Thread: Veteran Favre Enjoys Playing With Sullivan

"V" wrote:

"ejmat" wrote:

"V" wrote:

"ejmat" wrote:

"V" wrote:

[quote author=ejmat link=topic=54294.msg1020239#msg1020239 date=1258977117]
[quote author=V link=topic=54294.msg1020218#msg1020218 date=1258954922]
[quote author=Yfz01 link=topic=54294.msg1019913#msg1019913 date=1258912563]
V - Brian Robison failed how?
Because we picked up the best defensive end in the league?

Yes. We had to pickup Allen because he wasn't good enough to start. It's a carbon copy of what happened with Tavaris Jackson.

They didn't HAVE to pick up Allen.
They wanted to pick up Allen.
The Chiefs were throwing him out there so why not go after the talent.
Sorry V but that is a reach to say we HAD to go get Allen because Robison wasn't good enough.
Robison may not be a Jared Allen but then again there are only a couple of guys that are as good as Allen.
Robison has handled playing time (other than the ST blunder) pretty well.
There is no way you or anyone can assess that Robison wouldn't be a good contributer.

LMAO. Before Allen came here the entire board was bitching and moaning about how bad our pass rush was. Getting a stud DE like Allen was a necessity. Robison is a good backup but he isn't good enough to start in this league.

LMAO.
That was after Robison's ROOKIE season and he wasn't the starter.
Why wouldn't a team go after someone like Allen if they can obtain him.
I am sure Robison is as good or better than some of the starters there are ou there right now.
You are still reaching.

Why didn't we go after a stud Center? It was after Sullivan's ROOKIE season and he wasn't the starter.
Why didn't we go after a stud Safety? It was after Johnson's ROOKIE season and he wasn't the starter.
Why didn't we go after a stud CB? It was after Griffin's ROOKIE season and he wasn't the starter.

[/quote]

I have no idea what this has to do with what we are talking about.
How does this correlate with Childress and team not knowing how to develope young talent?
These 3 players you mention are examples of how well they develop young talent.
[/quote]

Read my above post. Griffin and Johnson were high round draft picks. I give Chilly credit for the Sullivan pick, but otherwise we have no late round gems.
[/quote]

The point is "gems" aren't what is key.
Solid contributers are what is key.
And some of the players they have now that are contributing nicely are late round picks.


Answering your quote to Braddock about Robison - I wasn't saying it was too early to assess his development.
I am saying that if he was on another team (without a Jared Allen or Dwight Freeney type player) he could be a starter.
You were saying that we HAD to pick up Allen because Robison wasn't good enough to start.
I disagree with that.
They picked up Allen because he was available and he would definitely help the team.
Let's face it.
There aren't many Allens out there.
But put Robison on any of about 20 teams in this league and yes he could be a starter.
It's all about the scenario of the depth on a given team that will dictate if you start or not.
Yes everyone has a chance to beat another player out but how many players in the NFL are going to beat out Allen at DE?
Just like T Johnson had the chance to start last year when W Williams was hurt.
Would he have started if Williams was healthy?
Nope.
Now it helped him develop in just his second year.
Robison hasn't had that luxury being behind someone like Allen 2 out of 3 years in the league.

"ejmat" wrote:

"V" wrote:

"ejmat" wrote:

"V" wrote:

"ejmat" wrote:

[quote author=V link=topic=54294.msg1020510#msg1020510 date=1259000681]
[quote author=ejmat link=topic=54294.msg1020239#msg1020239 date=1258977117]
[quote author=V link=topic=54294.msg1020218#msg1020218 date=1258954922]
[quote author=Yfz01 link=topic=54294.msg1019913#msg1019913 date=1258912563]
V - Brian Robison failed how?
Because we picked up the best defensive end in the league?

Yes. We had to pickup Allen because he wasn't good enough to start. It's a carbon copy of what happened with Tavaris Jackson.

They didn't HAVE to pick up Allen.
They wanted to pick up Allen.
The Chiefs were throwing him out there so why not go after the talent.
Sorry V but that is a reach to say we HAD to go get Allen because Robison wasn't good enough.
Robison may not be a Jared Allen but then again there are only a couple of guys that are as good as Allen.
Robison has handled playing time (other than the ST blunder) pretty well.
There is no way you or anyone can assess that Robison wouldn't be a good contributer.

