RED ZONE OFFENSE

>>not enough of what we have has his hands on it because his hands were basically tied when he got here. if you can tell me that you know for fact that it was henning's choice alone to not get us a legit receiver in here, then i'm your sde. but i think th GM probably had a lot to say about that.

The cap had something to do with that, but when guys came up, we looked at receivers, and then decided to keep Bright instead. Conscious choice made there, I don't believe Henning would say that he wanted Antonio Freeman and we'd get Anthony Bright instead. Henning's hands weren't tied in getting a couple of backs, and some secondary skill position players, along with two QBs. That receiver was neglected? It wasn't for lack of talent available in the draft or in FA.
You can say he had his hands tied, but you don't know any greater than I do what he had and what he didn't - and what I have in front of me is a team that stood pat at receiver but decided to go out and get guys to run Henning's system - with negligence toward the receiver position. That's all we have to go on, the roster - and for Henning wanting a receiver so bad, he sure did wait until after the draft to get the 20th rated UDFA left (roughly). He also made extra picks at FB, TE where we already had enough players - we wanted to upgrade - rather than going for a bigger depth need at WR. Of the situations, even a 6th round receiver had an okay chance of contributing this year compared to the difference between Heinrich and Crawford, much less the bust that Kyle Johnson quickly became becoming a receiver instead. So unless Fox and Hurney screamed at Henning violently when a receiver was suggested that it was a bad idea, each and every round, it would seem to me he deemed it a low priority.

>>if you read what the posts, my response was to the three series in the red zone.

I took it to mean against playcalling overall, which was what was discussed since the original posts. I replied as such.

>>And i get tired of reading this posters bashing henning that can't defend their side with some kinda intelligent argument.

I have made intelligent arguments, though I'm sure you'd state otherwise. I made criticisms that had nothing to do with the excuses set forth in reply, or the dodging saying "well if you don't have proof of something you would have no way of knowing, it's not Henning's fault." I also made numerous suggestions, of which your response was more often you calling it bullshit with no meaningful response, and suggested improvements and adjustments, to which you went "duh?". You've made factual statements about the things you mentioned, but saying something factual and calling it the entire argument with a side order of excuses doesn't make the group in union as factual.

 

>> I don't believe Henning would say that he wanted Antonio Freeman and we'd get Anthony Bright instead

give me a reason to believe that. i was royally surprised and pissed when we didn't pick up a receiver. but i figured it was the GM rather than the OC that was to blame. from the comments hurney has made in the press, i don't think it ever occured to him that we could make a run this year. i think he was looking to te future with the idea of not tying us up in contracts that would hurt us in the future. so i don't think he even considered a Freeman whom i'm guessing would have been a heavy hit to the cap. i'm also guessing that Freeman and other quality FA receivers never seriously considered coming to a 1-15 team. we did bring in a couple of marginal guys at the end when it finally became obvious to all in preseason that we had problems in that area, but i figured that either we got outbid or the FAs decided they would rather play on a winning team. our play in the preseason wouldn't exactly have made anyone enthused about playing for us. we also had high hopes in s. smith and i think the early reports outa camp were that he looked really good. they also hold out hope for jeffers return. i think hurney had a lot of input into both of these calls.

>> He also made extra picks at FB, TE

Fox himself stated the priorities this last offseason were the defense and the run game. Fox also commented that he was upset that they had missed on a FB that i think was picked after Fasani but before Johnson. from watching hoover's blocking in the last game, i can understand if they considered FB to be a priority. you have stated TE is a priority for obvious reasons, so again i think it's understandable that they tried to upgrade this position.

>> So unless Fox and Hurney screamed at Henning violently when a receiver was suggested that it was a bad idea, each and every round, it would seem to me he deemed it a low priority

i tend to disagree. Fox stated the priorities were the defense and the running game and that's what we saw the team address. Fox stated that we were not going to be able to address every need on the team. by that, i took it that some of his assistants were wanting upgrades in areas other than what we addressed. that doesn't mean that henning begged for help at the receiver position and got overruled, but it certainly could. i think on the great totem pole, henning probably is lower than both hurney and fox so it's possible he could have to wait his turn to get some guys he feels he needs.

