in his first year. The debacle was during the playoffs. But right now the underachieving one in the Cowboys coaching staff is Garrett.
i wonder how much of the success they had in that year was because of Wade and how much was because of Tony Sparano

CC.SD
11-25-2009, 11:05 AM
I would have to go with the Green Bay duo also, because I still think it's insane that they took their hall of fame QB and locked him out the year after he took them to the NFC Championship. Rodgers is pretty good but I still don't think they owed him anything at all compared to Favre, who is now of course playing MVP caliber ball for their rival.

LonghornsLegend
11-25-2009, 11:20 AM
i wonder how much of the success they had in that year was because of Wade and how much was because of Tony Sparano

I loved Sparano when he was here, but it would be silly to give him the most credit for that 13-3 season. He played a hand in it, but there were far too many variables going on for him to receive the most credit.


I also have to go with John Fox, re-signing Delhomme for that much money was a disaster to begin with and everyone saw that except for Blindsite, now he's playing for it and he still refuses to try and win games with his QB for some reason.

TitanHope
11-25-2009, 11:31 AM
You mean over the last season? He went 13-3 in his first year. The debacle was during the playoffs. But right now the underachieving one in the Cowboys coaching staff is Garrett.

He inherited one of the most talented teams in the NFL, and he's really done little with that aside from regular season wins and gettin' guys to Pro Bowls. Last year, he had a franchise QB, a stable of RB's, Terrell Owens, Jason Witten, and Roy Williams at WR/TE, and had a DPOY candidate on defense...and they finished 3rd in the NFC East and missed the Playoffs!

Has he done a horrible job or something like that? Absolutely not. It's tough to be the HC of a team like the Cowboys who have a meddling owner (And Jerry Jones is the worst in the league at that). But, you have one of the most talented teams in the NFL year in and year out, and you've still yet to win a Playoff game while division Rivals go deep in the Playoffs one year (Eagles) and even win the Super Bowl (Giants).

He's doing a very good job this year though, and while I guess Garrett hasn't been stellar, Phillips is still the HC. I think it's safe to say he's under-achieved, but that's just my opinion.

FlyingElvis
11-25-2009, 11:37 AM
Pick me! Pick ME!! C'mon guys PICK ME!!!

http://thepurplekoolaid.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/eric-mangini-names-quinn-starter.jpg

CC.SD
11-25-2009, 11:42 AM
Is he really underachieving though? he did get a win.

FlyingElvis
11-25-2009, 11:44 AM
Is he really underachieving though? he did get a win.

A fair point.

In order to underachieve one must first inspire expectations.

jackalope
11-25-2009, 12:24 PM
I think he gets too much heat for the Favre fiasco, in the end he made the right call to go with Rodgers and it was definitely courageous on his part. That said, his drafts the past few years have been terrible. I like Clay Matthews, but did they really need another LB? I like Jordy Nelson, but they already had one of the best receiver corps. in the game. Brian Brohm, Justin Harrell, Brandon Jackson, high picks with no impact whatsoever. Meanwhile the team has gaping holes on the offensive line that have been ignored.

Are you seriously questioning the Clay Mattews pick? Outside linebacker may have been our biggest need going into the draft, and we got someone who has been one of our best defenders in his rookie year. Brohm and Harrell were both bad picks. Harrell had a lot of talent, and people thought that if he stayed healthy, he'd be good. Thompson took a risk that Harrell would be able to avoid injuries and it didn't happen, but that was a luxury pick at the time; we went 13-3 the following season. I wasn't too high on the Jordy Nelson pick when he made it, but I love it now. The guy is great, is making an impact now, and will be a starter once Driver retires. Jackson hasn't done much, but he looked really good this week and definitely isn't a bust yet.

Offensive-line is an area he deserves heat for. I haven't heard anyone bring this up before, but I feel like it's worth mentioning. Green Bay runs the ZBS, which looks for smaller more athletic linemen. As a general manager, your job isn't necessarily to draft the type of player you want, it's to draft the type of player your coaches ask you to. If the o-line coach says he's only looking for a certain type of player to run his scheme, you have to listen to him. The guys he's looking to draft don't usually go in the first or second round. He's drafting guys in the middle rounds, that he's hoping can play the scheme and the coaches can develop. Obviously, he hasn't hit on a lot of these guys, but they're also mid round picks. For the most part, he hasn't "neglected" the offensive line. He did a poor job of evaluating our tackle situation going into the season. He expected one of his guys to step up at right tackle. Barbre struggled, Giacomini didn't step up, and Lang has looked good but isn't quite there yet. He also didn't expect Chad Clifton to drop off this year. He's played consistently for us up to this season, but apparently his age caught up to him this year (33).

Bottome line: this is a team that despite leading the league in penalties and giving up a ridiculous amount of sacks has enough talent that they're on track to make the playoffs this year.

Iamcanadian
11-25-2009, 12:40 PM
He inherited one of the most talented teams in the NFL, and he's really done little with that aside from regular season wins and gettin' guys to Pro Bowls. Last year, he had a franchise QB, a stable of RB's, Terrell Owens, Jason Witten, and Roy Williams at WR/TE, and had a DPOY candidate on defense...and they finished 3rd in the NFC East and missed the Playoffs!

Has he done a horrible job or something like that? Absolutely not. It's tough to be the HC of a team like the Cowboys who have a meddling owner (And Jerry Jones is the worst in the league at that). But, you have one of the most talented teams in the NFL year in and year out, and you've still yet to win a Playoff game while division Rivals go deep in the Playoffs one year (Eagles) and even win the Super Bowl (Giants).

He's doing a very good job this year though, and while I guess Garrett hasn't been stellar, Phillips is still the HC. I think it's safe to say he's under-achieved, but that's just my opinion.

I have to agree that Jerry Jones is the problem in Dallas although he is only the second most meddling owner in the NFL, Al Davis is #! and there is no chance Jones will ever pass him. You have to wonder if the HC and the OC are on the same page, they each report directly to Jones rather than Garrett reporting to his HC.. It is a very difficult situation when the HC's authority is cut from under him.
Jones hates any coach having more importance than himself and keeps his low profile HC under wraps with Jones trying to take credit for everything. He, himself has created a dysfunctional organization where all his coaches take orders from the owner a la Al Davis, He runs the draft and now he is running the team. His ego is so great, he thinks he can do no wrong and blames everybody else for his own incompetence.
Hard to imagine Dallas winning anything with their organization run by a total egotist.

jackalope
11-25-2009, 12:45 PM
I would have to go with the Green Bay duo also, because I still think it's insane that they took their hall of fame QB and locked him out the year after he took them to the NFC Championship. Rodgers is pretty good but I still don't think they owed him anything at all compared to Favre, who is now of course playing MVP caliber ball for their rival.

