Opinions of Chris Cooley's Film Breakdowns?

[NoCalMike]

The issues with Robert & Kirk are different, but both play like young QB's still learning the NFL system.  It is really the coach's call as to which one he thinks will eventually get there and/or is worth taking the lumps with while they figure things out along the way.

 

Colt is an entirely beast because he is not a young QB, and is pretty much an established backup.  He did what backups do, shine on the field in short-term situations. And considering he missed a lot of easy throws in his game(s) too seems to escape folks.

[Riggo#44]

While the offensive line can be upgraded, there is also part of a reason they are **** - they have no idea where the QB is going to be on any given play. The reason they look like **** now compared to Kirk and Colt is because the QB doesn't make the quick reads and get the ball out on time. The reason they look like **** and get beat on the edges is because the QB doesn't step up into the pock.

Good or Great - No ; **** - No ; Average and workable under a quick QB - Yes, as been proven.

So you believe Lavuao and Chester are starting quality guards?

[KokoMike]

Upon reflection, Cooley's critique of RG3 was presented with sadly shocking clarity.

 

I do think that Cooley was so excited about his discoveries that he went over the line with a couple of his comments.  But, I will give him credit for watching and analyzing the film.  

 

"I think it was a mistake on my part," I said of calling out Cooley, and Gruden said of calling out Griffin.

 

"That is all I have to say about that."  

Forrest Gump

[steve09ru]

So you believe Lavuao and Chester are starting quality guards?

 

Did you read the first sentence or just skim through? 

' While the offensive line can be upgraded '

[Riggo#44]

Did you read the first sentence or just skim through?

' While the offensive line can be upgraded '

confused, then, by your referring to them as "average" and "workable." Might want to clarify your point.

Chester and Lavuao are ****. They're getting a pass because Griffin played worse.

[thedeadliving5]

I had a hard time listening to his latest breakdown, not because what he was saying matched what I saw while watching the game (which it did) that his play was awful, but because he referred to Griffin as Zoolander when he rolled left.  I couldn't get this out of my head after that comment:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_EacLppMW0

[TheGloryDays]

Well, lets look at the thing this thread is about and what you yourself complimented. Cooley's breakdowns.

Cooleys breakdown in the Houston came indicated he played fine. Not like a top QB or even above average, but average given the game plan.

Cooley's breakdown in the Minnesota game indicated he played better than in the Houston game and was slightly above average. Not like a top QB, but showing definite improvement from the houston game. Cooley noted a greater willingness to run than in the Texas game, but still lacking a seeming willingness to truly be a playmaker in those runs. However, he suggested there were instances in the Minnesota game that suggested he did still have the ability and athleticism to do those playermaker type plays if he can become willing to do it again.

So over those two games this season we had seen nothing below average play, we saw a clear progression from the first game to the second game, and we saw indications in the second game that greater progression could be made.

It was reasonable to expect him to generally remain at that level at worst or continue to improve. So reasonable that even Cooley was suggesting in the pregame of Sunday that he didn't expect him to come out and "stink" anytime this season.

Then he laid a pile of dog S on the field Sunday.

Is it a wonderful highlight that every week is a new week in the NFL and while we can make some intelligent projections, ultimately you don't know for sure what you're gonig to get? Yes. But does it somehow mean that Cooley's analysis and the trend present in those first two games just are non-existant and Sunday is the only "true" example? No.

It was entirely reasonable to assume that Griffin wouldn't have played THAT badly Sunday because he had never, in his entire professional career, played that badly. That was several steps below his previous "floor" in terms of how poor he could play. It was a shocking and unexpected instance for anyone fairly and objectively critiquing his three years here rather than just going "HE SUCKS, SUCKS SUCKS SUCKS".

Those that just basically go "HE SUCKS, SUCK SUCKS SUCKS" are overjoyed to point to that game as some kind of validation, and are quick to point that Cooley is agreeing with them. The problem is, they fail to mention that Cooley EXPLICITELY agreed with them about THIS GAME ONLY and that he highlighted repeatedly that his comments and grade were for that game alone. They also generally fail to mention that Cooley has generally graded Robert as average to above average all season long, contrary to what many of the "SUCKS SUCKS SUCKS" crowd have tried to suggest.

Griffin S the bed. But in a thread talking about Cooley's film breakdowns...there was a reasonable expectation, given those breakdowns and the (albiet small) trend, to believe he would at least be average and continue to progress and get a bit better.

As to what we do going forward, my stance on this has been pretty consistent, and is relatively similar to what Cooley has said.