>> I took it to mean against playcalling overall

again i was addressing the subject as was Y2. some others may have gone elsewhere, but i had no intention of going there with them

>> I have made intelligent arguments

Mag you are the most intelligent guy i know. I enjoy discussion with you. I'd like to keep it at that. I'm trying to be open to your thought and not be critical of it everytime it goes against mine. I also think highly of Y2. I can understand the emotion that gets involved and the desire to hang somebody outa frustration. Henning may be the right guy to hang. At this point, I'm still not convinced someone needs to be hanged. Or at least, that a hanging will solve all our problems.

This tread started with a discussion of the red zone offense. I responded with what i saw in the tampa game that i thought rebutted his comments fairly. He responded with the type of irrational comment that i lose patience with and I got a bit caustic (thanks piper for my new word of the week). It's a fault I have.

>> You've made factual statements about the things you mentioned, but saying something's factual and calling it the entire argument

i didn't call it the entire argument (of which you speak). i was only addressing the playcalling in the red zone, which again was the subject (argument/discussion).

>> with a side order of excuses doesn't make the group in union as factual

i might agree that there's room for disagreement with the "facts" i pointed out. i think that would be a good place to go for discussion as opposed to "well, ultimately it's all hennings fault." i'm not gonna agree with that and depending on the mood may not just let it slide by without putting in my two cents worth.

 

It's not about hanging someone out of frustration. I'm blaming Henning for the decision making, not the total team problem or the total offensive problem. But he's had his share of mistakes there - I said so when we were doing well as a team and even as an offense, if you'd call what we did in the first three games offensive success. I've stated many times that I don't like that we give up - I'd rather go down swinging than go down punting.

That doesn't mean go for it on fourth down, or throw deep. That's part of the frustration - when I suggest otherwise it's either labeled something to attempt to make it sound dumb, or you twist it to make it sound dumb. Trust me, I've done it myself. The idea here is that we can do better than we're doing with playcalls. And so far, it's gotten better in spots - but we still give up.

>>give me a reason to believe that.

For you? Hard to say what you may and may not believe. I'll try to put down my thought process, and what you do with it is your own deal.

We made three free agent back moves along with a high draft pick move, we made two QB moves, a move each at FB and TE. Other than WR, that's a move at each skill spot, two in some of those cases.

Other than QB, the moves all say one thing: running game. Fox said that he was going to let his coordinators do their own jobs without his meddling. Henning's a run-first coach, and very conservative. Certainly, you'd suggest that he'd want to set up his running game first. I can't disagree with a want to do that, or the want to bring in extra RBs, FBs, TEs to find guys that were more pounding style guys than WCO style guys. They had money to spend, and picks to spend. Not a #2 overall, and they got screwed by not getting another top 110 pick, but there was money and picks - for every Cousin and Fields, there was an ample and similar amount spent on Smith and Peete - and we didn't use any of that at WR. None. Not a bit of our ability to go out and get players.

It's very rarely a GM's way of thinking that we need to totally neglect one position and stack another. In my experience, GMs see the big picture better than coaches, one of the reasons some coaches (especially micromanagers) tend to not be good at personnel moves. That's not an indictment of Henning in particular, just an overall observation that may be true in this case.

So one's to assume that instead of having his hands "tied", he decided to put a concentration into his conservative style rather than spreading it out. It's a somewhat valid way, I guess, if you can make up for it.

Our highest acquisition at WR was Baker/Brown and Tolhurst, despite IMO it being a need in FA and a bigger need by draft time.

