big2033 Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 Who is this imposter? Haha did I spell it wrong... woops... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZEPPELIN Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 How would you prefer people to acknowledge that CJ has had issues but it's not just him and that other areas including the OL have had issues as well? What phrasing would you prefer? Well, it's pretty obvious where a person stands when they devote half a sentence to criticizing a $13 million running back that is dead last in the league just to avoid getting piegonholed, but then spend weeks and months rationalizing and defending his piss poor performance as due to other problems. The excuses have run the gamut and it is totally laughable to contend that some of the CJ supporters have not had extreme and indefensible opinions about the guy. I have criticized him because he absolutely deserved it. I have also made it clear that I think Scott and Amano have not played well. I also gave CJ credit for a solid performance today, as I said I would when it happened. The effort he showed today is what we should have gotten for the past 10 games, but it has not been there plain and simple. Today he showed up finally. My posiitons have been consistent and based on what he has done this season, not on some fantasy about who he was in 2009 or who he will be again once all the other problem areas are corrected. His performance prior to today cannot be defended when he is the 2nd highest paid RB in the league and tried to hold out for playmaker money. But, numerous posters on this board have made a living trying to do it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzTitan Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 It's pretty obvious what this boils down to - you have a group of guys who tend to look at something one way, and another group who tend to look at it another way. Each group sees the other as defending their stance for reasons beyond what they say. Both sides can probably agree on a lot, but tend to focus on why the others think the way they do instead of what the others are actually saying. The odd (and often exaggerated in number) extremist and short tempered poster never helps. Perhaps people just read too much into things. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 In part to the success today was that Tampa is not very good at stopping the run. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reo Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 It's pretty obvious what this boils down to - you have a group of guys who tend to look at something one way, and another group who tend to look at it another way. Each group sees the other as defending their stance for reasons beyond what they say. Both sides can probably agree on a lot, but tend to focus on why the others think the way they do instead of what the others are actually saying. The odd (and often exaggerated in number) extremist and short tempered poster never helps. Perhaps people just read too much into things. I think what we really have is a group of posters that like to simplifty things too much and ignore shades of grey. It's either "this" or "that" and can't be anything in between. If you try to argue that it's something in between then they consider you firmly against them and thus firmly on the other side b/c either they refuse to see the shades of grey or are incapable of seeing it that way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cenj Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 I think what we really have is a group of posters that like to simplifty things too much and ignore shades of grey. It's either "this" or "that" and can't be anything in between. If you try to argue that it's something in between then they consider you firmly against them and thus firmly on the other side b/c either they refuse to see the shades of grey or are incapable of seeing it that way. Spot on. Zepp is so irritated that posters have made all these "crazy excuses" for why CJ has looked useless. Well, some of us are trying to dig deeper and be honest about the actual problem, not use a scapegoat that we are pissed at because we think the FO messed up paying him in the first place. Where one poster says excuses, another says explanations. I think guys like Reo, Jamal, and myself have been arguing a pretty non-hard stance the entire time: multiple problems are the reason for the run game. CJ has played poorly at times, but it's hard to know if he had really lost a step when he is getting swarmed in the backfield most plays. Now that the blocking/playcalling looks improved, CJ looks dangerous again. He's steadily looked quicker and more comfortable the last several weeks. So no, guys like Zepp weren't right in heaping all the blame on CJ earlier in the year. It was always a more complicated situation than CJ just being "soft." That's not making excuses, that's being rational. We go from a top running unit to the absolute worst in 1 offseason, the same year we have a total coaching overhaul. A dropoff like that probably means there is more than 1 thing going wrong. It seems like common sense to me, I honestly have a hard time understanding why some posters HAVE to simplify everything. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZEPPELIN Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 I said, "probably worse" ... exact words and you went apeshit like it was completely implausible. Considering I have three years of great performances from CJ to fall back on and you have one game against the Texans as a statement for the whole season I think saying "probably worse" isn't too extreme. Considering he now has a worse YPC average and teams aren't game planning for the backup RB. Its not cool-aid chugging its just thinking rationally. My stance has essentially been similar to Jamalgsaod from his signing to now: "jamalsagod, on 20 September 2011 - 02:57 PM, said: And let me go on the record here: I can't predict what Chris Johnson will do in the future, neither do I believe than anyone else can. What I can say is that CJ's accomplishments prior to the contract merited it based on market conditions, percentage of offense, potential for future success, franchise image, fan relations, future relations with other FAs or stand-outs, etc. ... and at least one professional NFL contract negotiator agrees with me. MY REPLY Well said." I can give you the link to the thread where I said this if you want. My stance has also been that it's both sides fault... the oline and CJ, AND I EVEN CLAIMED in a discussion I posted that