17to85

instead he just made it unfair to both of them. As far as I'm concerned the only relevant parts of last nights game were the first half because the qbs in the second half were put in a poor position.

no absolutely not, you are completely missing the point. No one has said we'll be alright so who cares. What people are saying is, STOP FREAKING OUT OVER GETTING SPANKED IN A GAME WHERE NO STARTERS PLAYED! You want to bring up questions about the team that's fine, there's lots of debate to be had there, but to use last nights game as proof of anything regarding the upcoming season is just a really terrible idea.

I think in your never ending quest to find something to be outraged about you've missed the point here. The point of posting this is to remind people that while the game was a blowout it certainly doesn't prove anything about the team for this season because there were no starters there.

from the sounds of it clement was what was expected, moves well but accuracy on the throws is inconsistent. Hall was the only real disppointment for me because he was showing better in camp and in the first preseason game. He's supposed to be a bit more polished and more accurate. Maybe it was just the circumstances of the game (blow out, rotating every other series) we likely won't find out for a while though as I think that it's pretty much written in stone now that Goltz is #2.

I mean seriously, are we going to skewer Goltz because they couldn't make a play at the endzone with maybe, and I mean maybe one receiver who is going to be a starter? If he's throwing from near the goal line with Edwards and Matthews and Watson in the game I expect things to be a lot different. Are we skewering the offense because one of the backup NI rbs fumbled in a scoring position? How often do you see Chad Simpson put the ball on the ground in situations like that? Are you going to see Matthews or Edwards or those guyts volleying up passes to be picked off as regularly as we saw last night? Certain people on this board badly need to learn about perspective rather than just being so god damned negative all the time.

it's ******* exhibition with B and C teamers, moving the ball IS enough. Ditch the shitty attitude and you'll worry far less about the results of preseason games.

There were times they actually moved the ball, the defense all things considered did a solid job, again if you focus on the score and the turnovers only you're going to say it was a horrible game, and it was, but considering the roster there were enough things happened to say that it wasn't a total write off.

Burke didn't like Elliott and Brink was too easy to defend. Pressure him and his accuracy goes out the window. There's lots to like about Goltz physical skills, he just needs experience. I said it at the time and I'll say it again, especially with Clement and Hall struggling, cutitng Elliott was a mistake because he was the closest the bombers had to a guy actually able to play once Pierce gets hurt.

all of them just gawkers wondering why a street was closed and who those people are.

I think a lot of that is because most of the offensive guys are already in place so you weren't going to see any receivers or rbs pop off the page... I mean Doug Pierce seemed to do quite well last night... but he was here last year so he's not a new face... there were no new rbs... Some of the d-linemen seem to be able to play, and for what it's worth I don't think Hall really jumped off the page last year either, it took a couple games for him to really settle in and show what he could do. I think there is just way, way too much over reacting to TCF and rookies and backups getting beat in preseason. Really need to remember that. Hell even in the first game the first teamers hardly got any time either. I was actually encouraged by the play of goltz, but maybe that's because I don't freak out over a couple interceptions when we have no idea how or why they happened. Pierce and Etienne and Carter seemed to make some good catches so that's a plus. They were able to sack Burris a few times, that's a plus, overall the defense wasn't that bad considering Hamilton was using a lot of starters so that's a plus. It was really only the turnovers last night that sank them and if you want to get so worked up over turnovers from people who are not likely to see much of the field then have at it, but I'm not going to give myself a heart attack over that. The concern is that the starters will be some kind of rusty to start the season having barely seen the field in preseason so we'll have to see how that goes, but to try and use preseason to judge how good the team is when you haven't seen the starters.... yikes that is just looking for reasons to be negative and that **** pisses me off.

Honestly as much as you can tell from just the radio I thought Goltz played pretty well, obviously if you're just going by the stats people will get on him for the ints, but we have no idea if they were receivers running the wrong routes or what happened. He was able to move the ball and Pierce and Etienne seemed to be making catches for him. I was disappointed in Hall and Clement though, Burke said he felt the defense did well, I agree with him, they sacked Burris a couple times, only gave up a few real big plays, was mostly the bad field position on account of turnovers that led to the scoring for Hamilton. The score doesn't say it, but this game was actually more encouraging to me than last weeks game was... and it's still really not all that meaningful in the grand scheme of things. We took basically none of the starters! Most of these guys will wind up being cut before the regular season opens.

WE LOST A GAME IN WHICH BASICALLY NONE OF OUR STARTERS PLAYED!!!! Keep that in mind before you're freaking out. The reason that the score was out of hand were the turnovers... at least one interception seemed to be the result of Goltz throwing to a spot in a zone and a receiver not being there... Goltz said the int at the endzone was a result of a receiver running one route and Goltz expecting something else... Typical rookie and preseason stuff. For the love of god this game is not worth getting worked up over. If Next week they get absolutely spanked like this THEN you can all freak out but don't waste your time or energy getting worked up over a preseason game where no starters were in.

if it's not structural stuff that's cracking then it's really just an eyesore and nothing more. Seal it and it's not a big deal.

I just want to see people making some plays. If the linebackers wanted to step up and play a good game I think that would bode well for the regular season especially.

Well I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't have a problem with a site having ads to cover the cost of running the site, and if there happens to be any extra revenue (i am quite clueless about how much revenue a website can actually produce vs. costs of running) I don't hold it against anyone if they see it as compensation for the time and effort put in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ig6MNlphMfE

yeah but they're wrong about that, we're actually right about the esks.

Dark backgrounds with light text are an abomination. It's like every website that does it is just trying to be edgy and different and screaming for attention because look how COOL it looks! Give me a nice clean design anyday. Black text on white background is a standard for a reason.

so what I get out of all of this is.... blame twitter?

I want to see that guy dominate some kinda bad. Was a fan from the get go.

Yeah but I also get the impression that at this point they really know what the team is going to look like anyway they just want to see a couple specific guys and how they do. I'd expect all the qbs to be kept around because unfortunately I think we'll need all 4 of them again.

This is where I disagree a bit. Receivers you can see on film who is going where they're supposed to even if they never see the ball, you can see who is getting open on film even if they never see the ball... You have all kinds of practise time to see who has hands and who doesn't so they don't need to actually get the ball to make a decision on if they're good enough or not, that's a trap that fans fall into, thinking that coaches need a stat sheet to see who is good and who isn't. If a qb is on his ass the whole time it does make it difficult to move the ball, but you also see how his decision making process is and whether he can throw under pressure or how elusive they might be. Again it's not a cut and dried situation where they need to go 65% completions and have 400 yards passing for the coaches to know if they're good enough. They will have a lot of practise time to know who can be an accurate passer or not.

I think that comment from Hervey was poorly worded and he didn't really mean it like it came out.

I don't really agree with that... If there's a few guys getting torched over and over and over again it actually makes the coaches job easier in evaluating.... shows that those guys have no right being on the team so cut em. You can see who is making the right decisions and doing the right things on film even if the score is out of hand as well so it's not like there's no way to evaluate things. I really do think that this is a very good way for the coaches to see which of the rookies/backups/borderline guys will rise to the challenge or sink with the added responsibility, the trouble is that I think you also need to use the 2nd preseason game as a way to get the first teamers some reps so that they're ready to start the season.