Brett Favre retired. That's what everyone seems to overlook when they rip on Thompson for the way he handled the situation. The best thing for Green Bay to do was to move on with their organization with Rodgers as the starter. But then Brett Favre said he wanted to come out of retirement. The Packers were ready to announce it that he was returning until Favre told them he had changed his mind. The next time Favre tried to return, it was training camp. I don't care how good Favre had been, at this point, you have to let Rodgers be the starter. You can't run your organization around the erratic emotions of one player. Who knew whether Favre would change his mind again or not? The Packers moved on, Rodgers had a great year (and continues to be a great quarterback), and we got a 3rd round pick out of the mess. Thompson didn't handle the situation perfectly, I'm sure he made a few mistakes in the situation, but how the hell do you expect someone in such a terrible situation to make all the right moves? If you feel you could have handled the situation better, please explain how.

Iamcanadian
11-25-2009, 12:54 PM
I would have to go with the Green Bay duo also, because I still think it's insane that they took their hall of fame QB and locked him out the year after he took them to the NFC Championship. Rodgers is pretty good but I still don't think they owed him anything at all compared to Favre, who is now of course playing MVP caliber ball for their rival.

Trouble is Rodgers wasn't going to stay as a 2nd stringer in Green Bay and would either demand FA or that he be paid Favre like money to stay. To keep him, Green Bay would have to franchise Rodgers which means a low revenue team like GB would have to pay both Favre and Rodgers top 5 money. To do that they would have to cut a # of starters from the franchise for cap reasons. It had reached the point where they either got rid of Favre or Rodgers had to go. I think they made the right decision based on age.

Babylon
11-25-2009, 01:13 PM
Kubiak's play calling at the end of the game Monday night was terrible.

On both sides of the ball.

The thing is i dont see all the talent with the Texans that everyone talks about. Granted you have a great receiver in Andre Johnson (Detroit has that) and a nice pair of young linebackers in Cushing and Ryans (Green Bay has that). Overall their defensive line underachieves, their O-line is average at best. And i dont see a decent running game or secondary there. If you compare their roster to Tennessees i'll take the Titans.

Modano
11-25-2009, 02:14 PM
He inherited one of the most talented teams in the NFL, and he's really done little with that aside from regular season wins and gettin' guys to Pro Bowls. Last year, he had a franchise QB, a stable of RB's, Terrell Owens, Jason Witten, and Roy Williams at WR/TE, and had a DPOY candidate on defense...and they finished 3rd in the NFC East and missed the Playoffs!

Has he done a horrible job or something like that? Absolutely not. It's tough to be the HC of a team like the Cowboys who have a meddling owner (And Jerry Jones is the worst in the league at that). But, you have one of the most talented teams in the NFL year in and year out, and you've still yet to win a Playoff game while division Rivals go deep in the Playoffs one year (Eagles) and even win the Super Bowl (Giants).

He's doing a very good job this year though, and while I guess Garrett hasn't been stellar, Phillips is still the HC. I think it's safe to say he's under-achieved, but that's just my opinion.

I meant that he did a good job in his first season. He fixed a defense that used to be very vulnerable and led the team to a 13-3 record, with 1 loss coming against the undefeated Patriots and another one in a meaningless week 17 game. So I think we should give him credit for that.
The playoff loss... well.. New York was on a roll and it wasn't like they Cowboys got outplayed or manhandled by The Giants. Yes it was Wade's job to led the team to his first playoff win in a decade but I wouldn't consider that game as a failure.
Last year is another story though. Wade really underachieved and was unable to keep the team under control. The entire team was a mess and he was responsible for that.
This year, we'll see. We started bad, we were very good during our 4 wins streak and we've been mediocre over the last two weeks. Let's see if Wade can fix the problem and can make his team play good football in December/January.

CC.SD
11-25-2009, 02:35 PM
Trouble is Rodgers wasn't going to stay as a 2nd stringer in Green Bay and would either demand FA or that he be paid Favre like money to stay. To keep him, Green Bay would have to franchise Rodgers which means a low revenue team like GB would have to pay both Favre and Rodgers top 5 money. To do that they would have to cut a # of starters from the franchise for cap reasons. It had reached the point where they either got rid of Favre or Rodgers had to go. I think they made the right decision based on age.

Yeah the logic is there but Mr. Packer is playing better than ever and about to lead the freaking Vikings to the Super Bowl so you have to figure someone screwed up big time. God forbid they draft another QB and let Rodgers go, or franchise him, I have always maintained that the Pack needed to do whatever was needed to keep Favre around.

FlyingElvis
11-25-2009, 02:39 PM
Yeah the logic is there but Mr. Packer is playing better than ever and about to lead the freaking Vikings to the Super Bowl so you have to figure someone screwed up big time. God forbid they draft another QB and let Rodgers go, or franchise him, I have always maintained that the Pack needed to do whatever was needed to keep Favre around.

Disagree on this one. It's a case of revisionist history, and completely off topic. But w/e. ;)

Favre was terrible for several seasons before having a great 07 campaign - only to have it end in the typical (over the previous 3 seasons) Favre fashion with a Pick-Six. Then he sucked in NY. Now he's going to have a great year, but he's not worth the headaches. Especially since Rodgers is awesome. It's very possible, in the long run, this will be the Montana/Young scenario of this decade.

terribletowel39
11-25-2009, 02:40 PM
Yeah the logic is there but Mr. Packer is playing better than ever and about to lead the freaking Vikings to the Super Bowl so you have to figure someone screwed up big time. God forbid they draft another QB and let Rodgers go, or franchise him, I have always maintained that the Pack needed to do whatever was needed to keep Favre around.
You also have to remember that Favre was not near as good last year. And he also would be taking WAY more hits if he was still on the Packers. Or rushed a ton more which we all know lead to Favre interceptions. Vikings pass blocking is far superior to the Packers. And Favre doesn't do so well with pressure in his face all game. Eventually he will hurt his team if the pressure is on.

CC.SD
11-25-2009, 02:43 PM
Disagree on this one. It's a case of revisionist history, and completely off topic. But w/e. ;)

Favre was terrible for several seasons before having a great 07 campaign - only to have it end in the typical (over the previous 3 seasons) Favre fashion with a Pick-Six. Then he sucked in NY. Now he's going to have a great year, but he's not worth the headaches. Especially since Rodgers is awesome. It's very possible, in the long run, this will be the Montana/Young scenario of this decade.