the media is doing a bad job in finding the real issue, whose fault it was on etc... where the mistakes were being made. A couple of weeks later articles started coming out. I also posted an SI article that we all looked at that broke down the issues with both CJ and the o-line. The problem is you take "the oline is doing a bad job too" as "IT'S THE OLINES FAULT!" You want us to be as angry and disgusted at CJ as you are. If we're not, we're apologists. Now, if I'm chugging "tha cool-aid" what the hell are you chugging? Turpentine? My negative perception of your posts comes from numerous things you have contended....that Ringer was playing like a turd earlier this season when he was totally outplaying CJ, that after two months of awful running you were still glad we signed CJ and would do it again, that you claimed a whole list of potential free agents I mentioned were either signed by their original teams or were completely useless, even though none were resigned by their teams, that you didn't know which Landry I was talking about, and you characterized guys like Sidney Rice as useless. You also said we could just re-sign Finnegan this offseason, without considering the fact that he left camp pissed off because they weren't willing to pay him and that he might not be agreeable to reasonable negotiations the second time around. You also suggested that I was happy with the way our Oline had been playing. So, sorry but you need to check your facts before you write stuff and I will take your posts more seriously. As far as this idea about me doing nothing but calling people Kool Aid chuggers and insulting people, that is just another thing you have made up. I have used that term sparingly and it is directed to those who refer to the critics of CJ as haters. I also try to keep the insults to a minimum, but occasionally I get sick of all the bullshit and respond in kind or call someone out. No apologies for that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
titansrule19 Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 Truth: The offensive line blocked incredible today Truth: Johnson had his best game of the year Truth: Old CJ would have potentially broken 250 yards plus today with the holes and lanes that he had The agenda behind some posters is ridiculous. I still stand by the fact that we should have never paid Johnson, but today he showed glimpses of why we did. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cenj Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 Until we see one of those 80 yard runs, it's hard to believe he still has that gear anymore. He's looked faster and more decisive every week for the last several weeks, so maybe it's coming. Maybe. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZEPPELIN Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 Spot on. Zepp is so irritated that posters have made all these "crazy excuses" for why CJ has looked useless. Well, some of us are trying to dig deeper and be honest about the actual problem, not use a scapegoat that we are pissed at because we think the FO messed up paying him in the first place. Where one poster says excuses, another says explanations. I think guys like Reo, Jamal, and myself have been arguing a pretty non-hard stance the entire time: multiple problems are the reason for the run game. CJ has played poorly at times, but it's hard to know if he had really lost a step when he is getting swarmed in the backfield most plays. Now that the blocking/playcalling looks improved, CJ looks dangerous again. He's steadily looked quicker and more comfortable the last several weeks. So no, guys like Zepp weren't right in heaping all the blame on CJ earlier in the year. It was always a more complicated situation than CJ just being "soft." That's not making excuses, that's being rational. We go from a top running unit to the absolute worst in 1 offseason, the same year we have a total coaching overhaul. A dropoff like that probably means there is more than 1 thing going wrong. It seems like common sense to me, I honestly have a hard time understanding why some posters HAVE to simplify everything. Your assumption here is totally false. I have called out CJ for reasons that are totally legitimate and have also observed Scott and Amano getting blown up in the backfield repeatedly. That is no excuse for CJ's performance this season. My crticisms have nothing to do with my feelings about his contract. The guys was dead last in the league in most categories until today. He has deserved a ton of criticism regardless of how the Oline has played. I actually think most people agree with that. My positions are not extreme in any way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cenj Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 My positions are not extreme in any way. Saying that our 26 yr old RB -- who has been phenomenal in his first 3 years -- should be cut immediately and that he is the worst RB in the league and the backup is way better, all while ignoring the fact we have a totally new coaching group and the worst rated run-blocking OL in the NFL? Yes, that is extreme. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OILERMAN Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 I wonder if Munchak's speech to get the OL fired up and blocking well works so well if TB wasn't the worst run defense in the league? Wouldn't this speech have been better used against Atlanta? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzTitan Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 OMan, maybe the speech had specific references to the Atlanta game. Did you ever think of that? It would have been an incomplete speech. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 I think what we really have is a group of posters that like to simplifty things too much and ignore shades of grey. It's either "this" or "that" and can't be anything in between. If you try to argue that it's something in between then they consider you firmly against them and thus firmly on the other side b/c either they refuse to see the shades of grey or are incapable of seeing it that way. Pot, meet Kettle. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 Truth: The offensive line blocked incredible today Truth: Johnson had his best game of the yearl Truth: Old CJ would have potentially broken 250 yards plus today with the holes and lanes that he had The agenda behind some posters is ridiculous. I still stand by the fact that we should have never paid Johnson, but today he showed glimpses of why we did. I agree with this. All of it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.