So by the above, I am supposing there's reasonable evidence to suggest that had Henning wanted a receiver, he would have had it.
Not enough to convict, but there's reasonable doubt, certainly, and that's all any of us have to work with. None of us have more than that, because the few of us that have any team or league connections wouldn't likely use anything specific enough to lose the confidence of the source.

>>Or at least, that a hanging will solve all our problems.

Nor will heaps of talent. Coaching problems affect teams with gobs of talent as well, without using any of my Henning specific examples, you can point at a lot of examples this year (the most glaring being the Rams' - Warner needed benched or at least "rested" to get his head back in the game, they totally disregarded OT as a need, allowed their support skill players to go, but the key problem being the lack of use of Faulk and the running game) that suggest that even good talent, or superior talent, can be botched easily. To me, Henning's background with the Jets is pretty much what we're seeing here, and seeing game after game. If this was isolated, or there was some mention by Fox that he calls for the third down conservative calls, I'd ease up on him. Even at that point, he captains the next to last ranked O and we're not so glaringly poor talented that 31st is acceptable coaching.

Solve all our problems?

No. And never said that. I neither expect Henning will go (I do expect a QBs coach to come in and help out, but I doubt it will actually happen either) nor expect that we would have been "good" this season. I just want us to be able to have confidence in doing well offensively regardless of whether we should or not. Instead, we're totally unspirited, relying on a few players' individual cockiness and efforts rather than playing as a team and acting with team attitude. As well as getting frustrated by seeing us give up with playcalling, I get the feeling the players tend to lose confidence in themselves because the coaches don't try to succeed as much as the other 31 teams.

Naturally, that's just an opinion. You'll disagree with it, I'm sure, but it's the feeling I get. I've not seen the offense look anywhere as prepared, disciplined, crisp, or simply as hyped up to be on the field as the defense or even the special teams.




>>i think that would be a good place to go for discussion as opposed to "well, ultimately it's all hennings fault." i'm not gonna agree with that and depending on the mood may not just let it slide by without putting in my two cents worth.

I did discuss. I didn't call it bullshit, and no, I've never once said it's all his fault. Playcalling is on his shoulders, as is preparation. He does have a say in what talent is being picked, he is in charge of one of the worst Panther offenses ever, and I don't find anything to laud or even feel good about from his coaching performance. It does all come down to him, and I can't see much good in what he's done. In his defense, I've seen just that - defense - rather than that many positive points. It's not all his fault, but like I said - I never put it all on him and I've made many remarks about our talent.

 

Damn, y'all spend more time writin words than that sorry offense has spent on the field all season. Those boys have quit and that sucks. The panthers need to find some men.

 

Did you see the TB game?

They haven't quit.. not yet at least.

 

Yea, he inherited the talent, but that was his chioce to keep it or upgraded, and it's his job to coach it. A better coached team will go out there and make fewer drive killling penalties in the red zone, make less mistakes, and punch the fucking ball into the end zone. I'm not trying to say he doesn't do his job oly on Sunday, I'm saying I think he's a failure everyday of the week.

Del Rio inherited a 31st ranked defense and he coaches them. Henning had the opportunity to campain for player too, and for the most part chose to stand pat, as in Patrick Jeffers. He brought in Peete who has never played a 16 game season. I think Foster would have made a huge difference, but my opinion of Henning is shot because this offense was supposed to be tailor made to fit Weinke, and all 3 QB's where the same wrist band. Three completely different QB styles. WTF

 

That's another truly sub-par, sub-professional thing we do, the armband. Some HS teams do that. Some college systems use that. We're the only pro team I can remember ever doing it - not unlike the option, where other than the shenanigans used by Kordell Stewart early on, the Cowboys were the first team to run the option since Ron Meyer's Patriots - Meyer, a decent commentator for CNN sports at one time, got run out of pro sports pretty quick after getting desperate enough to run the option.
.
So anyway, yes, if our teams played prepared and spirited, but failed miserably, then I could live with the decision to punt away after second down. I could live with some other deliberately failing situations. But you add in the difference in attitude between the O and D, the discipline/preparation, the armbands, and then the conservative style and it just keeps adding up. It's a lot to overlook.

