Witherspoon to start

Ok so are you saying that the coaching staff is or isn't high on Towns? Just would like to see your opinion on the outlook for Towns here.

 

They obviously aren't high on him. He was bumped from starting MLB to #3 MLB.

I think they like him on the roster. He beat out Brad Jackson, who'd worked with Del Rio before.

 

They don't love him, no, they'd rather have the speed than a Tackle to Tackle big guy. See Witherspoon.

But the reason Towns is not playing is that he's hurt and inactive.

It says more to me about what they think about Allen, who isn't very big nor fast.

 

That's Dan's college weight. He's up to 250 now.

Mark:
>>Does being in the Hall of Honor retire your number as well, or is it just coincidence noone's out there wearing 51?

That's up to Jackie Miles, who won't issue the number (that or 1). Only one player has ever worn 51 in any capacity, and 1 has never been issued at all.
Heh...giving the questions guy an answer

>>He played MLB in college (heard it on Primetime). I am not as concerned about his smaller size. His speed will counter that.

Maybe some as a senior, but bell was the MLB before that. Still, like you say, he'll be easy to pound against. I'm not comfortable with it - with or without Morgan our pursuit had been very good. If we get run on, that falls pretty squarely on this coaching move, Buckner or not.

 

>> If we get run on, that falls pretty squarely on this coaching move, Buckner or not.

??

 

what of that did you not understand?

 

all of it

 

well, that's clearly obvious. What part of it did you want to question? Or did you just note the words "coaching move" and flip out?

I'll save you the time of having to post three or four more "duh" replies. Morgan gets hurt, Towns gets hurt, we decide to forego the 4 year experienced vet, who the staff said they liked as our backup MLB in Jackson, the guy who played second string over Towns in preseason at MLB, and even Navies, who had college time at MLB and much more experience playing LB (plus a little more bulk). That, to me, is two legitimate candidates on the bench while one that doesn't fit the position and has no experience is starting.

That is regardless of Buckner. His loss can't excuse poor play at MLB when you're plugging in a new guy who's neither big enough nor experienced enough. His presence would help, but if WW gets run over he'd get run over anyway.

Plus, if there's one thing burton actually is good at, it's shielding linebackers.

I hope the move works. I'd like to think Witherspoon is a good linebacker regardless of where he plays. I also think that the staff is too worried about sideline to sideline speed and not enough about stopping the run against a good runner. We've got speed outside, we can live without speed inside for a few weeks.

 

>> If we get run on, that falls pretty squarely on this coaching move, Buckner or not.

It couldn't have a a thing to do with the major drop off in talent from Morgan, considered to be one of the top MLBs in the league, to who ever plays MLB and Buckner to Burton, which i think is huge? Burton has never impressed me. Buckner has been very good and I think he is much better at shielding the LBs. It also couldn't have anything to do against us going against one of the better offenses in the league? We got run over the last time Morgan was out and the chances are good that we will have a hard time stopping the run this time, especially against the Saints.

The staff works with Witherspoon every day and they know his pluses and minuses and those of the other guys better than most of the posters on this board. So I would think that they would have a good feel as to who is their best personnel. If you want to argue that he will suck, I won't debate you cuz I'm not so sure that he won't. But to suggest that you know who would be the better LB options at the present over the coaches is Fowleresque.

I don't flip out over everytime someone questions a "coaching move." I think it is fine to do so and have done so often myself. Certainly, the move to Peete at the beginning of the season was something that was questioned by most. It was understandable to question though some of the argument bordered on absurd. But to say that if the Saints run over us then that would prove your point that the coaches made a bad decision is even more Fowleresque. It, in of itself, would prove nothing. It's like saying that because Fasani sucked against Tampa it was a poor decision to play him over Hasselbeck. You can believe that with all the conviction in your heart but you have nothing to prove your point. If Witherspoon sucks and they then make a switch to Jackson or Naives or do something else and that was to work then you would have something to hang your hat on. Until then, I think all you can say is that in your humble opinion that this or that would be a better option than Witherspoon at MLB and Fields and Naives at the OLBs.

