TMPHBITEU
-
Posts
345 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by TMPHBITEU
-
-
didnt you already ask me this? oh brother. No im not a doctor, but tearing your acl is one of the worst injuries an athlete can get.
I say this because you seem so stubborn in your attitude that RGIII should not attend a limited practice, despite being cleared by a medical staff that do have the necessary education and information about the specific injury and recovery process. I'm merely trying to figure out why you'd think "an opinion without knowledge of the specific situation or actual education" is valid when it comes to the subject of medicine.
You're contesting the opinions of trained professionals: You seem so sure of your opinion, that he shouldn't have seen the field. I'm trying to figure out why.
-
interesting
Are you related to the user "PrincetonTiger"?
-
Just curious to why you think that?
Is it that you don't think someone out there on the forum would ask why he attended? They may not use that exact statement (you got me there) yet I do believe there is a pretty good possibility that someone lives at the intersection of over-reactor to injuries and thinks the safety position doesn't have enough depth?
Believe there to be someone currently on the over-reactor to injuries street (see "Greg Toler In a Walking Boot" topic).
Side note: I'm not saying that one should be started, just feel that one very well could be started (hopefully we never find that out either way). Just saying that stranger things have happened on this forum.
I see your point from a semantics-POV.
My point was: If anyone would question the decision of a player (whom the coaches and the medical staff deemed eligible for training), to attend an official team training, based on fear of a non-existent injury, he or she is a/an >insert whatever word you deem appropriate for intellectually-challenged individuals<,
-
he shouldnt be on the field period.
And you say this based on your vast and significant knowledge of medicine and physical therapy?
-
This is not premature at all.
-
its common sense man. he tore his acl in january. that injury takes 10-12 months to comeback from
That injury may generally take 9+ months to recover from. Yet, there are numerous examples of people who've recovered much faster.
You can't say anything about a specific medical case, unless you have both the knowledge of medicine and have the appropriate information regarding the specific injury and recovery.
I'm guessing you have neither.
-
its only been 5 months. talk about rushing him
How would you know? Are you his personal physician?
-
This topic is a two-sided coin really. What if he had attended the voluntary OTA and somehow injured himself? Pretty sure then we would be having a reverse conversation in a "Why was LaRon at OTAs?" forum topic.
He is a vet that probably knows by now if he can come in better shape working out by himself or with the team. And as for building chemisty at least he is in communication with Bethea every day (source: one of Bethea's latest interviews). He could have just locked himself in the weight room with no communication at all.
I'm pretty sure you'd be wrong about that.
-
YAY! RGIII vs. Andrew Luck.
CAN'T EVER GET ENOUGH OF THESE THREADS! PARTY ON!
*grabs popcorn and booze* -
NFL teams rarely draft players because the media made them out to be a superstar.
If that was the case then every Heisman Trophy winner would go 1st overall.
Russell had, by most accounts, one of the best Pro Days any QB has ever had. Scouts still talk about it. They thought he was sensational....
But, clearly, scouts didn't do nearly enough homework on JaMarcus.... especially Raiders scouts. Tough to argue with Al Davis. If he thought the sun rotated around the earth, then that's what the Raiders organization thought.....
A more thorough background check would've scared off any smart team.....
I doubt that teams didn't do their due diligence.
What I bolded could basically be said of any player who didn't turn out the way the scouts expected them to in the NFL.
In the end, there's no real formula to determine whether a player is going to boom or bust - scouting isn't an exact science in football.
-
Really?
You think there's big attendance at places that don't win?? I think you'd better double check those stats.
I think you'd be surprised.
If you're not winning, if you're not talented, if fans can't enjoy the experience, they don't turn out in the numbers you think they do.
Either way, what're the players going to do? Move to Canada?
They're unlikely to get support from the majority of the fans: Millionaires playing a kids game crying over having to play 2 more competitive games (minus two non-competitive games in the preseason) per season?
Sure: They can try to strike. Then again, the NFL's argument is providing the best possible product. I find it unlikely that the players will dare to strike. Even with counter-arguments of "safety" that are completely blown out of proportions, they're unlikely to get sympathy from the consumers. There's no real proof that a 2-game increase would mean overblown added health risks. Besides, football is a violent game, and players know this when they sign on: The majority won't feel sympathy over the added health risks from a 2-game increase, over getting a better product - humans are egoistic in nature.
Of course this assumes that the people feel that an 18-game schedule would be a better product. Changes on something that's already good can be hard to market. I'm sure the marketing executives at the NFL are better than the spinners at NFLPA (at least their budget is) though, which in the end is the core of the problem: Marketing. Remember: Consumers don't actually have to want it - they just have to be manipulated into thinking they do.
-
Andy, you crime rider.
I feel contaminated by the seriousness of your actions. -
inb4 "I'd buy him a new cellphone".
This Andrew-idolizing isn't going overboard whatsoever..
-
My stomach turns almost every time the word "class act" is thrown around on these forums.
-
Wrong forum.
-
Technically no, because 1 NFL season (2012) doesn't come anywhere close to the time spent tutoring Big Ben in Pittsburg (2007-2011) 4 years vs 1. No real comparison tenure wise or instruction wise IMO.