 

>> i think that would be a good place to go for discussion as opposed to "well, ultimately it's all hennings fault." i'm not gonna agree with that and depending on the mood may not just let it slide by without putting in my two cents worth.

>>>> I did discuss. I didn't call it bullshit, and no, I've never once said it's all his fault.

Again, my initial reply that started your tirade was directed at Y2 and not you. I was not implying that you did not discuss. In fact, I have appreciated your recent willingness to discuss civilly. I wish you would lay-off of my calling some of your earlier arguments bullshit. We were both getting testy at that time. You said some things that offended me and I you. I think I apologized then. If not, I do now. I would like to move forward, watch the remaining games and continue the discussion with a sense of manners. Who knows, I may come over to your side. As you said, I’m a big softie – and hopefully that wasn’t in reference to my physical dimensions. I’ve lost 12 lbs in the past 3 months and my pants are sagging. Feeling pretty good about myself.

>> Naturally, that's just an opinion. You'll disagree with it, I'm sure, but it's the feeling I get. I've not seen the offense look anywhere as prepared, disciplined, crisp, or simply as hyped up to be on the field as the defense or even the special teams.

You stated you opinion well and I respect that; but yea, at this point, I still respectfully disagree. I too have thought about the difference in the improvement between the offense and defense. But I think the foundation for having a good, young defense was here and the addition of Peppers had a huge impact. Grant, Jenkins and Morgan were all coming off what was essentially their rookie year and have shown big improvement. The move of Morgan from the outside to the middle also has been a major factor in the defense’s improvement. Fox also brought in several FA’s and used two high draft picks to fill the two areas of need that was a huge concern – LB and CB. He also had a guy that I think is very underrated, Naives, coming back from injury and claiming a starting position. In both areas, I think he pretty much struck gold in Cousins and Fields. This is to take nothing away from Fox and Del Rio. They are both considered to be among the best defensive coaches in the business, and yet we still get a lot of second-guessing among the fans for some of our defensive playcalling among the fans. I don’t know that Henning is in their class but I’m still not convinced that he is a bad coach. In addition, the offense lost it’s only explosive player for the season. The defense has yet to have that kinda luck.

>> I've stated many times that I don't like that we give up - I'd rather go down swinging than go down punting.

This is an argument that you repeat but that I just don’t see. In the Atlanta game we threw on every third-down situation. In the Tampa game, I think we threw on every third-down situation except: 1) when we had our backs to our own goal line and had third and a mile to go, and 2) when we were in FG range and had third and a mile to go. IMO, it was smart to play conservative in each of those situations.

>> Other than QB, the moves all say one thing: running game. Fox said that he was going to let his coordinators do their own jobs without his meddling.

I believe that to be true; but it is also true that he said before the draft that the priorities of the team during the off-season were the defense and the running game. Henning was pretty much given the crumbs to work with. If I were Fox, I would have washed my hands of any association with the offense before the season started too. Probably was the smartest move he has made to date.

>> but there was money and picks - for every Cousin and Fields, there was an ample and similar amount spent on Smith and Peete - and we didn't use any of that at WR.

Is that true? If so, then I’m more concerned. On defense, I thought we brought in about 5 or 6 FAs for the CB position. At LB, we brought in at least 3 FAs. I think we also brought in a couple of DL. On offense, we brought in who? Smith and Peete. Smith was obviously a needed and good pickup. Many would also say that about Peete. Who else did they bring in? Tolhurst, a deep threat who they liked enough to sign at more than the typical minimum dollars, and of course he gets hurt in camp. I thought we were pretty much stretched to the limit on the money we had to spend. They had high hopes for Smith, Bright and Jeffers in camp. When that plan starting failing, we brought some guys in but didn’t come up with them. From what I have seen or heard, I’m thinking that the guys we brought in haven’t done much for the teams they went to. I think it’s possible that Henning was unwilling to spend money for guys that would have been both marginal and limited our spending next year. Was that Hennings fault? Could he have campaigned harder to get a legit receiver in here? I just dunno.