Hm I think the revisionist history is on the other side to be honest: now that we have seen that Rodgers is actually an awesome QB, as you say yourself. When the decision was made Rodgers hadn't proven anything.

In fact he was considered somewhat injury prone, coming off a lengthy draft drop, and the team was aware enough of this to invest a 2nd round pick in Brian Brohm, yah?

They were moving on without Favre no matter what, after a stellar season in 07, and there's some kind of idea out there that at the time they owed anything to Rodgers...vs. the guy who had become their entire franchise, which is where I seriously disagree.

CC.SD
11-25-2009, 02:45 PM
You also have to remember that Favre was not near as good last year. And he also would be taking WAY more hits if he was still on the Packers. Or rushed a ton more which we all know lead to Favre interceptions. Vikings pass blocking is far superior to the Packers. And Favre doesn't do so well with pressure in his face all game. Eventually he will hurt his team if the pressure is on.

Yah last year on the Jets he faded away after hurting his throwing arm, but was pretty darn good before then, and that's not all that relevant because it was the year before that he was absolutely resurgent with the Pack in 07. I don't doubt that the Vikings are the perfect position for Favre right now but still think he would be doing very well, and most importantly still a Packer: he's obviously playing at a very high level.

BTW I guess this is off topic but I consider the whole shebang some serious underachieving on the part of GB's management, so there. :D

M.O.T.H.
11-25-2009, 03:09 PM
Honestly Wade Phillips gets a lot of hate but, Garrett deserves a lot more hate than Phillips. Yes Wade is the HC but, he really has no say over the offense. That is Garrett's unit through and through. Wade has his defense and they're playing fantastic as of late. Garrett should be the one held more accountable for our poor offensive play and their mass amount of penalties. He's the assistant head coach and he has full power over the offense. The fact that Wade spends so much more time with the defense and calling defensive plays...I dont think he deserves to take the heat for an offensive unit that he actually doesn't have much part in.

bigbluedefense
11-25-2009, 07:28 PM
I think Kubiak is getting a bad rap honestly. I don't think his team is as talented as people on this board perceive it to be.

They have great skill position talent on offense, but the oline is still middle of the pack, the run game is weak (Slaton is not the answer at RB, he's more of a 3rd down back), and their dline outside of Mario Williams is very average.

Their secondary is also very average.

Its a solid team, but its not spectacular. And their record shows it. They could use better coordination on defense. But other than that, I think Kubiak isn't doing a terrible job.

In fact, I love their offensive playcalling. I think he runs a very good offense.


Speaking of which, is it just me, or is Matt Schaub a Phillip Rivers clone? They are identical. Both stand tall in the pocket, have weak but accurate arms, good at making reads etc. Both could use better pocket presence. They are interchangeable players to me.

LonghornsLegend
11-25-2009, 07:56 PM
It's not Wade Phillips fault we haven't won a playoff game in over a decade, he hasn't been around that long, looking at his body of work he's done just fine especially considering that he took over the defense and that unit has played completely different since that change.


And yea Jerry Jones may meddle, but at least he doesn't get involved with the fans and giving them the bird :)

http://simg.sportsbybrooks.com/a/1/a19bfd0a591a02699b138e3509ff9b5c_titansownerbudada msmiddlefingerphotos.jpg

Zaytoven
11-27-2009, 02:46 PM
I think he gets too much heat for the Favre fiasco, in the end he made the right call to go with Rodgers and it was definitely courageous on his part. That said, his drafts the past few years have been terrible. I like Clay Matthews, but did they really need another LB? I like Jordy Nelson, but they already had one of the best receiver corps. in the game. Brian Brohm, Justin Harrell, Brandon Jackson, high picks with no impact whatsoever. Meanwhile the team has gaping holes on the offensive line that have been ignored.

Clay Matthews is starting and making a big impact. They most definitely did need a 3-4 OLB because they had nobody outside of Kampman (not a good fit for the 3-4). As far as we can tell right now, that pick was excellent.

Nelson was pretty good his rookie season although he's been up and down this year because of injuries. Does a pretty job on kick returns and also gets a lot of work as the #3 receiver. The Packers run 3 wide receiver sets often so it's not like he's going to waste. Definitely not a "bad pick".

Brian Brohm is a bust as far as we can tell. Can't win them all.

Justin Harrell is an unknown. It was a risky pick because of the bicep injury but nobody could have predicted the back issues that have kept him off the field. Don't really know if you can chalk this up to anything other than bad luck.

Brandon Jackson has been the 3rd down back for a couple seasons now and has done a great job in the role. Reliable blocker, good hands, and he's physically matured the past few seasons which has helped him in running the ball. Not a starter but he's a valuable contributor.

The interior offensive line has actually been pretty good and is mostly Thompson draft picks. Obviously tackle is an issue with the injuries to Clifton and Tauscher. He's tried to get a RT in the draft but hasn't found one yet (maybe T.J. Lang?).

Thompson has made some great picks including Rodgers, Collins, Finley, and Jennings. Don't forget key free agent acquisitions like Pickett and Woodson.

I actually can't believe you chose Thompson. Look at the talent he's assembled in his time in Green Bay. Is there a team in the league with a better collection of young talent?

umphrey
11-27-2009, 08:29 PM
There are lots of teams with more talent than GB. Thompson does some things really well and sucks at some things. When he signs free agents they have all been worth their salt. He made some really nice picks in rounds 2-7. I thought the team handled the Favre situation the best they could have. On the other hand he put together an embarrasing OL, which is failing to protect our franchise player. He's drafted lots of busts using 1st round picks and on offensive line. He's ignored free agents for a few years now.

Xenos
11-27-2009, 10:43 PM
I think Kubiak is getting a bad rap honestly. I don't think his team is as talented as people on this board perceive it to be.

They have great skill position talent on offense, but the oline is still middle of the pack, the run game is weak (Slaton is not the answer at RB, he's more of a 3rd down back), and their dline outside of Mario Williams is very average.

Their secondary is also very average.

Its a solid team, but its not spectacular. And their record shows it. They could use better coordination on defense. But other than that, I think Kubiak isn't doing a terrible job.

In fact, I love their offensive playcalling. I think he runs a very good offense.


