Rocky Landing

It's an understatement to say that you are in the minority in this opinion. Even most of the hardcore EJ fans admit that he is probably in third place in the competition. But, the crazy part is: Your scenario is by no means outside the realm of possibility.

I'll accept, "Goodwin is probably making the team," AND NOTHING LESS!!!

Those last two sentences need some motivational imagery with them There. Fixed it!

Four TEs, and two FBs?

That was his nickname with the Jets, both for the reference to his name, and his ability to lay people out.

There is that. But, PRs do take some hard hits, often by several players simultaneously. I don't necessarily have the durability concerns that others do regarding Goodwin as a WR, but PRs have to be quite sturdy. But, an equal concern for me is his ability to reliably catch an end-over-end punt with players bearing down on him. Not sure if that's really in his wheelhouse.

I think the hallmark of a great leader is the ability to trust one's generals, so to speak. I know I'm speaking in vague terms here, but I think it's Roman's job to offer assessments of the various options, and the potential for each. Along with that would be his preference, but if his preference doesn't match up with the type of team Ryan is trying to build, I think it's Roman's obligation to adjust to Rex, not the other way around. If Roman truly believes that one option is going to result in fewer wins, then he should be making a strong case against it. But, if the conversation is about, "this is how we win with this guy, and this is how we win with the other guy..." then that is how Rex will build consensus. I really like eball's hypothetical conversation in this regard, and the more I think about it (and, I am well aware that I am just pondering the ramifications of a thin rumor), the more I could understand how Roman would prefer Cassel over TT. By most accounts, Cassel reads the field better. That is no small thing, and I could see how that would give Roman more options in running, and controlling his offense. And, I could see how that would not necessarily mesh with what Rex is trying to build.

I understand that John Connor was back from injury? Does anyone know if he was full go in practice?

It's an interesting comparison between the two (which this thread seems to have turned into). I think there is more to the notion of "building a winning culture" than most people consider. I think the proverbial "locker room" is a big part of that. And, for me, one of the reasons I am a Hogan fan is his work ethic (which is unquestionable), and his attitude. That being said, I think the idea of Harvin being a locker room cancer is overblown. I think we have good, positive leadership in the locker room, and as a team that seems to be a haven for second chances, I think he will fit in just fine. But, another reason I am really hoping that Hogan remains a Bill, is his character, and as he is becoming a perennially under-appreciated player who has continually gotten better through sheer work, and dedication, I would like to see how much better he becomes. Even if he has reached his ceiling (and, I don't see any reason to believe he has) he was a reliable, and versatile enough WR last season, who worked especially hard to build rapport with his QB, that he can always be a consistent #3.

Hmmm. Maybe we have different definitions of the term lock? What if Watkins were to drop four passes in a row vs. Steelers? Would he still make the 53? I do believe he would. What if Goodwin drops four passes in a row on Saturday? Would he still make the 53? If the answer to that is no, or maybe, or even probably, then he isn't a lock.

I would trust the consensus. And, if there weren't a clear consensus, I think it's more important for Rex to feel confident in the decision than Roman. Even though I trust Roman more, offensively, I feel that it's also important for the chain of command to remain intact, and strong. Roman's the coordinator, but it's Rex's vision. That's my philosophical take.

Just one other argument to why it's an exaggeration to say he's a "lock"-- If Watkins were to injure himself tomorrow, and be out for 8 weeks, would he still be on the team? Of course he would. He's a lock. Can the same be said for Goodwin? I don't think so. Do you?

I'm not looking forward to the inevitable, and unseemly "Tyrod" chants, should they start Cassel.

This is also a good illustration of how, to the disbelief of some, Roman could favor Cassel over TT.

I agree with this.

Do I get to come back to you and gloat, if he gets cut?

I've become an unapologetic Gray fan. I think this will be a defining year for him. I love his background, and versatility. His reported weakness last year was his blocking ability. That seems to have improved significantly this TC. My one complaint in the few plays he had for us last year was that I thought he ran a bit like a quarterback (which he used to be). He was still better than Chandler after the catch. With his reported athleticism, if he really starts to fight for YAC, he could be an absolute stud TE, imo. I keep quietly hoping we start to trade some of these guys, especially WRs, and accumulating some late round picks for the '16 draft. There are some teams with real need at WR, and I think there will be some competition for some of our cuts.

How does Garrapolo like his balls?

I don't think it's unreasonable to think that Easley joins the other good WRs on the bubble. But, I would be very surprised if they cut Easley and Thigpen. I think they keep one or the other, if not both. I think it's an exaggeration to say he's a lock. I will agree that he has improved his chances this camp. But, too many possibilities to call him a lock. A lot of people (myself included) were calling Hogan a lock, not long ago. I hope Dez Lewis makes the PS. There's no way he could, or should make the 53, but I think he has improved through training camp and could have a high ceiling, and could, in the future, add something we don't currently have-- a tall WR.

I can play that game, too. http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2014090709/2014/REG1/vikings@rams#menu=gameinfo%7CcontentId%3A0ap3000000391035&tab=analyze&recap=quicktake But, truthfully, posting successes, or failures from previous games really has no bearing on the point I was making. And, to be clear, I'm not in favor of starting Matt Cassel. I'm just not dismissive of the opinion that others have that he should. And, that would include Roman.

It makes perfect sense to me. It has been well reported that Roman's offensive scheme is complex, and obviously, he has put a lot of time and energy into its installation. I can understand how he would prefer the quarterback that reads the field better, and uses his offensive scheme more completely, over the one who takes off running after only reading half the field. That's not to say that Cassel is the better quarterback. I don't think he is. But, I can see how Roman might prefer to work with him.

This is a picture of me in the previous exchange with Gumby.

I am pretty dim. Why did I bother to engage somebody who has offered not one shred of substance to a 30 page discussion, but prefers to condescendingly dismiss the entire discussion as pointless because, "they are all sub-par QBs and the end result will be the same.?" That's some mighty fine analysis, there. Nice debating you, pal.

This site needs a stoner-passing-the-joint emoji.