Yeah, and you can count me in that group as being wrong. I thought it was an upgrade because I thought he'd be close to as good a receiver and a much, much better blocker. As it turns out, he doesn't have anywhere near Cook's downfield speed. Now, Cook still has drop issues, I watched him I think it was last week (or maybe two weeks ago) and he had a good game but dropped one. But he's much faster and stretches and threatens defenses way better than Bennett. Bennett's drops have been a shocker, I don't remember seeing or hearing about drop issues with him in the past, so don't know what's going on there. He's not as dynamic a receiver as I expected, though he is fairly physical with the ball in his hands, and he's a big target who should be good in the red zone. His run blocking generally is good -- not always, but usually. So he's a fairly big upgrade from Cook in that way, Cook was a bad blocker.
That's exactly what they'd get, roster evaluation. Maybe it would convince them to make changes they otherwise wouldn't have. They'd also get a higher draft pick than if they make the playoffs.
He definitely comes across as a bright guy. The question I have is whether he can play fast enough -- see things quickly enough, and when he sees them act instantaneously. That's what all good QBs have in common. You can be very bright but not able to do that. As for the arm, I'd say by NFL standards it's a little above average for strength. Accuracy is an open question. To be good in this league you have to be very accurate. I'm still not sure about that with him.
The 10 men on the field was bad. But I thought it was much worse that nobody called timeout. Somebody on the field or sidelines has to recognize that.
It's tough, but the Saints didn't push the ball down the field much and still had a good game offensively. It makes it tougher, can't disagree with you there. It definitely creates some limitations, such as it has for Alex Smith.
I don't know if they have any internal ways to calculate that. It makes the Packers less interesting to a national audience, that's for sure. It takes a Super Bowl contender out of contention, so they lose great playoffs matchups, the Packers draw big TV audiences, and it's because of Rodgers. But I don't know how much ratings will drop. I would think it hurts the league at least a little, I'm sure that's a big reason behind all the rules changes over the past 30 years to protect QBs.
The only thing I'll say to that is, if I'm running an NFL team I'd much prefer to have an offensive guy, a QB guy, as the head coach. That position is so overwhelmingly important to a franchise's success, you don't want to have what's happened in Atlanta this year, where the coordinator from last season gets a head coaching job, and now you have a new coordinator running the offense for a coach whose expertise is defense. It seems to have hurt the Falcons. That's just my thinking. Plenty of defensive head coaches succeed in the league, but I'd always prefer to have a QB guy as head coach.
I'd be reluctant to put many in, because you can't have him getting hurt and be down to your No. 3. But he's going to have to convert his share of first downs with scrambles. Maybe an occasional read option to keep the D honest, but I'd have him under strict orders that as soon as he sees trouble, slide.
I don't know this for sure, but from what I've gleaned over the years they go over it by position group. I'm sure there are plays they go over as the offense and defense as a whole, but I think the review of every play is done by position group, with a lot of the corrections done then. That also allows for the discussions that you alluded too. I'm sure there's plenty of discussion, at least on some plays.
He helped win the Cincinnati game, then didn't play that much the next couple weeks because of game plan. He played a lot last week and had a rough time defending the run, got blocked a fair amount from what I saw. But he is a talented, explosive athlete.
I don't buy into the Capers-veterans argument as much as others do, but maybe I'm wrong. It's hard to have a veteran team in this league because of the roster turnover. So my feeling is, if that really is an issue with this team, then I would say it's up to Capers to adapt. I'm not convinced it is an issue, but I very well could be wrong. But seems to me most teams play their share of young guys.
Jeff, my apologies, I've forgotten to check on that. I just wrote it down and will try to have an answer for you next week. Sorry and thanks for the reminder.
I think this is a fairly common phenomenon. It's probably magnified because of the Packers' popularity, hard-core fan base and great run of success going back to the early '90s. But still common for some/plenty of markets.
I think earlier I said a loss against Detroit next week would make them 4-3, but of course that's what they are now, as you say. They defended the screen poorly, for sure, except for the one that Matthews sniffed out. Clinton-Dix hasn't been the guy he was last year. I thought he'd really take off this season, but instead he's not playing as well. Safeties coach Darren Perry hinted last week that Clinton-Dix has been playing hurt, but CD hasn't been on the injury report. So I'm not sure what to make of that. But he has looked passive on some pass plays, and hasn't tackled well in the open field.
No, I'm pretty sure they thought Bennett would be more dynamic than he's been, and I don't know of anyone who thought his hands would be an issue. I think they signed both because the coach likes to make use of tight ends.
If I'm them I wouldn't take a QB higher than the fourth round, and really I'd prefer fifth or later.
The latter. He's been a healthy scratch the last, I think it's three games. If I'm them I'd want to get him on the field to see if he can help the rush some.
I get your point, but the highest compensatory pick you can get is at the end of the third round. If you can get a second-rounder, or even a high-ish third, I'd make the trade. I understand your thinking, and this is proving how important that position can be. And you're right, he'll have to play pretty well to get somebody to give up a two or a high three. That doesn't look likely now, but it could change.
It's not just the stats, it's Cook's stretching the field that made a difference the second half of last season. That threat affects how defenses play. So I still think there's a significant difference in the two as receivers. I do think Bennett can be a really good red-zone target, he's huge and a good athlete.
I'd say every third question is about him and the defense.
I'd only do that if you're going to motion out Montgomery, because he's not a run blocker. You do that you're also taking either one of the WRs or Bennett (a good run blocker) off the field.
I thought it was a tick late and he made sure he landed on top of him. So I thought with the way they've been calling the game the last couple years he should have been penalized. However, the league watched the video and didn't fine him, so looks like I was wrong.
That is something I keep coming back to. Now, there are other considerations. Have things become stagnant on defense? Is something just not working right? Is that affecting whether someone isn't a playmaker who could be? Those could be true and would be reason to make a change. But the biggest issue also could be the lack of difference-making talent.
And here's the other side. Plenty of people seem to agree with Johnny Ace.
OK everybody, even with the bye I have other duties to get to, but thanks for all the great questions, and sorry I didn't get to so many of them, they just keep rolling in and I can't keep up. As for your question, it makes it a challenge but they know Hundley well enough that they should be able to make the adjustments over a couple weeks. They did it with Flynn. He's much, much different than Rodgers, but they went 2-2-1 in the games he finished, and McCarthy did a really good job playing to Flynn's strengths and minimizing the weaknesses. And that's a wrap. Thanks again everyone, always a pleasure chatting with you. Enjoy the bye weekend and we'll talk again next week. Until then, take care.