Speaking of which, is it just me, or is Matt Schaub a Phillip Rivers clone? They are identical. Both stand tall in the pocket, have weak but accurate arms, good at making reads etc. Both could use better pocket presence. They are interchangeable players to me.
Rivers has the durability factor and intangibles over Schaub. He also does a much better job of getting rid of the ball plus his pocket presence is underrated IMO. I'm haven't seen Schaub play that much so I'll take your word about everything else. Personality wise Rivers is more like Favre.

jackalope
11-27-2009, 11:35 PM
There are lots of teams with more talent than GB. Thompson does some things really well and sucks at some things. When he signs free agents they have all been worth their salt. He made some really nice picks in rounds 2-7. I thought the team handled the Favre situation the best they could have. On the other hand he put together an embarrasing OL, which is failing to protect our franchise player. He's drafted lots of busts using 1st round picks and on offensive line. He's ignored free agents for a few years now.

2005: Aaron Rodgers
2006: AJ Hawk
2007: Justin Harrell
2008: nobody
2009a: BJ Raji
2009b: Clay Matthews

As I see it, the only bust in the first round would be Justin Harrell, and I don't even see that as a problem with talent evaluation. Aaron Rodgers and Clay Matthews were both great first round picks, and I expect Raji to be as well, but it's too early to judge for him. I wouldn't call AJ Hawk a bust. He obviously isn't the player that everyone expected him to be, but he's still a decent starter. Disappointing, but he doesn't qualify as a bust.

We're one of the youngest teams (we were the youngest at the start of the season, not sure where we are now) and we're in position to make the playoffs. There are definitely more talented teams, but I don't understand why people are calling for Thompson's head.

bearsfan_51
11-28-2009, 01:16 AM
I wouldn't call AJ Hawk a bust. He obviously isn't the player that everyone expected him to be, but he's still a decent starter. Disappointing, but he doesn't qualify as a bust.

We're one of the youngest teams (we were the youngest at the start of the season, not sure where we are now) and we're in position to make the playoffs. There are definitely more talented teams, but I don't understand why people are calling for Thompson's head.
AJ Hawk was a top 5 pick, signed a contract for 37.5 million dollars, and is an average player with seemingly no more upside. That's a bust.

I'll also go on record as saying I thought the Saints should have taken Hawk at #2 instead of Bush or Vince Young, so I don't really blame TT for that pic.

Zaytoven
11-28-2009, 01:58 AM
AJ Hawk was a top 5 pick, signed a contract for 37.5 million dollars, and is an average player with seemingly no more upside. That's a bust.

I'll also go on record as saying I thought the Saints should have taken Hawk at #2 instead of Bush or Vince Young, so I don't really blame TT for that pic.

I think your definition of bust is a lot different than most. A solid starter is not a bust in my books.

Hell, the only guy in the Top 10 of the 2006 draft you can't call a bust is Mario Williams and he's looked pretty average this season. I suppose you could maybe make an argument for Vernon Davis now as well.

Gay Ork Wang
11-28-2009, 04:20 AM
I think your definition of bust is a lot different than most. A solid starter is not a bust in my books.

Hell, the only guy in the Top 10 of the 2006 draft you can't call a bust is Mario Williams and he's looked pretty average this season. I suppose you could maybe make an argument for Vernon Davis now as well.
just because the rest is bad doesnt mean he isnt. If you draft someone top10 you expect him to make an impact, not be an average starter

Bengalsrocket
11-28-2009, 06:44 AM
just because the rest is bad doesnt mean he isnt. If you draft someone top10 you expect him to make an impact, not be an average starter

I think a lot of people would like to separate guys like Joey Harrington, Ki-jana Carter, Ryan Leaf, Tony Mandrich, Akili Smith, etc. from guys like Reggie Bush, AJ Hawk, Vernon Davis, Vince Young, Carnell Williams, etc. Because, while they haven't lived up to their hype nor potential, they're still able to maintain a job in the NFL.

I think the guys who just flat out can't play at all are the busts, not the guys who failed to live up to expectations but still are an asset to their respective teams.

Gay Ork Wang
11-28-2009, 06:48 AM
I think a lot of people would like to separate guys like Joey Harrington, Ki-jana Carter, Ryan Leaf, Tony Mandrich, Akili Smith, etc. from guys like Reggie Bush, AJ Hawk, Vernon Davis, Vince Young, Carnell Williams, etc. Because, while they haven't lived up to their hype nor potential, they're still able to maintain a job in the NFL.

I think the guys who just flat out can't play at all are the busts, not the guys who failed to live up to expectations but still are an asset to their respective teams.
Bust (Sports), derogatory term for a player who is drafted at a high position and fails

well he failed at playing up to his draftstock

Scotty D
11-28-2009, 06:52 AM
You have to find impact players in the top ten. I consider Ernie Sims a bust for #9 overall pick. Being able to just hold a job doesn't cut it. I can find players anywhere in the draft or free agency to do that.

Bengalsrocket
11-28-2009, 07:23 AM
You have to find impact players in the top ten. I consider Ernie Sims a bust for #9 overall pick. Being able to just hold a job doesn't cut it. I can find players anywhere in the draft or free agency to do that.

I don't disagree with you. I never want to draft someone, in any round, that's just going to be mediocre. But there is definitely a difference between guys who just don't get the game at a pro level and guys who struggle to live up to hype we put on them. I just believe we need to come up with a new term to separate the Ryan Leaf's from the Ernie Sim's of the NFL draft, because I don't think it's appropriate to put two guys who are on completely different levels in the same category.

Gay Ork Wang
11-28-2009, 08:33 AM
I don't disagree with you. I never want to draft someone, in any round, that's just going to be mediocre. But there is definitely a difference between guys who just don't get the game at a pro level and guys who struggle to live up to hype we put on them. I just believe we need to come up with a new term to separate the Ryan Leaf's from the Ernie Sim's of the NFL draft, because I don't think it's appropriate to put two guys who are on completely different levels in the same category.
thats why you call those "one of the worst picks ever" why they are just busts

Zaytoven
11-28-2009, 09:32 AM
I think a lot of people would like to separate guys like Joey Harrington, Ki-jana Carter, Ryan Leaf, Tony Mandrich, Akili Smith, etc. from guys like Reggie Bush, AJ Hawk, Vernon Davis, Vince Young, Carnell Williams, etc. Because, while they haven't lived up to their hype nor potential, they're still able to maintain a job in the NFL.

I think the guys who just flat out can't play at all are the busts, not the guys who failed to live up to expectations but still are an asset to their respective teams.

I agree with this. I suppose it's just semantics but I can't justify attaching the word bust to a player who is an average starter and will likely play for a decade or more.

Look at the history of the draft. How many guys truly live up to expectations? Less than 20% I bet at the top end of the draft.

yo123
11-28-2009, 11:17 AM
I would hardly call Hawk a solid starter. I don't know if this is still the case but I know earlier this year his playing time was way down. If you're a number 5 overall pick and can't stay on the field you're a bust.