Next, you will ask me about Peyton Manning (1998–2000) 2 years. Yes, Bruce played a crucial role in starting #18 in the NFL, but Peyton has had Dungy, Caldwell, & now Fox as an HC since then. Peyton is a completely different QB now.
Well, actually I was about to say that I believe Arians would be the perfect evaluator of the two, if anyone was to adequately compare their current level of ability.
I do appreciate your ex officio thoughts on Manning though
-
A nice reply & yes, I can always count on you for objectivity & context. Thank you NCF!
"He's the engine of a very good Pittsburgh team. He's won two Super Bowls." Yes, that is true, but lately Big Ben has been injured & his body is starting to breakdown. QB availability is part of any field general's legacy & resume too that only usually gets mentioned with long, consecutive starting streaks like Brett Favre or Peyton Manning. Charlie Batch has had to take over the QB reins more & more.
Okay, Luck needs to win more hardware first. Fine. But, Ben needs to stay healthy & I don't think Bruce can really be that honest in his critique of Big Ben myself. If you think a guy walks on water because you molded him, you will never see weaknesses in their game, let alone their apprentice's own physical mortality.
Wouldn't the bolded paragraph similarly relate to Luck?
-
First, he says this:
1) "The dirty little secret of the NFL is that, at best, there is only about a third of the league that truly gets it. If you look back at the free-agency/salary cap era of the league, you find precious few teams that have been able to compete at the highest levels of the game, for any prolonged period of time, and even fewer who have been able to maintain that standard despite the inevitable departure of coaches, scouts and front office execs".
Then he says this:
2) I'm looking at a wide range of how the team has drafted and signed players, if they know when to cut the cord and when to stop overpaying their own veterans. Have they been able to win with different people at the helm and have they avoided any lengthy stays at the bottom?
Then he completely does a turnaround with this and refutes the basis of his first statement:
3) Of course, with the league flooded with first-time general managers, a lot of teams simply don't apply to this format
and then finally this nugget:
4) This is subjective, to say the least, and I am weighing things as well on the degree of success over the past 36 months
He basically sets a filter that allows no structure or criticism. I stand by my opinion. As I read it, it is the long term ability of a team/franchise/front office to "get it". The Colts not being in that list of top ten is ludicrous. However, as others have metioned....I love flying under the radar.
Well, now you're technically changing your opinion based on a different premise. As I understand it, your original opinion was based on the fact that you believed the Colts should be on the list based on the quote in post #20.
Now you're revising your opinion (which is fair enough), to fit the mold based on it being "a filter that allows no structure or criticism". I get your point, but I wouldn't say I agree. Jason LaCanfora mentions several variables, and although it's highly subjective and confusing, I don't see how he would "lose all credibility" by omitting the Colts from the list. While I can agree that the article is rather poorly written, and the premises of the variables are somewhat unclear, I wouldn't say his choices were all that bad. Especially when you consider how our roster in the late Polian years were becoming more and more depleted, and the only reason we were continuously in the playoffs (imo) was because of Peyton Manning.
Arguably it could be constructed as this, based on LaCanforas omission:
1) We didn't really maintain a perfect cap balance during the (late) Polian years. What Grigson inherited (because of the P. Manning situation) wasn't exactly great. While Bill Polian was a good GM for a long time, I still believe having the greatest of all time at the most important position in football surely made it easier for him and us (the Colts) to appear competent in the long run.
2) While we have avoided lengthy stays at the bottom (still imo, mostly because of Manning). Don't forget the fact that we hired Caldwell as a head coach (although I acknowledge him getting the team to the Super Bowl), we hired Chris Polian as GM (which on these boards is almost unanymously seen as a poor decision)
3) New regimes will carry-over in this opinion, as the results of what Grigson will do long-term is still to come. We don't really know how he will fare long term, although it looks promising. We can't provide an accurate assessment at this point of what he'll do, but it pertains to the matter at hand, whether our franchise should be seen long-term as a powerhouse.
4) This pertains to 3) as well. The last season pre-Grigson was horrible. And the fruits of what Grigson has done/will do is yet to be seen.
I'm not saying we don't belong in the top tier of overall franchises. I'm saying that the omission of the Colts is arguably correct. Your original premise was that LaCanfora loses all credibility with the omission, which I definitely disagree with. (Not that I remember reading any LaCanfora articles prior to this, so I don't really know whether he had credibility to being with).
-
Not sure what many of you were reading in this article, but this statement says nothing about our new front office. I would not have posted the thread if I thought that is what he was talking about. Since so many here feel that way, can you quote me some evidence of that?
"Of course, with the league flooded with first-time general managers, a lot of teams simply don't apply to this format" and "This is subjective, to say the least, and I am weighing things as well on the degree of success over the past 36 months" should suffice.
-
So why are the Seahawks on the list?
An exception to the rule it proves?
The Seahawks FO have arguably been better than the Colts FO these past two off-seasons. They have arguably had the best off-season of any team twice in a row.
-
Being good for one season doesn't establish a trend.