>> In my experience, GMs see the big picture better than coaches

And that’s kinda where we are coming to rub at least on the offensive talent on-hand question. I’m fairly convinced that Hurney’s big picture was that this was gonna be a 2-3 year project. I think he conceded before the year ever started and was committed to this being a rebuilding year. I don’t think he was willing to mortgage any piece of the future for this year. As a result, they didn’t see spending any money on someone that wasn’t going to help them in the future. He is preaching patience for a reason. In Hurney we must trust.

>> because the few of us that have any team or league connections wouldn't likely use anything specific enough to lose the confidence of the source

So do you? I have worried that I am fighting a lost battle, defending a guy whose number is already up. I have gone to the cross and been wrong on so many occasions before that what’s one more? But I’d hate to lose a new and dear friend over such a silly argument especially if I’d lost before I’d even gotten started.

>> superior talent, can be botched easily

I’ll agree with that easily without conceding anything about Henning. It can also be said that great talent had made some mediocre coaches look good. I think it works both ways. Good coaches have been fired before because they just never had the talent. If they are in charge of both getting talent and coaching, then it would be appropriate to fire them (or smarter, get someone else to be in charge of getting the talent). But if they are not in charge of the talent decisions and/or haven’t been given a chance to get some talent, I’d think it sad not to give them a chance . . . unless of course it’s obvious that the guy is a bad coach. I think we differ in opinion there though I’m open to discussion.

>> To me, Henning's background with the Jets is pretty much what we're seeing here,

I don’t know his history. I thought that the common perception when we hired him was that he was a bad head coach but had excelled at OC and had done a great job with his QBs. This may be a great place for you to go in argument.

>> we're not so glaringly poor talented that 31st is acceptable coaching

I think we are pretty sad in terms of talent. Rankings like this one are pretty much crap too. I have seen plenty of teams with high-scoring offenses that were crap as a team and not just because they didn’t have the defense to go with them. As you know I followed the Oilers for years. After Bum, we went through a series of coaches. One that I really liked and they fired quickly and a couple that I hated, one of which was popular with the media and fans because he ran a wide-open offense and an aggressive, high-risk defense with mistakes galore. He had taken over the team from a guy who was just getting the team to come around but got fired by the same idiot that fired Bum and traded Campbell. For some, the team was fun and had great stats but I don’t think it ever even got to the playoffs and if it did it got squelched easily. Bottom line is that we were 1-15 last year and are 3-5 so far this year and could easily be 7-1. It’s improvement. In a sense, it’s unacceptable to me because I feel that if we had just gotten a legit starting receiver and another decent backup receiver, we could have made a run at the playoffs this year. If Henning’s to blame then I’m pissed at him. I’m more inclined though to think it was the result of where Fox decided to place priorities and Hurney being unwilling to place a bet on this year.

 

The point about the "pollyanna BS" is the lack of respect you were giving the words, preferring to defend and position rather than discuss IMO. The point is I'd rather see you talk open about all this rather than play read and react. I don't really care or get "hurt" by that sort of thing, but if there's a want to insult, I'd rather make it about me than the words. The words hold merit, where I'm just a username with quotes from an asian chick about her boobs and others' boobs in my sig.

>>But I think the foundation for having a good, young defense was here and the addition of Peppers had a huge impact.

Certainly there was more talent on defense than offense. But we did have the ability to go get offensive players, and none of those were receivers. That cannot be denied, IMO. We had the chance to go get vets of reasonable price, and we didn't. We got backs, we got QBs, we got everything but WR and OL, and OL coming in was considered both a strength and a spot of OK depth.

>>In both areas, I think he pretty much struck gold in Cousins and Fields.