If he craps the bed like against Tampa once or twice more you sit him, cut bait, and you start looking for your new future in this upcoming draft.

If he shows on par with what he showed in the Houston and Minnesota game, average to mildly above average at best, without any seeming games that give you significant hope that he can honestly improve, then you absolutely don't pick up his option. You go into next year with an open competition at QB with Cousins, Colt, a Veteran you bring in, or a rookie if you fall in love with one in the draft.

If the worst you get is at least average going forward and he gives you some reasonable evidence of him improving in the system you don't pick up his option, but you go into next year with him as the presumed starter (though not the guaranteed starter). You use your draft picks to build up the rest of the team and you do some initial talks to lay the ground work for potential extension of his contract midseason if he ends up showing he's worth it next year.

If the worst you get is generally above average going forward and he's showing improvement, as well as giving you a game or two where he actually looks like a top flight QB, then take your time but eventually pick up his option and use your first full draft three yeras to build up the rest of your team.

If over the next 6 games the majority of them are instances where he looks like a true top flight QB, you pick up his option immedietely and you begin to lay the groundwork for an actual long term extension.

Now me personally...I think the first (he has multiple games like he just had and is benched) and the last (that the majority of his remaining games look like a top flight QB) are unlikely. I think one of those middle three scenarios are most likely to occur. And I'm not going to really make my personal decision on what I think needs to happen until we have that full sample size because week to week in the NFL is too chaotic to truly try and make decisions on.

I don't disagree with everything you said, but I just don't think we can call two games a trend.  If he played 5 or 6 games getting slightly better each time, then laid a stinker, I'd be far more forgiving.  I'd also be more forgiving if the aforementioned stinker didn't come after a bye, at home, to one of the worst defenses in football.  My opinion at this point is if he doesn't show us something over the next 6 weeks, it's time we drop the idea that we have to start him because we drafted him so high.

[Newera]

Well, lets look at the thing this thread is about and what you yourself complimented. Cooley's breakdowns.Cooleys breakdown in the Houston came indicated he played fine. Not like a top QB or even above average, but average given the game plan.Cooley's breakdown in the Minnesota game indicated he played better than in the Houston game and was slightly above average. Not like a top QB, but showing definite improvement from the houston game. Cooley noted a greater willingness to run than in the Texas game, but still lacking a seeming willingness to truly be a playmaker in those runs. However, he suggested there were instances in the Minnesota game that suggested he did still have the ability and athleticism to do those playermaker type plays if he can become willing to do it again.So over those two games this season we had seen nothing below average play, we saw a clear progression from the first game to the second game, and we saw indications in the second game that greater progression could be made.It was reasonable to expect him to generally remain at that level at worst or continue to improve. So reasonable that even Cooley was suggesting in the pregame of Sunday that he didn't expect him to come out and "stink" anytime this season.Then he laid a pile of dog S on the field Sunday.Is it a wonderful highlight that every week is a new week in the NFL and while we can make some intelligent projections, ultimately you don't know for sure what you're gonig to get? Yes. But does it somehow mean that Cooley's analysis and the trend present in those first two games just are non-existant and Sunday is the only "true" example? No.It was entirely reasonable to assume that Griffin wouldn't have played THAT badly Sunday because he had never, in his entire professional career, played that badly. That was several steps below his previous "floor" in terms of how poor he could play. It was a shocking and unexpected instance for anyone fairly and objectively critiquing his three years here rather than just going "HE SUCKS, SUCKS SUCKS SUCKS".Those that just basically go "HE SUCKS, SUCK SUCKS SUCKS" are overjoyed to point to that game as some kind of validation, and are quick to point that Cooley is agreeing with them. The problem is, they fail to mention that Cooley EXPLICITELY agreed with them about THIS GAME ONLY and that he highlighted repeatedly that his comments and grade were for that game alone. They also generally fail to mention that Cooley has generally graded Robert as average to above average all season long, contrary to what many of the "SUCKS SUCKS SUCKS" crowd have tried to suggest.Griffin S the bed. But in a thread talking about Cooley's film breakdowns...there was a reasonable expectation, given those breakdowns and the (albiet small) trend, to believe he would at least be average and continue to progress and get a bit better.As to what we do going forward, my stance on this has been pretty consistent, and is relatively similar to what Cooley has said.If he craps the bed like against Tampa once or twice more you sit him, cut bait, and you start looking for your new future in this upcoming draft.If he shows on par with what he showed in the Houston and Minnesota game, average to mildly above average at best, without any seeming games that give you significant hope that he can honestly improve, then you absolutely don't pick up his option. You go into next year with an open competition at QB with Cousins, Colt, a Veteran you bring in, or a rookie if you fall in love with one in the draft.If the worst you get is at least average going forward and he gives you some reasonable evidence of him improving in the system you don't pick up his option, but you go into next year with him as the presumed starter (though not the guaranteed starter). You use your draft picks to build up the rest of the team and you do some initial talks to lay the ground work for potential extension of his contract midseason if he ends up showing he's worth it next year.If the worst you get is generally above average going forward and he's showing improvement, as well as giving you a game or two where he actually looks like a top flight QB, then take your time but eventually pick up his option and use your first full draft three yeras to build up the rest of your team.If over the next 6 games the majority of them are instances where he looks like a true top flight QB, you pick up his option immedietely and you begin to lay the groundwork for an actual long term extension.Now me personally...I think the first (he has multiple games like he just had and is benched) and the last (that the majority of his remaining games look like a top flight QB) are unlikely. I think one of those middle three scenarios are most likely to occur. And I'm not going to really make my personal decision on what I think needs to happen until we have that full sample size because week to week in the NFL is too chaotic to truly try and make decisions on.