I think the omission is quite fair. -
Quite an interesting topic of conversation I'd say.
Several things to consider here:
Different types of personalities behave differently under the same stimulus.
How would X stimulus affect Werner's progression in the first year, and how would this affect his progression overall in his career. (Calling him a natural doesn't necessarily mean added pressure in his first year).
What is the beast of Werner's personality (does he A) thrive under pressure, or are B) higher than normal (based on him being a first round pick) expectations detrimental to his further development?
If B) He doesn't thrive under pressure, would this serve as beneficial to his future development in progressively overloading weak spots, increasing his mental toughness, or would it serve to put too much on his plate at one time, in which overall decline would be expected?
My thoughts:
1. Although expectations of a first round pick are generally high, he's still a late first rounder. As such, expectations are nowhere near the same as they were for Andrew Luck.2. Generalizing on what to expect based on where a player is picked is severely flawed. Simply because a player has the talent to be picked high, does not mean he necessarily has the personality type to strive under immense pressure (or at least yet).
3. I can't say all that much about Werner, as I haven't met the guy or studied him intensely. I would say this about a few observations:
a) He moved to the US from Germany at a young age to pursue football.
b) This indicates not only tremendous maturity, but also an unusual degree of competitiveness and self-belief at a young age.
c) It is therefore conceivable that Werner has a personality type that would benefit from added pressure.4. Even if he does have the personality type, where added pressure would be detrimental to his overall (current) ability, progressive overload in the mental aspect is, imo, equally important to that of the physical. As such, if a type B) personality is drafted for future need, he would have to undergo development to being able to thrive under high pressure (or at least remain neutral), as the goal is eventually to reach the Super Bowl (a very high pressure situation).
5. I believe Coach Pagano knows this kid better than I can analyze him with limited information behind my computer screen (d'uh).
a) Pagano seems to be a great assessor in my opinion, and is likely to take into account the type of personality under which (at least) his key players would benefit the most.
b) Praise from a mentor would in most cases be beneficial, especially when publically announced.
c) The players drafted have been progressing through high school and college on the mental aspect of the game, and as such legitimate praise would likely not be detrimental, unless this praise is "over the top", and the player would thus develop unreasonable expectations of himself.
d) Even if that were to happen, the detrimental aspects would most likely be not in terms of how well he'd be able to progress as a player, but more likely how he would handle it, if he were not to achieve the believed level of skill. In that case, it would be conceivable that the player didn't have the necessary skill to perform to the expected standards in the first place, in which case the mental health decline would be more hurtful to the player in an "after football-sense", rather than having hindered his development as a football player to realize his full potential.6. A player with immense potential could of course also be hindered in the sense of having had too much put on his plate at the beginning of his career, leading to an enormous pitfall when not being able to achieve based on his unreasonable expectations in his early years (in the NFL). A type B) personality in this case could under these circumstances possibly never achieve his full potential, as the progressive overload (mentioned under 4) would serve to enhance a possible mental breakdown, under which circumstances confidence, new unreasonable expectations, selfesteem etc., could be worsened leading ot a decline in play and potential.
7. I don't have the time right now to provide an in-depth review of the situation (as my knowledge of Werner specifically is severely limited) and I'm currently studying for a massive exam.
8. We don't really have enough information about Werner's psyche to provide an in-depth assessment regardless, so it'll have to be guess work based on how we perceive (logically deduce) him from his history, interviews and other sources.
a) Players undergo psychological evaluations even before the draft, and with a high investment in Werner, I believe (especially in his case, being a key player), that coaches are very aware of his psychological make up.
9. Expectations from the outsiders (fans) are secondary to his insiders (coaches). Although we're all (or well, the vast majority of people) affected by what everyone else thinks of us, it is important to remember that the assessment of the ones closest to us have the most influence on our actions. (Parents, mentors (Pagano) etc. > Fans, media). Also, we'd have to take into account that this group of people specifically, doesn't necessarily have all the information needed to assess a situation fully, in which a sane, intelligent individual would shrug it off most of the time (which is also why the psychological testing is important for draftees). Either way, building unreasonable expectations publically, can lead to become detrimental, if these expectations are not fulfilled. I would however say it is unlikely to hinder his overall potential if this were to happen, as the thoughts mentioned before 9) would have a larger impact (although they are intertwined stimuli, although secondary in effect), especially if the coaches are aware (which they have to be, seeing as it's one of the fundamental aspects of coaching/mentoring).
a) The interconnectedness of the opinions of the "outsiders" vs. "insiders", is a very complex subject under psychology, and there are several contradictory opinions of this. As such, I do not believe the science of psychology have the means to properly assess the situation, as I believe the theory of the subject is incomplete to say the least. At the very least not with the information available on Bjorn Werner specifically. -
Would it be wrong of me to skip my exam that day, and grap a short flight to London instead?
-
He's definitely crying himself to sleep each night because of the RG3/Wilson-hype. I know I am.
Greg Toler impressing in OTA's
in Colts Football
Posted
You're just arguing semantics about your own definition of the term "#1". Not that I disagree with your point, but to the general population, the term "#1" doesn't necessarily equal "shutdown".