ATL-CAR Game Thread

Done past.

Nobody was/is going to trade for Weinke. He's a cut.

I'd love for Fasani to show me a few things. I'd love to be able to go with him and an able vet. That's my hope.

Its just not likely, and it has me depressed that we will suck next year with Palmer or Manning.

 

>>Although, I will say that I think he has decent vision, usually he makes the right read, however, he has yet to show he can make the decision fast enough.

I don't think so. Chris Draft, not the smartest man in the world (he did go to Stanford, but bear with me...I'm aware of him), said that Fasani was locking on to one receiver in the first Atlanta game. He often sees a good deal better on the run than he seems to in the pocket, and he uses the pocket as a crutch that way (in other words, when he has one or two guys he's actually reading, he tries to roll the pocket and therefore the defenders so someone will get open). If he sees everything, and still only has one read, there's hope.

>>So I don't understand the rush to judgement.

We'll talk about him in three years, in three years. Right now I'm talking about him now. See you then if we're looking for finished product, my reasons for talking about him now was in reference to him being the starter this year.

>>True his completions were against a prevent, but so what.

It makes a pretty big difference. Players are designed to get open underneath so that they can be contained rather than playing standard defense. Therefore it doesn't at all surprise me that he can get a ball off to someone 8 yards away. Problem was, even without the

>>That's all he had to play against. And it was the same "prevent" that Weinke faced, with more pressure,

Neat. So they brought more pressure than with Weinke even though you say they were in the same D? I'm just playing with you, but the thing you have to see is that he's helping create that pressure. He holds the ball for three seconds, then takes off where outside contain can chase him. Weinke stands, delivers, and throws inaccurately.

>>and he made the throws while Weinke didn't even come close

To me, neither did anything of interest for accuracy. Not at all. The difference to me is where the two threw from.

>>Yet he was the one singled out. So I was just wondering why it was Fasani that was singled out and not Weinke.

Like Piper said, he's the one who'll still be here. The argument from Sandy was that we shouldn't draft a young player because of this guy. It was a combination of the two.

>>but I also don't think he did poorly either...it was somewhat a nuetral performance.

I couldn't find much positive in it. If he'd been accurate, I'd change my tone.

>>I couldn't disagree with you more (re: being spooked). Pretty much every time he has played (preseason or regular), you say something to this effect.

I didn't say it much against TB once he settled down, but the results were the same there no matter what. He looked poised against TB, but there he made bad decisions. I'd love to see him look poised and fluid, if he really must run.

>>However, I have never seen it. He always seems in control and composed to me. When he scrambles it is out of necessity, but he keeps his head up looking for a receiver to come free.

Running around isn't being in control. Sliding to one side or backing up is in control. Running is evading, and evasive isn't a term that to me suggests control.

That's why I tend to object to his running, though. While he's not in control of his game, he's still more comfortable there than in the pocket and

>>Now while it may seem I am defending him, I am not doing so as if I believe he is the second coming. I just haven't seen anything yet to totally dismiss him from the picture


I'm not dismissing him. I'm evaluating him.
No worries, I never thought you were touting him as greatness, but I still disagreed on the points. I can be kinda dry when it comes to a player like this.

 

>> Running around isn't being in control.

yea. wish Vick would learn a little fucking control.

what about bringing in a couple of vets (better than Peete) and let them fight it out for starter with the loser being the backup while they continue to let Fasani try to develop at 3? then we could get a couple WRs with our first 2 picks (depending on Foster's health and if we can shore of the OL thru FA). i don't see the point in drafting a franchise QB with our first pick and also picking up a quality vet. besides, i don't think any vet QB worth a damn is gonna wanna come here if we use our first pick on a QB. if we're gonna draft a QB there (which would be my preference as long as it's not a reach), why not just hang on to Peete and chaulk it up as another rebuilding year (RePeete) -- which it would pretty much be if we can't get some bigtime weapon(s) to go with our QB? 4-5 games into the season, Peete would be on the sideline with aching joints and our saviour would be ready to start getting his feet wet. and you know Hurney ain't gonna spend any money in FA on bigtime WRs -- so we will all have to endure another season of misery anyway..

 

Pessimism.

Remember, we didn't spend any money on WR FA because we had no money. People forget that.

We do have cap space now.

 

>>i don't see the point in drafting a franchise QB with our first pick and also picking up a quality vet.

For one that suggests we'll get a long term starter at QB - we won't. I have doubts that even Plummer or King would be good enough to hold off a promising rookie with a first or second round pick

BTW, it's funny how critics of a young pick always make it a "first round" pick, as if that's the only choice we have.

>>what about bringing in a couple of vets (better than Peete) and let them fight it out for starter

Simple. Two reasons - for one, we'd have very little future even if said starter can start for up to three years, which isn't terribly likely in today's NFL. Second, it suggests Fasani's all we need in the future, which is certainly not plausible.


>>yea. wish Vick would learn a little fucking control.