P-L
11-28-2009, 11:45 AM
I guess it depends on your definition of a bust. To me, the word "bust" is very dependent on when you were drafted. When you take someone with the fifth overall pick in the draft you need that player to be a star. A.J. Hawk is a borderline starter who the Packers could easily replace. If he was a third round pick, than I probably wouldn't consider him a bust. However, he was the fifth overall pick in the entire draft and is not playing like it.

Zaytoven
11-28-2009, 12:13 PM
I guess it depends on your definition of a bust. To me, the word "bust" is very dependent on when you were drafted. When you take someone with the fifth overall pick in the draft you need that player to be a star. A.J. Hawk is a borderline starter who the Packers could easily replace. If he was a third round pick, than I probably wouldn't consider him a bust. However, he was the fifth overall pick in the entire draft and is not playing like it.

2007 Draft
1. Jamarcus Russell - Bust
2. Calvin Johnson - Good Pick
3. Joe Thomas - Good Pick
4. Gaines Adams - Bust
5. Levi Brown - Bust
6. LaRon Landry - Bust
7. Adrian Peterson - Good Pick
8. Jamaal Anderson - Bust
9. Ted Ginn Jr. - Bust
10. Amobi Okoye - Bust

3/10 Good Picks. 70% bust rate?

2006 Draft
1. Mario Williams - Good Pick
2. Reggie Bush - Bust
3. Vince Young - Bust
4. D'Brickashaw Ferguson - Bust
5. A.J. Hawk - Bust
6. Vernon Davis - Good Pick
7. Michael Huff - Bust
8. Donte Whitner - Bust
9. Ernie Sims - Bust
10. Matt Leinart - Bust

2/10 Good Picks. 80% bust rate?

2005 Draft
1. Alex Smith - Bust
2. Ronnie Brown - Good Pick
3. Braylon Edwards - Good Pick
4. Cedric Benson - Bust
5. Cadillac Williams - Bust
6. Pacman Jones - Bust
7. Troy Williamson - Bust
8. Antrel Rolle - Bust
9. Carlos Rogers - Bust
10. Mike Williams - Bust

2/10 Good Picks. 80% bust rate?

I just think you guys are being waaay too liberal in applying the bust label. Not everybody is going to become a superstar.

bearsfan_51
11-28-2009, 12:59 PM
When you give someone 40 million dollars, they better damn produce. There are guys playing for the vet minimum that are just as good as Hawk.

Put it this way, would the Packers have been better off by simply taking nobody? I would say the answer is obvious, so when nobody > you, you're a bust.

bearsfan_51
11-28-2009, 01:01 PM
I think your definition of bust is a lot different than most. A solid starter is not a bust in my books.

Hell, the only guy in the Top 10 of the 2006 draft you can't call a bust is Mario Williams and he's looked pretty average this season. I suppose you could maybe make an argument for Vernon Davis now as well.
Vernon Davis is light years ahead of Hawk as an NFL player.

Zaytoven
11-28-2009, 01:05 PM
When you give someone 40 million dollars, they better damn produce. There are guys playing for the vet minimum that are just as good as Hawk.

Put it this way, would the Packers have been better off by simply taking nobody? I would say the answer is obvious, so when nobody > you, you're a bust.

The same goes for 80% of top 10 picks then.

bearsfan_51
11-28-2009, 01:07 PM
The same goes for 80% of top 10 picks then.
So what? How is that an argument?

"Well everyone in jail committed a crime your honor, so my client can't be guilty."

Zaytoven
11-28-2009, 01:14 PM
So what? How is that an argument?

"Well everyone in jail committed a crime your honor, so my client can't be guilty."

I'm just saying it's pointless to call guys a bust just because they don't turn into elite players since the vast majority of players don't. You can't expect every top 10 pick to become a superstar. The busts are the guys who offer no or almost no value to their team. Disappointments are guys like Bush, Hawk, etc. who still contribute just not to the level you were hoping when you drafted them.

We're having an argument about semantics. I think your usage of the word bust is stupid because it doesn't differentiate between Jamaal Anderson and A.J. Hawk. There is a big difference between drafting a guy that contributes nothing to your team and a guy who has started for 4 seasons.

The whole point of this was to say that Thompson has a good draft record in Green Bay and I stand by that.

CC.SD
11-28-2009, 01:38 PM
I'm not so sure the verdict is in on some of those 'busts' described above. I will sell the cow on AJ Hawk though.

Didn't Amobi Okoye just turn 16 this year? :D Levi Brown seems to be doing an OK job for a successful offense, etc. etc.

bearsfan_51
11-28-2009, 01:41 PM
Yeah I was going to nitpick some of the people he was putting in the same class as Hawk but I let it go. Vernon Davis is the big one though.

Hawk probably has one more year with the Pack. He's due 10 million dollars in 2011, and I don't see how they pay him that.

Zaytoven
11-28-2009, 01:44 PM
Yeah I was going to nitpick some of the people he was putting in the same class as Hawk but I let it go. Vernon Davis is the big one though.

Hawk probably has one more year with the Pack. He's due 10 million dollars in 2011, and I don't see how they pay him that.

I listed Davis as a Good Pick in my chart and said you could make an argument for him. He looked like a bust prior to this season, according to your criteria.

Gay Ork Wang
11-28-2009, 02:02 PM
yes and he was. Now, just thinking about how much a first round pick is getting paid, youve got to think if he is playing up to his contract? obviously they are inflated, but even without the inflation, he is kind of a free agent trying to play up to his potential. Hawk is not worth those 40 million, just like most of the other first round picks. Fact is, that at least half of first round picks are busts, cause, lets face it, first round picks are usually supposed to be cornerstones of your team. First round picks have a lot higher criteria for being successful, thats why drafting is so important. Is Hawk a cornerstone for the packers? Is he even above average? i mean if he had like 1 or 2 outstanding years and then just dropped off and played average, id guess that wouldnt be a bust in my eyes (and thats why i wouldnt call LaRon a bust, at least not yet), but Hawk has never done anything special.

Also Okoye is turning like 21 or 22 this season, so he has like 10 more years in the NFL lol. its kinda insane, i believe he was 19 when drafted

jackalope
11-28-2009, 02:23 PM
yes and he was. Now, just thinking about how much a first round pick is getting paid, youve got to think if he is playing up to his contract? obviously they are inflated, but even without the inflation, he is kind of a free agent trying to play up to his potential. Hawk is not worth those 40 million, just like most of the other first round picks. Fact is, that at least half of first round picks are busts, cause, lets face it, first round picks are usually supposed to be cornerstones of your team. First round picks have a lot higher criteria for being successful, thats why drafting is so important. Is Hawk a cornerstone for the packers? Is he even above average? i mean if he had like 1 or 2 outstanding years and then just dropped off and played average, id guess that wouldnt be a bust in my eyes (and thats why i wouldnt call LaRon a bust, at least not yet), but Hawk has never done anything special.