LMAO. Before Allen came here the entire board was bitching and moaning about how bad our pass rush was. Getting a stud DE like Allen was a necessity. Robison is a good backup but he isn't good enough to start in this league.

LMAO.
That was after Robison's ROOKIE season and he wasn't the starter.
Why wouldn't a team go after someone like Allen if they can obtain him.
I am sure Robison is as good or better than some of the starters there are ou there right now.
You are still reaching.

Why didn't we go after a stud Center? It was after Sullivan's ROOKIE season and he wasn't the starter.
Why didn't we go after a stud Safety? It was after Johnson's ROOKIE season and he wasn't the starter.
Why didn't we go after a stud CB? It was after Griffin's ROOKIE season and he wasn't the starter.

[/quote]

I have no idea what this has to do with what we are talking about.
How does this correlate with Childress and team not knowing how to develope young talent?
These 3 players you mention are examples of how well they develop young talent.
[/quote]

Read my above post. Griffin and Johnson were high round draft picks. I give Chilly credit for the Sullivan pick, but otherwise we have no late round gems.
[/quote]

The point is "gems" aren't what is key.
Solid contributers are what is key.
And some of the players they have now that are contributing nicely are late round picks.


Answering your quote to Braddock about Robison - I wasn't saying it was too early to assess his development.
I am saying that if he was on another team (without a Jared Allen or Dwight Freeney type player) he could be a starter.
You were saying that we HAD to pick up Allen because Robison wasn't good enough to start.
I disagree with that.
They picked up Allen because he was available and he would definitely help the team.
Let's face it.
There aren't many Allens out there.
But put Robison on any of about 20 teams in this league and yes he could be a starter.
It's all about the scenario of the depth on a given team that will dictate if you start or not.
Yes everyone has a chance to beat another player out but how many players in the NFL are going to beat out Allen at DE?
Just like T Johnson had the chance to start last year when W Williams was hurt.
Would he have started if Williams was healthy?
Nope.
Now it helped him develop in just his second year.
Robison hasn't had that luxury being behind someone like Allen 2 out of 3 years in the league.
[/quote]

We didn't get Allen because we were set at DE, but he just happened to be "available". We got Allen because we were is desperate need of a DE, so much so that we TRADED away two early round draft picks to get him.

Also, last years was Tyrell's first, and he was a 2nd round pick, which only proves my point that we have been good at finding
"ready to start" talent, but bad at developing "Projects."

"V" wrote:

"Marrdro" wrote:

1. How long do you give a team to turn a backup (young talent) into a starter?

2. Do you think teams draft players knowing they will never be starters?

1. It doesn't matter as long as he eventually wins a starting position on the team that drafted him.

2. Of course they do. I will continue to repeat myself and say I don't think that picks used on depth are worthless. Nor do I think that backups are worthless. I'm simply saying that some teams are better than others when it comes to getting MORE than just depth from the late rounds, and those teams tend to be very good.

I think that any draft pick that gains a second contract with the team that drafted him makes that pick worthwhile, whether he is starting or not. So yes, guys like Robison were good picks for us. [size=10pt]However, when it comes to drafting and developing guys like Tony Romo or Tim Hightower or Brandon Marshall, we ain't that good.[/size]

Not sure I agree with that last statement.
Going on the assumption that a late round pick is a 4th rounder or less, there is just to small of a sample size to really go that far.


[size=10pt]2009 -
2 late round picks[/size] Taking a look at this class.
JB and JS haven't even had a chance to crack the roster.
To much talent ahead of them.
It is interesting to watch AA fill in though as we did with McCauley.
1 Percy Harvin Florida

2 Phil Loadholt Oklahoma

3 Asher Allen Georgia

5 Jasper Brinkley South Carolina

7 Jamarca Sanford Mississippi

[size=10pt]2008 4 Late round picks[/size] Guion is giving us nice reps.
No room to crack a roster spot to start, Sully is starting, JJ is giving us nice reps on ST's and almost could be classified as a starter on PR's.
2 Tyrell Johnson Arkansas State

