Originally Posted by tredadda:
I disagree with the bolded parts. He hasn't done a poor job on the Dline. They have just terribly underperformed. That is on the coaches and players. I would agree about him doing a poor job on the Dline if our starting four were nothing but UDFAs or over the hill vets looking for one more payday and a possible ring. It's not. There is talent there and if they perform at the level they are supposed to we would be praising his work on the Dline. Outside of Jones we could lose 3/4 of that line at the end of the year.
Reed was almost universally praised as a great under the radar signing. Its only after three games when he has not played well that we are bashing the signing. That's just something this board is almost legendary for though outside a few players. We love the pick or signing until they don't live up to expectations and then we point fingers. Just wait till Creed or Trey has a bad game and watch how many turn on them or the GM for terrible picks.
Veach is not perfect and he has some headscratcher picks (like Speaks and to a point Hardman amongst others), but based off if where he is drafting I would say he has done quite well. He could always do better, but I would rather have him as our GM than 90% of the GMs in the league.
But as others have said, his job isn't to listen to us blowhards it's to make good decisions. I think your point is a fair one to illustrate the fact other GMs could well have made the same move. It doesn't mean it was a good one.
I thought the Jones switch to DE would work, but I'm an idiot. Perhaps it's fair to assume it was always Plan B, and that Ingram was asking for too much in those negotiations before settling for less at the Steelers. Perhaps Veach thought it preferable to get someone in early to gel with colleagues. Perhaps he not unreasonably expected Saunders and Wharton to step up. All reasonable, logical reasons for the Reed signing.
All I'm saying is it doesn't look like it'll work and it's reasonable to hold Veach accountable for his whiffs as well as his hits. Don't disagree with your conclusion, I guess i just dislike the zealots (not saying you're one) as much as the bed-wetters. [Reply]
Let's face it.... veach hasn't been that good so far. Average to slightly above average.
He's very young so hopefully he is learning from his mistakes but anyone saying he has been 'Best GM in NFL,' thus far in his young career is either an idiot or a complete homer.
I also think Andy Reid has far more influence on who Veach is picking as compared to when Dorsey was here. Anyone who knows about how Reid did in Philly when he was a GM knows this is not a good thing. [Reply]
Originally Posted by JPH83:
But as others have said, his job isn't to listen to us blowhards it's to make good decisions. I think your point is a fair one to illustrate the fact other GMs could well have made the same move. It doesn't mean it was a good one.
I thought the Jones switch to DE would work, but I'm an idiot. Perhaps it's fair to assume it was always Plan B, and that Ingram was asking for too much in those negotiations before settling for less at the Steelers. Perhaps Veach thought it preferable to get someone in early to gel with colleagues. Perhaps he not unreasonably expected Saunders and Wharton to step up. All reasonable, logical reasons for the Reed signing.
All I'm saying is it doesn't look like it'll work and it's reasonable to hold Veach accountable for his whiffs as well as his hits. Don't disagree with your conclusion, I guess i just dislike the zealots (not saying you're one) as much as the bed-wetters.
Great post and I see where you are coming from. Veach definitely is not above criticism for where he has failed. I am mainly highlighting how he has put talent on the Dline, they just haven't lived up to the billing. I do think Reed would look better if he was paired on the inside with Jones. I question why a Top 3 DT is playing DE. That is on coaching. Perhaps he looks harder at an Ingram or Houston if we don't have Jones at DE and the coaches didn't believe this would work. I am still not bothered by the Reed signing for the reasons stated earlier, plus he was signed to a one year deal. He plays well, we potentially resign him. He plays poorly and he walks at the end of the year and we lose nothing. Had we signed him to a Clark type contract then we could torch and pitchfork Veach. [Reply]
Originally Posted by PAChiefsGuy:
Let's face it.... veach hasn't been that good so far. Average to slightly above average.
He's very young so hopefully he is learning from his mistakes but anyone saying he has been 'Best GM in NFL,' thus far in his young career is either an idiot or a complete homer.
I also think Andy Reid has far more influence on who Veach is picking as compared to when Dorsey was here. Anyone who knows about how Reid did in Philly when he was a GM knows this is not a good thing.
Originally Posted by tredadda:
So Veach when trading for Clark should have magically predicted that by year three he was going to be this bad? If he was a descending player when Veach traded for him, that would be one thing. If he was 33 when the trade would happen, then you would be correct. Neither was the case. No way to know or predict outside of using hindsight he would drop off. Most people think Nnadi is good enough that we might not retain him after this season. Jones' performance has only dropped because they are playing him out of position. The Reed signing was highly praised at the time, it's only now........in hindsight........that it is being questioned. No one on the line was predicted to play as poorly as they have and to think the GM is supposed to just look into his crystal ball and see that is foolish and just a way for fans to point the finger at someone besides the underperforming player.
I don't think most people ever expected Clark to ever be worth what we traded and paid him though. Look at the trade thread. That's as mixed of a reaction as you'll get on a big trade. So yeah he might not have predicted he'd be this bad now, he could have seen that he was never THAT good in the first place.
At the end of the day, his job is to acquire players and be able to project how they'll do in the future. Barring injury, why give him excuses when moves don't work out? It's literally his job. It's the NFL, you don't get points for trying. [Reply]
Frank Clark was not instrumental in getting us a SB and it is so damn annoying to hear that from you idiots time and time again. You just can't admit that Veach made a huge mistake getting the turd and have to over value some part of his time here. [Reply]
Originally Posted by -King-:
I don't think most people ever expected Clark to ever be worth what we traded and paid him though. Look at the trade thread. That's as mixed of a reaction as you'll get on a big trade. So yeah he might not have predicted he'd be this bad now, he could have seen that he was never THAT good in the first place.
At the end of the day, his job is to acquire players and be able to project how they'll do in the future. Barring injury, why give him excuses when moves don't work out? It's literally his job. It's the NFL, you don't get points for trying.
Revisionist history bullshit.
Clark was THAT good.
Also, do you “get points for trying” when it plays a big role in you getting a fucking SB? JFC you’re dumb. [Reply]
Originally Posted by dlphg9:
Frank Clark was not instrumental in getting us a SB and it is so damn annoying to hear that from you idiots time and time again. You just can't admit that Veach made a huge mistake getting the turd and have to over value some part of his time here.
Yea Frank Clark’s playoff performance wasn’t instrumental in getting us a SB!