Also Okoye is turning like 21 or 22 this season, so he has like 10 more years in the NFL lol. its kinda insane, i believe he was 19 when drafted

If over half of the first round picks are busts, then you have to say Thompson has been at least average in the first round, which is what this discussion was originally about. Rodgers is unquestionably a cornerstone and I think you can already call Matthews a cornerstone as well. Of five first round picks two were successful, two were busts, and Raji is too early to tell.

If you want to call Hawk a bust, that's fine. I can definitely see the logic behind that argument. To me the word "bust" implies that a player stinks and can't make it in the NFL, but it's definitely open to interpretaion.

Gay Ork Wang
11-28-2009, 07:15 PM
If over half of the first round picks are busts, then you have to say Thompson has been at least average in the first round, which is what this discussion was originally about. Rodgers is unquestionably a cornerstone and I think you can already call Matthews a cornerstone as well. Of five first round picks two were successful, two were busts, and Raji is too early to tell.

If you want to call Hawk a bust, that's fine. I can definitely see the logic behind that argument. To me the word "bust" implies that a player stinks and can't make it in the NFL, but it's definitely open to interpretaion.
yea im not talking about Thompson, i think he has done at least better than half of the NFL if not top10 drafting, but Hawk did not turn out as expected

Nalej
11-28-2009, 07:21 PM
I'd go ahead and call Hawk a bust.

TitleTown088
11-28-2009, 07:59 PM
http://apudgeisasandwich.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/tedthompson.jpg

[quote] That said, his drafts the past few years have been terrible. I like Clay Matthews, but did they really need another LB?
Yeah, uh how can you even question the Clay Matthews pick one bit? It was a great pick and the packers absolutely needed a OLB for the new 3-4. He's probably the only true 3-4 OLB ( Aside from maybe Brad Jones) on the roster right now. Canidate for DROY.



I like Jordy Nelson, but they already had one of the best receiver corps. in the game. Yeah, and one of the starters is 34 years old. Besides, Jordyzzz picked Green bay , Green bay did not pick him.

Brian Brohm, Justin Harrell, Brandon Jackson, high picks with no impact whatsoever. add Patrick Lee to that list as well. Injuries have played a big role in the higher picks that didn't pan out. Brandon Jackson has had some impact, not too much.

Meanwhile the team has gaping holes on the offensive line that have been ignored. The Oline has holes, but you can hardly say Ted has ignored them, he's invested more picks there than any other position since he came to Green Bay. He's also picked Spitz, Sitton, and Colledge, who all look like nice young players. Lang looks like a nice pick this year too.


Hawk hasn't been spectacular, but he's not bad like some of you make him out to be. I think the only reason you could consider him a bust is because of his draft slot, he's been a ok player though.

bearsfan_51
11-28-2009, 08:28 PM
Being a bust or not has EVERYTHING to do with your value relative to where you are drafted, so......yeah. Were Hawk drafted in the 3rd round it would have been fine.

TitleTown088
11-28-2009, 08:56 PM
Being a bust or not has EVERYTHING to do with your value relative to where you are drafted, so......yeah. Were Hawk drafted in the 3rd round it would have been fine.

Yeah, I realize that. I was just stating it's not like Hawk has been a bad player. He just hasn't lived up to the hype., and isn't the game changer he was expected to be. So, A bit of bust, yeah.
So would Cutler be considered a bust considering he's netted 3 first rounders+? Or is it just because of the the Oline and receivers? :) Funny how the kid from up north has been sacked and pressured much more this season, only to be a top 5 QB.

bearsfan_51
11-28-2009, 09:01 PM
You seriously can't go two posts without trying to talk ****. At least try to be more original.

I have no idea where you get the three 1st rounders though, seeing as how we never had three first rounders. Maybe you think Kyle Orton was drafted in the 1st?

But regardless, sure, Cutler needs to improve in the next year or two or that move will be a failure. I don't think there's any question about that.

PACKmanN
11-28-2009, 09:13 PM
I don't understand what has happened to Hawk after his first season. He showed a lot of promise and than he fail to the bottom after that. Maybe the Browns could trade for him and he could save the Browns, lol. Would love to have McClain in Green Bay.

TitleTown088
11-28-2009, 09:20 PM
You seriously can't go two posts without trying to talk ****. At least try to be more original. Someone's testy. Granted it was a bit obtuse for me to bring up Cutler, I just couldn't resist.

I have no idea where you get the three 1st rounders though, seeing as how we never had three first rounders. Maybe you think Kyle Orton was drafted in the 1st?

This may not be entirely sound logic because the Bears only invested two of them... Since Cutler has came into the league he's cost a 1st rounder ( Denver) and two from the bears and played relatively average.

So,

Hawk has cost #5 overall and played average

Jeff Georg... I mean Jay Cutler, has cost Denver first (11th overall), and two bear's first rounders, and a 3rd. I'd say if Hawk is a bust ( which is fair to say so), so is Cutler. That was what I was getting at.

MetSox17
11-28-2009, 09:28 PM
Well, by trading Cutler away, they recovered their original first round investment, so technically he didn't cost the Broncos anything.

bearsfan_51
11-28-2009, 09:31 PM
Cutler was a tremendous investment by the Broncos. Not only did they get a few great years out of him, they also got more picks in return. That's an awful argument.

Gay Ork Wang
11-28-2009, 09:31 PM
thats just horrible logic

TitleTown088
11-28-2009, 10:18 PM
Cutler was a tremendous investment by the Broncos. Not only did they get a few great years out of him, they also got more picks in return. That's an awful argument.

Great years...?

thats just horrible logic


Ok then just include two 1sts and a 3rd that Cutler cost the bears. Then include that he's playing like a late rounder and voila.. he's "a bust" too.

Brent
11-28-2009, 10:22 PM
Hawk has cost #5 overall and played average
If the Packers hadnt taken him, they Niners would have. Instead, we got Vernon. I am okay with that.

Gay Ork Wang
11-28-2009, 10:27 PM
Great years...?




Ok then just include two 1sts and a 3rd that Cutler cost the bears. Then include that he's playing like a late rounder and voila.. he's "a bust" too.
so you are judging him after not even a season? ill agree if he continues to play like that, but give things like that time. He is in a new system, hardly any help and all that.

if the next 2 seasons he doesnt show improvement, yes he will be a bust for the bears

Iamcanadian
11-28-2009, 10:39 PM
People's opinions on busts seems rather absurd to me. A bust is a player who never really contributes to his team and rides the bench or is cut pretty early in his career. Any player who is a starter cannot be labeled a bust, he may be a disappointment but saying he is a bust is just ridiculous.