5 John Booty USC

5 Letroy Guion Florida State

6 John Sullivan Notre Dame

6 Jaymar Johnson Jackson State

[size=10pt]2007 5 late round picks[/size] This class fits the criteria you talk about. Still say AA's problem wasn't talent, but rather, attitude.
I had high hopes for Rufus but I think he got caught up in the numbers game as did Tyler.
Robison, althought not a starter, sure gives us a nice change of pace on passing downs.
1 Adrian Peterson Oklahoma

2 Sidney Rice South Carolina

3 Marcus McCauley Fresno State

4 Brian Robison Texas

5 Aundrae Allison East Carolina

6 Rufus Alexander Oklahoma

7 Tyler Thigpen Coastal Carolina

7 Chandler Williams Florida International

[size=10pt]2006 2 late round picks[/size] Really not much here to discuss.
Ray is a starter, Blue is out of the league.


1 Chad Greenway Iowa

2 Cedric Griffin Texas

2 Ryan Cook New Mexico

2 Tarvaris Jackson Alabama State

4 Ray Edwards Purdue

5 Greg Blue Georgia

http://www.databasefootball.com/draf...?tm=MIN&lg=nfl

13 late round picks.
3 Starters
5 Solid contributors/rotation
5 Not on the team

For me it gets back to the numbers.
Each and every year we see this staff doing thier thing, the later round draft picks will have less and less a chance to even make the roster, let alone be developed by this staff because of the success rate they are having with thier top picks.

Again, the sample size isn't big enough to warrant the label that they are bad at developing young talent.

"Marrdro" wrote:

13 late round picks.
3 Starters
5 Solid contributors/rotation
5 Not on the team

For me it gets back to the numbers.
Each and every year we see this staff doing thier thing, the later round draft picks will have less and less a chance to even make the roster, let alone be developed by this staff because of the success rate they are having with thier top picks.

Again, the sample size isn't big enough to warrant the label that they are bad at developing young talent.

If anything, that is a point that makes sense to me. It's hard to assess the last two years, but in the end I simply do not look at a guy like Robison and think that Chilly "developed" them. I simply can't consider a solid backup a good example of development. For a coach to develop a player suggests that they have been able to make that player exceed expectations based on where they were drafted.

Moreover, there are examples of drafted players who we have had to replace using FA. Tavaris Jackson, Brian Robison. Greg Blue. Marcus McCauley. If we were good at developing young talent, wouldn't those guys be starting. Would we need to draft Asher Allen if McCauley was progressing well? Would the Sullivan pick be necessary if we had kept Cook at his natural position? Would the Loadholt pick be needed if Cook had been groomed for T properly?

Marrdro hints that our early round draft picks have been so good that we haven't needed to develop late round picks. I could agree on that.

Oh and I still think those numbers are skewed. You refer to Johnson as a starter, and I don't think that Brinkley, Sanford, Booty and Cook can be referred to as "solid contributors". They are backups.

We draft for depth very well, but every team has drafted depth. That is not what sets us apart from the league right now. What sets us apart is a large amount of highly touted talent playing well (Peterson, Harvin, Mckinnie, Rice, Loadholt, KWill, EJ, Greenway, Griffin, Johnson), combined with several key FA acquisitions (Favre, Berrian, Hutch, PWill, Allen, Winfield, MWill, Leber). Youthful "developed" talent (Sullivan, Edwards) plays much less of a role on this team than it typically does on a contender.

This is not a knock in any way. I am certainly willing to give Chilly credit for several things. However, looking at the above, I just can't credit the guy for developing young talent. He doesn't deserve that praise yet.

"V" wrote:

It's hard to assess the last two years, but in the end I simply do not look at a guy like Robison and think that Chilly "developed" them. I simply can't consider a solid backup a good example of development. For a coach to develop a player suggests that they have been able to make that player exceed expectations based on where they were drafted.

I think there's something beyond the numbers here too, and I think that's what you're getting at a bit.
You look at a guy like Robison, and he's pretty much filling the role that was envisioned of him.
I don't know that he's improved significantly since his rookie year, but probably a little.
He wasn't really a 'developmental' guy.
He was looked at as having his skill set and he's played that part.