Forest for the trees. You're enamored with Vick's feet, I fucking love his arm. You have to respect his feet, but everyone, Michael included, knows you can't be a champion running around out of control. Still, when Vick takes off, it's because he's legitimately in danger of a sack, where Fasani tends to take off whenever a defender is in sight without a blocker in front of him.

And of course as you would know, Michael Vick is a rare athlete, not just a good athlete. His decision making has been great, his accuracy more than I figured he'd have, and his velocity dangerous. Be neat if Fasani had any of those attributes to Vick's level.

And no, I'm not crucifying running QBs. I enjoyed Steve Young and John Elway more than I did Aikman or Marino, and I grew up with Jim Kelly. But I never did enjoy watching old games of Fran Tarkenton when they'd be on NFL Films. And he's certainly good. Randall Cunningham is fun to watch. Tough shit...I'd rather win games. I love Donovan McNabb and Vick's playing styles because they can run around all day but they don't. Discipline. And both will be gracing the Pro Bowl with their abilities because they know how to play pro QB, rather than being the guy who could throw while he's running around.

Trust me, I don't just feel like bagging on our quarterback either. Unlike some here, I don't find pleasure or joy in going off on a player, and I've put together some fairly harsh criticisms of both our guys here. I don't like it, and I damn sure do wish it were better with him.


As far as spending on receivers, no, we won't land Peerless. Driver's been re-signed. But chances are someone'll come up on the cut list, and then a guy like Coles or Gadsden will come.

 

>> Pessimism. Remember, we didn't spend any money on WR FA because we had no money. People forget that.

When it comes to Hurney, yes I'm very pessimistic. I don't like his attitude. We were desparate for a WR this season and it could have made a huge difference. I don't know if he was truly enamored with Moose and Smith or he was just too gutless to take chance on a FA. Either way, I count him as a dumbshit and figure he'll continue to fuck things up.

>> BTW, it's funny how critics of a young pick always make it a "first round" pick, as if that's the only choice we have.

A, I'm a proponent of getting a young "franchise" QB. B, I don't see the point in trying to get both a quality vet QB and using our first pick on a QB.

>> Simple. Two reasons - for one, we'd have very little future even if said starter can start for up to three years, which isn't terribly likely in today's NFL. Second, it suggests Fasani's all we need in the future, which is certainly not plausible.

For the sake of argument, if we don't get our "franchise" QB cuz he isn't there, which would seem to be unlikely, I'd rather be in the position of having a quality vet to start and a quality vet backup than some untested rookie and Fasani as the backups (and using our first/second/third picks to bring in some weapons). With a quality QB and some weapons I would think we could go to the playoffs next year wth our defense . . . though the coaching is suspect. If we draft a franchise QB (my hope), then I think we should look at next year as another rebuilding year and keep Peete or bring in some other real cheap vet.

 

Interesting. So would you go with two vets, a suggested starter and a backup, and then still shoot for a QB? Or would you go for the backup guy, and then wait for the draft and see if a young guy's plausible before getting a starting vet? Let's take Peete out of the equation for sake of argument.

 

>> Or would you go for the backup guy, and then wait for the draft and see if a young guy's plausible before getting a starting vet?

that'd work for me

 

I'd say take the best FA QB you can get, then when you get to the draft make that decision then. If there's an opportunity, take it. If after the draft you get the chance to improve from there, then do it.

And let's take all 3 QB's out of the equation for sake of arguement.

I feel the problem we had last year is Fox would not jump on anybody because (I know the cap was part of it) he still had to evaluate the players he had already. I'm confident the evalution process is complete and Fox will make the neccsary adjustments.

 

>> I'd say take the best FA QB you can get, then when you get to the draft make that decision then. If there's an opportunity

hopefully the panthers are already into heavy evaluation of all the top QBs expected to be available in FA and the draft and won't be in a wait and see mode come the draft. with a probable top 5 pick, they should be able to pretty much identify who they can go after long before the draft gets here. the key if they peg a draftee is to not get raped by getting trapped into having to trade up to get him. (not to say that i'd be upset seeing us trade up but i'd hate to see us get raped because we are in such a desparate situation.) so i think that they are gonna have to have a fallback come the draft so that they can effectively bluff/posture. hurney does seem to be a good poker player so i think he could get our guy. just wonder if he has what it takes to pull off the blockbuster trade to get us a QB if that's what it takes.

i just don't see how we could afford to spend the money on both the best FA QB and use a #1 on a QB -- i think that's a pipe(r) dream. if we get the best FA QB and then draft a QB in the second round or lower, then we'd go into at least the next few seasons without a backup QB that we can count on. (again, if we go to FA for a QB, then i think that i'd like to see us use our first few picks on getting as many offensive weapons as we can get in the draft). whether we go with a FA or a draftee as our starting QB, i think it would make sense to get a cheap vet QB that we felt could possibly win some games in a backup situation. and let Fasani develop at 3.

am i repeating myself too much?