LonghornsLegend
11-28-2009, 10:46 PM
To me the word "bust" implies that a player stinks and can't make it in the NFL, but it's definitely open to interpretaion.

If that were the case Marcus Spears and Bobby Carpenter wouldn't be bust then. 1st rounders are supposed to be more then just average/solid players, so while those guys may still show they can make it in the NFL that's still classified as a bust to me.



People's opinions on busts seems rather absurd to me. A bust is a player who never really contributes to his team and rides the bench or is cut pretty early in his career. Any player who is a starter cannot be labeled a bust, he may be a disappointment but saying he is a bust is just ridiculous.

Again, so Marcus Spears isn't a bust now? Nobody has a problem calling him one, but according to some of your definitions he isn't obviously.

cvv84
11-28-2009, 11:01 PM
http://apudgeisasandwich.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/tedthompson.jpg

I think he gets too much heat for the Favre fiasco, in the end he made the right call to go with Rodgers and it was definitely courageous on his part. That said, his drafts the past few years have been terrible. I like Clay Matthews, but did they really need another LB? I like Jordy Nelson, but they already had one of the best receiver corps. in the game. Brian Brohm, Justin Harrell, Brandon Jackson, high picks with no impact whatsoever. Meanwhile the team has gaping holes on the offensive line that have been ignored.

Yes we needed another LB that could rush the passer since we were switching to the 3-4. Matthews has been huge for us this year.

The reason why we have one of the best passing attacks in the NFL is because of all the weapons. Nelson may not be flashy but he uses his size well to gain yardage after the catch.

Brandon Jackson is our 3rd down RB and he's been playing pretty well as of late.

The offensive line hasn't been ignored either. In fact thats where Thompson has spent the most of his picks on since he took over as GM. Granted he hasn't taken many of them high but its not like he's ignored the Oline completely. Guys just haven't panned out.

He's drafted guys like Aaron Rodgers, Nick Collins, Greg Jennings, Johnny Jolly, Jermichael Finley, and Josh Sitton that have been playing very well for us. B.J. Raji, Clay Matthews, and T.J. Lang have shown alot of promise from this years draft.

Not too mention he's brought in Ryan Pickett and Charles Woodson via free agency and Ryan Grant via trade. Yeah he strook on some picks/decisions but has he done it any more than any other GM? I don't think so.

bearsfan_51
11-28-2009, 11:30 PM
People's opinions on busts seems rather absurd to me. A bust is a player who never really contributes to his team and rides the bench or is cut pretty early in his career. Any player who is a starter cannot be labeled a bust, he may be a disappointment but saying he is a bust is just ridiculous.
Says who? You? Find me where this definition comes from.

bearsfan_51
11-28-2009, 11:33 PM
Great years...?




Ok then just include two 1sts and a 3rd that Cutler cost the bears. Then include that he's playing like a late rounder and voila.. he's "a bust" too.
So now Cutler wasn't a good quarterback in Denver too? Funny how a few bad games completely changes the perception of a player.

Again, as noted above, Cutler has had a dissapointing season, Hawk has had a dissapointing career. You're simply bringing up a Bears player because you want to be annoying. If you think I'm being testy or whatever, it's because you used to be a logical poster, and it's annoying to me that you obviously don't care about that anymore.

Iamcanadian
11-28-2009, 11:39 PM
Says who? You? Find me where this definition comes from.

Just common sense if you ask me. Who says your definition is held by anybody in pro football?

bearsfan_51
11-28-2009, 11:46 PM
I don't even know if anybody professionally involved with pro football has any use for the term bust, since it is only germane to fan discussion and banter. That said, the common axiom which I've always read, is that the bare expectation for a solid top 10 pick is at least one pro bowl in his career, and multiple pro bowls for a top 5 pick.

sweetness34
11-29-2009, 12:09 AM
Love Smith seems to have regressed as a coach since the Super Bowl run.

I love Jerry Angelo but his early draft picks in his tenure as our GM have been abysmal. He has also failed to address the OL. His recipe has been signing crap OL's in free agency instead of using the draft to help out the unit.

I would like to see Angelo stay on, but that means Lovie has to go after this season. If our head coach is still the same next year I'm beating Angelo with sticks and tossing him into Lake Michigan.

TitleTown088
11-29-2009, 01:59 AM
So now Cutler wasn't a good quarterback in Denver too? Funny how a few bad games completely changes the perception of a player.

You said great seasons, not good. No Cutler never had "great" seasons in Denver.


Again, as noted above, Cutler has had a dissapointing season, Hawk has had a dissapointing career..
I don't necessarily disagree, but Hawk had a good rookie year a solid sophomore season. Not 5th overall good, as noted before, but solid. Now he's playing in a new system in Green Bay, if Cutler gets a pass by you guys for playing in a new system shouldn't Hawk..? I don't think either has lived up to their status.

M.O.T.H.
11-29-2009, 02:32 AM
I dont know if I'd exactly call Spears a bust...a disappointment, but I dont know about the word bust. He's been a 5 year starter here. So obviously, he's not exactly horrible. I agree, he hasnt lived up to the 1st round billing but, I wouldnt call him a complete bust. Bobby Carpenter on the other hand....yeah he's a bust. It's different from person to person but, that's my view on Spears at least.

Gay Ork Wang
11-29-2009, 05:17 AM
You said great seasons, not good. No Cutler never had "great" seasons in Denver.
Wait what?

bigbluedefense
11-29-2009, 09:10 AM
Rivers has the durability factor and intangibles over Schaub. He also does a much better job of getting rid of the ball plus his pocket presence is underrated IMO. I'm haven't seen Schaub play that much so I'll take your word about everything else. Personality wise Rivers is more like Favre.

I think Rivers has the durability over him, thats for sure.

I honestly don't think Rivers has very good pocket presence, but he does a great job of getting the ball out. Schaub does too. Remember, Rivers has those big guys to throw it up to also when in danger. Schaub has Johnson sure, but his oline is not as good and he doesnt have as many safety valves.

Its hard to compare them entirely without some variables to consider. Rivers is better, I guess a more accurate analogy would be Schaub is a middle class Phillip Rivers.