Certainly. Henning struck gold with Smith, and that's with Smith not looking as good as Foster coming in. Smith was a top ten back when teams played him straight this year. Of the defensive additions, Cousin and Fields are the ones making impact. Add Peppers. The rest were here, with Howard being a non-starter.


>>This is an argument that you repeat but that I just don’t see.

First off, that may be because you're using two games that tend to be more middle of the road than the rest of the season. Second, the only reasonable time to decide to punt away after second down is us having a 2 TD lead and not wanting to take chances late in a game. Nobody else in the league does that, just like the armbands. Regardless of Tampa and Atlanta, we give up on drives far too fast, and often do so after gaining one first down or less. We can't put up long drives if we do that - and no, before you say it, I'm not suggesting that's the only reason we do not have long drives. I'm not that stupid nor do I feel like hearing the insnuation.

>>In the Atlanta game we threw on every third-down situation.

We were behind in many of those situations, and never did have momentum. Plus we were with a different QB, in a situation where we ran a good deal less. One could suggest it's a different situation, and Henning did in fact become less run-oriented, but no less predictable. It's a start, and I'll say this - I'll take it over the way we started. We lucked into 9 points against TB - we had no business getting 9 points with our offense - but it did, in theory, look better.

>>On offense, we brought in who? Smith and Peete.

If you're going to list 4 DBs that weren't expected to make the roster, why exaggerate and suggest we only brought in Smith and Peete? We brought in Smith, Montgomery, Bates, and Smart with Huntley, Biakabutuka (cut) and Brown, Goings, Huntley already here. And yes, we needed to do so.

Just like we needed to bring in CBs - but we needed to bring in CBs because we cut two starting CBs. We did, as well, cut our two top backs.

And we let last year's leading receiver go in FA. it was a good call, but we never replaced him. Whoever thought it was so low a need that an UDFA would itch the scratch wasn't doing his job.

>>In Hurney we must trust.

That doesn't mean it's his decision to do so. You're telling me that a GM willingly stacked one position and neglected another? It's really easy to just put it off on him, but in the end we got guys to fit Henning's strength. Think Henning had some input? My guess is he had a good deal of it. We were interested in various FAs after the draft, but then the decision was made not to go after them.

I can't and won't suggest it was Henning. Certainly, Henning and Fox agree on how they wanted to go on offense in theory. The GM is going to go and get what the coaches feel is a need. My feeling is that a GM wouldn't willfully disregard WR at least in depth otherwise. My other feeling is

>>I don’t know his history. I thought that the common perception when we hired him was that he was a bad head coach but had excelled at OC and had done a great job with his QBs. This may be a great place for you to go in argument.

The rap on him with the Jets was that he was a good QBs coach - he was there one year as QBs, one year as OC - and without changing offensive systems to his own, he was branded as very deliberate and easy to diagnose. The Jets were fairly efficient, and they threw more, but they weren't hard to stop. Whether he's a good QBs coach or not, to me, is up for grabs - to me, he's doing too much by being both whether he's good or bad - and his best success has been using extreme physical strength to overpower people with the Skins. That's where he had his really good success.

As far as a HC, I don't know and don't remember him at Atlanta. BC wasn't his shining moment and I negated it in argument because the college game is a different beast - there could be trends to show just like with the Jets, but I wouldn't feel as good about those points because of what the college game still is.

>>So do you?

There are people here who know people. I'll leave it at that. But there are a few. If you're asking me if I have some connection that'd say if henning's going to be fired? No. If that decision, which IMO is unlikely, would be coming down, it'd be between Fox and Richardson, and possibly Hurney, and wouldn't likely be discussed for another eight weeks at the earliest. I'll lay that one at rest, I don't feel Henning being gone is the way to go - I just want to see him be a little more traditionally pro and a little less looking like he's stuck in the 80s.