And for all we know, they may have a backup plan ready in case Witherspoon sucks, maybe even one that resembles something that you suggested. If so, would it have still been a bad coaching decision to have tried Witherspoon at MLB? Like you say, you hope the move works. If he can hold the fort up the middle and still provide the speed to help outside, wouldn't that be the best of all worlds under the circumstances? And if so, wouldn't it be worth the gamble to find out if it could work, especially if you have a fallback plan in place?

 

yeah, coaches never make mistakes. Coaches would never look to plug a guy in to get him experience in any way possible, right? They'd never emphasize speed over gap control in this defense, right?

>>and the chances are good that we will have a hard time stopping the run this time, especially against the Saints.

Uh oh, it's third down. We better not try, because we might not make it. In this case I'll take solidity instead of speed, with our speed outside at DE and OLB. I think that's what most would do, and that's why the logic tends to suggest the staff is being dangerous.

>>But to suggest that you know who would be the better LB options at the present over the coaches is Fowleresque.

So's dressing up or dressing down an opinion, something you like to do lately. I never stated I knew or know more than the coaches, but at least I'm doing my own thinking rather than backpedaling for someone else, right? I mean, while we're focusing on the wrong things and all.
Either way, you're assuming that's what I said, because it fits your argument. Too bad I never said it, right? I said I disagreed with the staff's evaluation. My notation of their logic seems to suggest stressing one thing over another, which in this case is duplication of effort - our problem with Morgan gone was never pursuit, at least with Fields still in.

>>And for all we know, they may have a backup plan ready in case Witherspoon sucks, maybe even one that resembles something that you suggested.

I certainly would hope they've put enough thought into it to have other options, rather than what you suggest which is that they might've given passing thought into the current situation's failure.

>>But to say that if the Saints run over us then that would prove your point that the coaches made a bad decision is even more Fowleresque. It, in of itself, would prove nothing.

It suggests that putting in a rookie who's a generous 230 at this point in the season, with no pro MLB experience, without MLB size, instincts, or even much college ILB experience over guys with 3-4 years of OLB experience and time at MLB was a mistake. The staff is suggesting that having three guys with sideline range is more important than dedicating one guy with ample speed (neither Allen nor Jackson are at all slow) and good tackle to tackle gap ability AND EXPERIENCE.

Either situation points to some amount of failure, but you tend to take the less risky move. To me, it's a bad fit. Suggesting possible failure either way means that the coaches have the ability to screw up in any way possible because expectations are low? Sorry. You can call my opinions all the cutesy names you want but backpedaling over the inverse of the logic I used and trying to put it against me isn't proving effective. Never has.

>>And if so, wouldn't it be worth the gamble to find out if it could work, especially if you have a fallback plan in place?

So in other words, why not just burn a game to see if an ill-fit might fit, for no reason at all? None of these players would have a future at starting at MLB. The two guys I feel better fit at MLB are not candidates to start at OLB either. So one'd suggest that this is a move for now, not later, which is why I find it odd we'd pass up the experienced guys with the correct profile for the position and the nose for the ball to put in a lanky kid with no experience who's not really taken on a FB head on yet in a game in the pros.

So why not just burn this chance? Hell, it's just a game. No need to try to win, we're out to see if a guy who'll never start long term at MLB can play MLB, just for shits and giggles. That's more important.

Obviously that's exaggeration. I know this staff is trying to do its best to win, and WW is their best chance, I imagine, to do so. I disagree, and the logic that Witherspoon playing poorly at MLB (using the words "run over" seem to suggest that we'd be talking sub-par, below reasonable expectations, correct? Not the overall running game picture, as you seem to want me to be saying, but Witherspoon's play individually) is a coaching blame does hold water. If he fails, we certainly didn't put the best player for the spot out there, based on relatively good play at MLB for Allen and the overall play (and active nature) of Jackson in preseason as well. Doesn't mean either wouldn't play below par, necessarily, just that the risk factor is much smaller.
So that's why I think it's up to the coaches to put players in a position to succeed, and that I don't think this is a case where I agree with WW being in the best position to succeed, nor doing best for the team. Doesn't mean anything other than I disagree with the coaching move - doesn't mean I think I'm smarter or know the personnel better or anything else you'll want to label me instead of arguing the topic at hand, just means what's right there. No more, no less.

Either way, thank you for finally getting into the subject instead of pussyfooting around it. If you're not looking to take it head on, don't go wasting a post if you can help it.