Espn

[odw]

In a round about way...maybe CJ not having to save a certain QB from total disaster. Maybe?

That's part of what I got out of what was said.

 

[LongforDodd]

I hate to agree with LFD on this one, but Chan's statement did give the impression he is relieved that CJ isn't the focal point of the offense. I'm sure that's not what he meant, but it does come off that way.

I do think our offense will be better DESPITE losing CJ. It won't be better BECAUSE we lose him, but the outlook is more promising this year than last.

I don't believe that I had a dog in this fight.

But what's this "hate to agree with LFD..."? I'm a consensus maker. I haven't ever said anything that someone would disagree with. What's going on? Is there an imposter in the house?

 

[haywire83]

But what's this "hate to agree with LFD..."?

I think he meant LSJ.

On another note, while I do not - and I repeat do not - think this is at all the case with Calvin Johnson, Bill Simmons on ESPN's Page 2 has a theory about teams getting better when their star players leave. It's called the Ewing Theory, and whether you agree or not, it's at least an interesting read. Here's the link:

http://espn.go.com/page2/s/simmons/010509.html

 

[gth816f]

I think the Ewing theory could apply here if Reggie didn't graduate. If we didn't have Calvin last year, we probably wouldn't have taken as many shots down the field as we did during the ACC championship game. We would've pounded the ball more and run short, safe routes, thus playing to our strength and not exposing our weakness in the QB area. We could've beaten Wake by just shoving the ball down their throats every play, much like we did with UNC.

In that way Calvin hurt us because trying to take advantage of his greatness ultimately just exposed our quarterback, and his deficiency outweighed Calvin's contributions. Certainly he helped us throughout the year, but maybe if Nix hadn't felt pressure to get the ball to him, we beat UGA and Wake by riding Tashard.

This wouldn't be Ewing theory though, because losing Reggie is such a major change that is occuring at the same time as losing Calvin, and is an obvious benefit to us.

 

[mack]

Re: Now that's some serious spin from Gailey

Uh-huh.

So, it is actually a GOOD thing not to have Calvin Johnson around anymore. Now that he is gone we have the opportunity to spread it around.

Sorry, Chan. We obviously didn't succumb to the pressure to "throw Calvin Johnson the ball almost every snap" in many games I watched. How about the idea that a receiver that draws double and triple coverage opens the opportunity to "spread the ball around" to the OTHER OPEN receivers who should be available.

I am not (or was not previously) a Chan-hater, but that comment from our coach was incredibly ignorant.

The only pressure to throw the ball to CJ rather than other receivers was that he was that he was more likely to make a play, even when double covered, than our other receivers due to the inaccurate passes.

The lack of a premiere receiver is not a good thing. I would dearly love to see Calvin over a season with an accurate QB who could make the opposition pay for paying too much attention to him.

I dont understand the logic of Chan saying losing CJ will make us better.But there are alot of things like the mustard jerseys on saturday that I dont understand either.

 

[GTWannaBee]

I don't believe that I had a dog in this fight.

But what's this "hate to agree with LFD..."? I'm a consensus maker. I haven't ever said anything that someone would disagree with. What's going on? Is there an imposter in the house?

I simply meant that I hate to have read the same into what Chan said. The "hate" was pointed to Chan's comment; not directly at you.

 

[LongforDodd]

I simply meant that I hate to have read the same into what Chan said. The "hate" was pointed to Chan's comment; not directly at you.

I know it wasn't pointed at me. Just being me!

 

[ncjacket]

Re: Now that's some serious spin from Gailey

He didn't say not having Calvin will make us better....people, how about learning to read? What he's saying is the world didn't come to an end when he left and that we have numerous WRs who will have a chance to get theirs this year. Also that we won't feature one receiver, everyone will get a shot.

 

[GTWannaBee]

I know it wasn't pointed at me. Just being me!

Doh! Looking back now I see what you were talking about. I was referring to LSJ's post - not LFD. :pat:

Is it Friday yet?!!!

 

[GTWannaBee]

Re: Now that's some serious spin from Gailey

He didn't say not having Calvin will make us better....people, how about learning to read? What he's saying is the world didn't come to an end when he left and that we have numerous WRs who will have a chance to get theirs this year. Also that we won't feature one receiver, everyone will get a shot.

You're referring to what he meant - not what he said.

 

[golftango18yankeejuliet]

Re: Now that's some serious spin from Gailey

No, actually, Chan never said not having Calvin would make us better. It would seem to me that he acknowledged that it is mostly bad but "not all bad". The quotation marks are for the article not Chan since the writer was not directly quoting Chan.