If it were me to suggest, I'd have to say that Fox needs to talk to Henning and be less conservative. Looking at the playcalling the last couple of games, that may have happened, or that may be a function of the QB in the game. I'd also look to get a QBs coach from the college OC or mid-major HC ranks and then there's the obvious want for something at QB and WR. I do think that seeing Henning do this with lesser talent isn't completely fair - but I also don't think that Andre Johnson and Shaun King will matter if we're running on third down.

 

Mag, I'm trying awfully hard to be civil, which is against my nature. Please accept my apology and let's move forward. I haven't asked or insisted on one from you and don't expect that I will ever get one but am willing to shake. So why aren't you?

>> lack of respect you were giving the words, preferring to defend and position rather than discuss IMO. The point is I'd rather see you talk open about all this rather than play read and react.

I spent a lot of time over the past couple of weeks studying the offense. I posted my observations as I thought there might be some that would enjoy the detail. I also summarized my impressions and tried to do so without stepping on toes. So it's not all just read and react. I spent the time to study the playcalling so as to be able to discuss the subject intelligently with you and others. And I thought it is what I was doing.

>> Second, the only reasonable time to decide to punt away after second down is us having a 2 TD lead and not wanting to take chances late in a game. Nobody else in the league does that

I have seen plenty of teams (and my guess is that all have) run a draw on second and 20. When it works, the call looks great and when it doesn't, it sucks. The idea is to pick up a nice gain so that 3rd down is less imposing. I don't know what the %'s are but I'd guess that a draw is not that muh worse than say a short pass or a screen, which both have a chance for disaster. With the draw you know that you ain't gonna lose your FG position. It was a conservative/smart call and a lot of teams would have done the same with a rookie QB in his first game against the best defense in the NFL and a tied score in the third Q.

>> It's a start, and I'll say this - I'll take it over the way we started.

I think that's another thing that we will just never agree on. I'll take 3 wins all day long over looking pretty on offense and losing.

>> We lucked into 9 points against TB - we had no business getting 9 points with our offense

yes. the first FG was a gift but we did earn the next two.

>> why exaggerate and suggest we only brought in Smith and Peete

didn't mean to exaggerate. forgot about Montgomery. IMO Bates was brought in to help the special teams. I suppose in theory he could have given us some depth at WR. Smart was brought in after Bates was lost and primarily as a gunner as a special teamer, so I think you are reaching there.

>> And we let last year's leading receiver go in FA. it was a good call, but we never replaced him. Whoever thought it was so low a need that an UDFA would itch the scratch wasn't doing his job.

I agree with that statement. Their defense would probably be they thought Smith, Bright, Tolhurst, and Jeffers could get the job done. If so, I think it was a terrible bet. And I said so before the preseason when everyone else was worried about our corner situation and continue to think so. I have no argument with you here.

>> You're telling me that a GM willingly stacked one position and neglected another?

That's just the way I see it, though I'm not sure what position you think he stacked unless it was running back. I did read in the paper that Foster was Hurney's guy, which surprised and somewhat irratated me. I'd rather it be the coaches guy. For some reason, I just don't have a lot of confidence in Hurney. He worries me and it's all just gut. Nothing really to substantiate my feelings. I also think that Smith was looked as more of a safety net in case they couldn't land a top RB in the draft. We could not afford to go into the season with D. Brown as our top TB. Foster being there seems to have been a windfall in their minds in my impression.

>> he was branded as very deliberate and easy to diagnose

Your points are noted and have been filed away. I will keep them in mind as the season moves forward.

>> If it were me to suggest, I'd have to say that Fox needs to talk to Henning and be less conservative. Looking at the playcalling the last couple of games, that may have happened, or that may be a function of the QB in the game. I'd also look to get a QBs coach from the college OC or mid-major HC ranks and then there's the obvious want for something at QB and WR.

I can go along with all those suggestions and observations. Although I might add FB, TE and OL to the list of wants.

Gotta run. Soccer game this afternoon.