No he played pretty much how he always plays. He just didnt hit the big bombs to djax. If so we put 21 points and all is well. Kinda. He is to inconsistent. Playing to early. Kid needed to sit and be developed.

[darrelgreenie]

Well, lets look at the thing this thread is about and what you yourself complimented. Cooley's breakdowns.

[Great Post]

I would have quoted the whole thing for truth.

Every word was on point.

[Alexa]

Normally don't listen to Cooley but did this week. Pretty telling stuff.

[Riggo#44]

This is a pretty good article--although it's tough to tell what's actually going on in stills, this is pretty evident.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/football-insider/wp/2014/11/21/the-test-the-areas-robert-griffin-iii-most-needs-to-fix-heading-into-the-49ers-game/

 

After being pretty solid against a good Minnesota pass defense, he was Patrick Ramsey-esque against a horrid TB team. Anyone who has played competitive sports knows some days you are on, you seem to be moving three steps faster than anyone else, you're just quick, reflexive, energetic, everything is clicking. Other days, you feel like you're playing with a plastic bag over your head.

 

I think his problems are fixable. Hopefully he rebounds this week--but I think we are in for another rough show--the 9ers have a damned good defense, on the road. We'll see. 

[ZRagone]

I don't disagree with everything you said, but I just don't think we can call two games a trend.

It's a trend, just not an extremely telling trend. However, those two games combined with what we saw law year and what we saw in 2012, there was reason to think he would/can continue to improve...which is what the poster asked.

In 2012 we saw he had the potential to be a top teir QB due to his playmaking ability.

In 2013 we saw a relatively average QB, with plenty of things to indicate that his average play could be tied with a lack of a true off-season of training and still being tentative about his injury.

Taking those two things into mind and looking at the Houston and Minnesota game...

You saw an average game against Houston that was in part due to a gameplan that asked for quick short passes. You then saw a somewhat better game in Minnesota where, to Cooley's point, he showed flashes of that potential from 2012 but without the seeming desire to actually do it.

Given those two games this year, placed within the context of his pro career in its entirely, it was perfectly reasonable to expect that he would improve. He had significant talent, most evaluators had him as an extremely high cieling, we had visiual tangible evidence of him being arguably on an elite level in teh NFL previous...there was plenty of reasons to think he'd improve beyond "average".

To your point, it wasn't an amazingly strong trend. But it was a reasonable one. As you'll note in my sig, I'm not big on taking a few game sample size and becoming massively enticed on it being "the norm". Specifically, when said two game sample size is WILDLY out of line with what came before or after it...as is the case with a lot of the guys in my sig.

But suggesting improvement from one game to another, with signs of potential that point back to his earlier years, is not a large stretch. I agree with you that the stinker of a game would've been more forgivable if it came after 5 or 6 ones showing improvement. But the question wasn't about how forgivable it was. The question was why people expected Griffin to improve on what we saw in Houston or Minnesota instead of playing like Dog S. And I think my answer was sufficient...

We had never seen him play as badly as we saw in Tampa. We had saw him play at a top tier level for a year. We even saw glimpses of good play during his average to below average season last year. We saw improvements from game to game thus far this year, with signs that he had the potential to return to a 2012 form if he would just commit to it. There was plenty of reason to think, much like Cooley, that he would continue to improve and not have such a horrendous game.

That didn't come to be, but that expectation was not as crazy as the poster seemed to imply it was.