LizardState
11-29-2009, 09:23 AM
I dont know if I'd exactly call Spears a bust...a disappointment, but I dont know about the word bust. He's been a 5 year starter here. So obviously, he's not exactly horrible. I agree, he hasnt lived up to the 1st round billing but, I wouldnt call him a complete bust. Bobby Carpenter on the other hand....yeah he's a bust. It's different from person to person but, that's my view on Spears at least.

Mothman is correct, Spears is streaky, inconsistent, could bust still b/c he's a short-fused & not very bright, close to uncoachable & that's the primary reason he never broke through to that next level to superstar, he's had more than enough time at 5 yrs. starting. He can't shed blockers consistently & disappears in big games. Carpenter was a legacy player, one of Parcells formula picks b/c his father played for him with the Giants, just a flat out bust at ILB -- way, way too many missed tackles, intolerable in that defense.

49ersfan_87
11-29-2009, 11:16 AM
If the Packers hadnt taken him, they Niners would have. Instead, we got Vernon. I am okay with that.

And if we had taken Hawk, we wouldn't have Willis. I'm glad we have Davis and Willis.

TitleTown088
11-29-2009, 12:04 PM
And if we had taken Hawk, we wouldn't have Willis. I'm glad we have Davis and Willis.
You guys can keep Davis and Willis, I'll keep Rodgers. :)

49ersfan_87
11-29-2009, 12:11 PM
You guys can keep Davis and Willis, I'll keep Rodgers. :)

Hah, i knew that was coming.

P-L
11-29-2009, 09:27 PM
Any player who is a starter cannot be labeled a bust, he may be a disappointment but saying he is a bust is just ridiculous.
Joey Harrington was a starter for 56 games in his first four seasons. A.J. Hawk has been a starter for 58 games in his first four seasons.

Cigaro
11-29-2009, 09:29 PM
http://www4.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/Arizona+Cardinals+v+Carolina+Panthers+K_SbQb8lYpel .jpg

LonghornsLegend
11-29-2009, 09:37 PM
Mothman is correct, Spears is streaky, inconsistent, could bust still b/c he's a short-fused & not very bright, close to uncoachable & that's the primary reason he never broke through to that next level to superstar, he's had more than enough time at 5 yrs. starting. He can't shed blockers consistently & disappears in big games. Carpenter was a legacy player, one of Parcells formula picks b/c his father played for him with the Giants, just a flat out bust at ILB -- way, way too many missed tackles, intolerable in that defense.

Nobody spends a top 20 pick on a guy to be an average starter, you can get those guys in the 5th round. You draft those type of players to be impact players, and at the very least a pro bowl player in a year or two. It makes no sense to judge a player on if he's a bust due to him starting because you may not have anything better at the moment.


I'll be the first to admit Spears hasn't been terrible at all, but I don't see how using a top 20 pick on a below average 3-4 DE is not a bust. We could of got a player of his ability well at the end of the draft and we wasted a 1st, which Parcells felt he was even more important then Demarcus Ware.

bearsfan_51
11-29-2009, 11:01 PM
Joey Harrington was a starter for 56 games in his first four seasons. A.J. Hawk has been a starter for 58 games in his first four seasons.
Check and mate.

aNYtitan
11-29-2009, 11:03 PM
Brady Quinn



pfffttt

Zaytoven
11-29-2009, 11:16 PM
Well, about 70-80% of top 10 picks are busts. I'll gladly take Thompson's record with 1st rounders. :D

Xenos
11-30-2009, 12:25 AM
So now Cutler wasn't a good quarterback in Denver too? Funny how a few bad games completely changes the perception of a player.

Again, as noted above, Cutler has had a dissapointing season, Hawk has had a dissapointing career. You're simply bringing up a Bears player because you want to be annoying. If you think I'm being testy or whatever, it's because you used to be a logical poster, and it's annoying to me that you obviously don't care about that anymore.
No he wasn't. And I've been saying that since you guys traded for him. He was as good as Jeff George when he was with the Broncos. Which is to say he had good games and some horrible games, but overall a loser who couldn't lead an army out of a paper bag. Not as bad as it is with the Bears right now but yeah he wasn't a good QB. Too inconsistent to be a good QB.

Monomach
11-30-2009, 12:29 AM
Love Smith seems to have regressed as a coach since the Super Bowl run.

I love Jerry Angelo but his early draft picks in his tenure as our GM have been abysmal. He has also failed to address the OL. His recipe has been signing crap OL's in free agency instead of using the draft to help out the unit.

I would like to see Angelo stay on, but that means Lovie has to go after this season. If our head coach is still the same next year I'm beating Angelo with sticks and tossing him into Lake Michigan.

Lovie hasn't regressed; he was never all that good. He wasn't calling the plays or anything in 2006. I've caught a lot of **** over the years as a Lovie & Jerry hater, but everyone is finally starting to see it.

Remember the playoff game against the Seahawks? That game contained the pinnacle of coaching stupidity. Hasselbeck and the Hawks were letting the clock run out to go to overtime on fourth down. What's Lovie do? He waits until two seconds are left and calls time so Hasselbeck can have one free shot at a hail mary to win the game. What the **** did he think they were going to do? Kick it to Hester?

That's not what a good coach who deserves an extension does. That's what a dribbling, drooling moron who deserves to be unemployed does.

Xenos
11-30-2009, 12:31 AM
I think Rivers has the durability over him, thats for sure.

I honestly don't think Rivers has very good pocket presence, but he does a great job of getting the ball out. Schaub does too. Remember, Rivers has those big guys to throw it up to also when in danger. Schaub has Johnson sure, but his oline is not as good and he doesnt have as many safety valves.

Its hard to compare them entirely without some variables to consider. Rivers is better, I guess a more accurate analogy would be Schaub is a middle class Phillip Rivers.
Rivers did a better job of moving inside the pocket last year. At one point in the 2008 season (I believe the regular season Steelers game), they said he was the most accurate quarterback when touched. And he was very good last year at sidestepping pressure a la Tom Brady and making plays. Which is kind of funny considering that he spent the early part of the season getting used to wearing a brace and recovering from ACL surgery.

Another person that is actually similar to Rivers is Brees in how they both use their receivers' height to their advantage. I think it's something that Brees taught Rivers when they were together on the Chargers. They both like to lay it up there for those 6-5 targets.

Shane P. Hallam
12-06-2009, 10:37 AM
While we're back here, Andy Reid is going to get an extension per Adam Schefter:

Eagles very close to contract extension with head coach Andy Reid that could be finalized and announced this week.

yodabear
12-06-2009, 10:47 AM
The Bears dudes, they made their bed with the Cutler move and now they are sleeping in it. And they will lose to the Rams today to put the hammer on the nail of Lovie Smith's coffin. **** YES!