Similar deal with Ray Edwards.
I think Edwards fell in the draft largely because of attitude problems, real or perceived.
I'm pretty sure he was looked at as a guy with talent to start in the league, but not necessarily the work ethic.
He's panned out, and he's learned to play on the other side.
But until four weeks ago would anyone say he had greatly improved?
Maybe... maybe not.

There are certain players that come in and are looked at as projects.
The 'this guy has all the skills in the world but needs to learn the game' type of guys.
The picks I think of like this are Cook, Guion, and Tarvaris.


Cook was supposed to be big and athletic enough to play tackle, but it didn't work out.
The guy was terrible and he didn't get better over time.

Guion is a work in progress.
He was drafted young.
He's getting some time, and I have hope, but so far he hasn't done anything.
Probably not fair to judge the coaches on him yet, but he is an example of a developmental guy.

Jackson was an athletic QB with a strong arm from a small school.
He was another guy that just needed to be coached up.
I do think he has improved.
Not to an acceptable level, and seeing Favre run the offense makes me realize Tarvaris was worse than I thought.
There is still hope for him too, but he has not succeeded yet and the coaches deserve little or no credit for their work with him.

I don't know how much perception is reality here.
I mean, maybe it's all just talk how one guy is a late round steal and another guy was a project that was developed.

"V" wrote:

"Marrdro" wrote:

13 late round picks.
3 Starters
5 Solid contributors/rotation
5 Not on the team

For me it gets back to the numbers.
Each and every year we see this staff doing thier thing, the later round draft picks will have less and less a chance to even make the roster, let alone be developed by this staff because of the success rate they are having with thier top picks.

Again, the sample size isn't big enough to warrant the label that they are bad at developing young talent.

If anything, that is a point that makes sense to me. It's hard to assess the last two years, but in the end I simply do not look at a guy like Robison and think that Chilly "developed" them. I simply can't consider a solid backup a good example of development. For a coach to develop a player suggests that they have been able to make that player exceed expectations based on where they were drafted.

Moreover, there are examples of drafted players who we have had to replace using FA. Tavaris Jackson, Brian Robison. Greg Blue. Marcus McCauley. If we were good at developing young talent, wouldn't those guys be starting. Would we need to draft Asher Allen if McCauley was progressing well? Would the Sullivan pick be necessary if we had kept Cook at his natural position? Would the Loadholt pick be needed if Cook had been groomed for T properly?

Marrdro hints that our early round draft picks have been so good that we haven't needed to develop late round picks. I could agree on that.

Oh and I still think those numbers are skewed. You refer to Johnson as a starter, and I don't think that Brinkley, Sanford, Booty and Cook can be referred to as "solid contributors". They are backups.

Damn I love a good football discussion. This thread has turned into one of them.

Although I would like to meet anyone on here to talk football, I have about 6 or 7 that I would go out of my way to have a brew and talk the game.........

V is one of them.
Great stuff my friend.

Back to the discussion.....

Moreover, there are examples of drafted players who we have had to replace using FA. Tavaris Jackson, Brian Robison. Greg Blue. Marcus McCauley. If we were good at developing young talent, wouldn't those guys be starting.

I like were your going with this but for me, I still look at them individualy:
a. TJ - 16th ranked QB.
Very little given for him.
Has started in the league and produced.
Has come in as a backup and produced.
Still has the potential to be good.
b. B-Rob.
I still believe this guy was brought in to be (initially) a role player and possible future starter.
In that role he has evolved nicely. He can play all 4 DL positions and spells our starters in critical situations.
Nothing says to me that eventually he can't be a good starting RDE.
Only thing stopping him is whats in front of him.
c. Greg Blue.
I concur on this one.
Probably a bad pick to begin with, but the staff sure didn't put alot of effort into developing him.
(See my follow-on discussion point)
d. Marcus.
At one point he looked really good. In fact he came in and started.
Not sure I can say they didn't develop (got him starting) and then couldn't get anything else out of him.
Something failed in the process here.
Like Allison, I think it was the player, not the coaches.

On a side note/Side bar discussion (see c.)

It would be interesting to hear your thoughts with respect to going to the next level on this.

What happens when a player fails (Or in this instance/a staff fails to develop said player)?

