I wasn't going to post this.

[golfer704u]

But I'm bored and feeling fiesty.

SO, remember how Silly everyone said it was that Mangini didn't want to disclose who was starting at QB, the most important position on the team? Because he didn't want to tip the other team off? REMEMBER how big a deal everyone made about that? About arguably a position that oposing teams actually can game plan for?

Well then, what say you about this and Shumur? This is in the context of Cribbs comments about special teams.

When asked Wednesday about Cribbs’ comments, Shurmur was tight-lipped.
“I would say much like the case with any of my players, it’s between me and Josh,” Shurmur said. “What we talked about, we talked about the game, we talked about what was written, I read it and we talked about it as we move forward. We had a nice talk, a good talk.”
He would not elaborate other than to say, “Some of that’s strategy.”

REALLY? How exactly do you startegize differently because Cribbs is on the special teams unit to make tackles? Put another guy out there to block him?

But more seriously, I don't think it's a big deal that he wanted to hold back that information. ANY competitive advantage you can get you attempt to get. Which is EXACTLY what some of us were saying about Mangini back then. So any of you that criticized Mangini on a QB decsion, you have to think Shurmur is utterly rediculous pulling the same thing about special teams coverage units.

[Bronx Cheer]

I take it as a fancy way to say "no comment."

[golfer704u]

Originally Posted by Bronx Cheer

I take it as a fancy way to say "no comment."

Nice try but no, it's the exact same context as the Mangini situation. reporters pressing for an answer, coach says no I'm not going to give you that answer because I feel no need to give that information to our opponents.

[Brown Warrior]

Starting QB is on another level for me. It's like not telling an army who their general is.

Mangini did NOT grasp the importance of the QB position and jacked with it at both head coaching stops. He was known to believe that Kellen Clemens was "perfectly sufficient" and not in favor of Fav-ruh. He took heat in both cities for treating quarterback like he was talking about who would play left guard.

Not going Rich... I know left guard matters. It's just really, really different to me. And with Cribbs, it's about a private conversation regarding a third WR and KR who is not going to be benched one way or the other.

[golfer704u]

Originally Posted by Brown Warrior

Starting QB is on another level for me. It's like not telling an army who their general is.

Mangini did NOT grasp the importance of the QB position and jacked with it at both head coaching stops. He was known to believe that Kellen Clemens was "perfectly sufficient" and not in favor of Fav-ruh. He took heat in both cities for treating quarterback like he was talking about who would play left guard.

Not going Rich... I know left guard matters. It's just really, really different to me. And with Cribbs, it's about a private conversation regarding a third WR and KR who is not going to be benched one way or the other.

Right, so you agree there was more of a reason for Mangini to withold the information than Shurmur. I mean, wouldn't knowing who the General was would be more important than knowing who the left guard was?

[golfer704u]

Because this isn't a discussion about whether Mangini is good at picking QBs or developing them or the improtance of the QB position Shep. It's about one thing. Is it or is it not "silly" to withhold information from the other team for "strategy" reasons.

[Brown Warrior]

You know he didn't tell the team OR the QBs, right? Both DA and BQ grumbled quite a bit about it, as did other players off the record. I don't think you're gonna get a lot of agreement on how Mangini handled QBs in his head coaching stints.

[golfer704u]

Originally Posted by Brown Warrior

You know he didn't tell the team OR the QBs, right? Both DA and BQ grumbled quite a bit about it, as did other players off the record. I don't think you're gonna get a lot of agreement on how Mangini handled QBs in his head coaching stints.

Do not twist the arguement.

This isn't about what he told the team. Back them people were up in arms and making all kinds of hysteria about how silly Mangini was for not naming who the QB was for strategy reasons. BAck then it had ZERO to do with what he told the team.

This is NOT about how Mangini handled QBS. it's about how Mangini and now Shurmur handled information.

[Brown Warrior]

Then I'll disagree on this: Not announcing a starting QB to the QBs, team, or media is very different from keeping a private conversation private. To me.

[golfer704u]

Originally Posted by Brown Warrior

Then I'll disagree on this: Not announcing a starting QB to the QBs, team, or media is very different from keeping a private conversation private. To me.

again, twist and spin.

He didn't say. "I won't disucss that, it's between me and the player."

He SPECIFICALLY said. "Part of that is Strategy"

Had he not said that. Had he stopped at "we had a good talk". Then you are right.

But you aren't.
it's nice spin. But it's about consistancy in your opinions.

Me I think it's fine both of them wanted to with hold information. What ever that information was.

[Brown Warrior]

If you could somehow let your team and quarterback know who the starter would be without the media finding out (!), this would be a different discussion. It was whacky.

Shurmur didn't withhold that Greg Little had been promoted to starting WR, right? Cribbs is an unusual player, ST and third WR, so outlining his precise role in the next game would indeed seem odd to me.

On top of that, it seems to me that no matter what Cribbs says now, he's an emotional guy with a habit of getting his feelings hurt and telling the media about it. He wasn't really talking strategically in his interview and I have a feeling the conversation wasn't very strategic, either.

The only part that's kind of funny is Shurmur saying it's partially strategy. Like other coaches hand out primers on exactly who will or won't be playing on the kickoff team (!).

I'm not twisting, G. Neither are you. We just disagree.

[Masters]

My 2 cents. The issue on EM and the whole QB thing wasn't about him not being willing to tell the media who the QB will be, it was about him not even telling the QB or team who would be starting. Players didn't know who it was going to be. Add in people were complaining about no one getting a bulk of the reps to be best prepared to start.

To me this is a bit of apples and oranges, unless stricktly looking at only the not saying to the press who is playing/not playing, starting/not starting. Me, I have no issue with that "gamesmen ship". Though I think it's a bunch of hooey and doesn't affect a game really one way or the other. I do think your players not knowing what they will be doing or getting the necessary practice for what they will be doing on Sunday is an issue.