At some point the coaches had to admit that the guys weren't going to work out.
Additionally, the FO pukes would have to admit that they were wrong when they made the picks.
In most cases poor teams will continue to pound thier heads against the wall.
Only the successfull ones will go ahead and focus on getting better. This staff appears to have checked thier ego's at the door and do work together towards that end state.

"Overlord" wrote:

I think there's something beyond the numbers here too, and I think that's what you're getting at a bit.

See my comment about V and a brew.
You fall into that catagory as well my friend.
Great stuff.....

You look at a guy like Robison, and he's pretty much filling the role that was envisioned of him.
I don't know that he's improved significantly since his rookie year, but probably a little.
He wasn't really a 'developmental' guy.
He was looked at as having his skill set and he's played that part.

Actually, I look at Rob and see a guy that has evolved.
Who would have thought this kid could be anything but a situational pass rusher from the RDE spot?
I know thats what I thought they picked him to be.

As I said, he now comes in and plays all four line positions.
Wouldn't suprise me to see (well we are talking about Leslie here) our coaches use him as a "No hand in the dirt" LBr.
Kid is a baller and continues to get better.

Similar deal with Ray Edwards.
I think Edwards fell in the draft largely because of attitude problems, real or perceived.
I'm pretty sure he was looked at as a guy with talent to start in the league, but not necessarily the work ethic.
He's panned out, and he's learned to play on the other side.
But until four weeks ago would anyone say he had greatly improved?
Maybe... maybe not.

Anyone who has been around this site long enough know that I have a few select soapbox issues.
The whole LDE/RDE thing is one of the biggest for me.

I absolutely loved the Ray selection but was against him moving to LDE.
I was 100% convinced he couldn't stand up to the beating unless he added weight.
He not only added the weight but he made the transition almost seamlessly.

Most on here missed what has been some stellar play from that side cause all they were looking for was sacks.
Additionally, he, like Rob has improved his game to the point that he can switch out/play any position. I absolutely love it when he goes to the RDE and JA switches to the LDE spot. The flexibility this cat brings is a amazing assett to this staff.

There are certain players that come in and are looked at as projects.
The 'this guy has all the skills in the world but needs to learn the game' type of guys.
The picks I think of like this are Cook, Guion, and Tarvaris.


Cook was supposed to be big and athletic enough to play tackle, but it didn't work out.
The guy was terrible and he didn't get better over time.

LOL.
Not to beat a dead horse, but the staff is at fault here and is about one of the only that V has a leg to stand on.
But Cook did evolve.
If nothing else, those reps out there (like it or not) were as a starter at the NFL level, and makes him one hell of asset as a backup OL not only as a C but at both G and T positions.
He and Hicks provide a very nice level of depth that most teams don't have.

Guion is a work in progress.
He was drafted young.
He's getting some time, and I have hope, but so far he hasn't done anything.
Probably not fair to judge the coaches on him yet, but he is an example of a developmental guy.

I think the sample size is to small with Mr. Guion to asses him but of late I have see his number in the backfield a few times.
Might be a cat that takes a bit longer (see your youth comment) but could eventually be a nice starter.

Jackson was an athletic QB with a strong arm from a small school.
He was another guy that just needed to be coached up.
I do think he has improved.
Not to an acceptable level, and seeing Favre run the offense makes me realize Tarvaris was worse than I thought.
There is still hope for him too, but he has not succeeded yet and the coaches deserve little or no credit for their work with him.

I find it funny (not laughing at you funny) when people try to say that TJ will never be good because he isn't as proficient as our current starter.

Seriously, if TJ plays as long as our current starter, I would expect him to make it look easy running an offense.
Especially the WCO.

What was asked of this kid (much like Cook) by our staff was out of the question.
No one in thier right mind could have expected him to step out of the backwater, run first system, and execute a WCO.
Especially when you mix in a poor OL and young WRs trying to learn the same system.

I think the progress TJ has shown is a direct reflexion on coach Rogers.
Time will tell who is right here but I think TJ is better this year than most think.

I don't know how much perception is reality here.
I mean, maybe it's all just talk how one guy is a late round steal and another guy was a project that was developed.

Arm chair perceptions are a bad reality, however, most of us (me included) are forced to live in them.


Again, great stuff my friend.
;D