Because they see them all in practise too.  And they take into account things like blocking and receiving I'd imagine.

I love a lot of things about Mike O'Shea but one thing in particular puzzles me.

 

I totally understand the purpose of "loyalty" to his players but it seems like his loyalty only goes so far. Aaron Woods wasn't lighting the world on fire, but he was getting the job done. Grigsby at worst has contributed greatly to a few of the team's losses and at best has be maddeningly inconsistent. Woods gets pulled a few times, most recently for a dynamic PR player who showed that at least for one game, he was an improvement. Grigsby on the other hand, keeps getting plodded out there when there are other options who at least deserve an opportunity. We don't know if Cotton or Bolton or anyone else will be better (even if one could argue that there has to be someone out there who can average more than 4.3 YPC, by far worst in the league among starters) but we also didn't know that Stoudemire would be better than Woods and that switch was made. And I'd argue that Woods wasn't costing this team when at times, Grigsby has.

 

So why be loyal to one guy and not the other. Both had backups that likely deserved a shot. And it's not even as if Grigsby "earned" this starting job out of camp either.

 

I could make a similar argument about trotting out the rotting corpse of Romby Bryant for so many weeks but at least that was due in part to injuries.

 

Good point.  May be attributable to the particular co-ordinator's wishes?  I'm shocked that we're half way through the season and we have not seen a patented O'Shea "trick play" on special teams yet.  Unless you consider Washington fumbles as "trick plays"....

 

 

  I'm shocked that we're half way through the season and we have not seen a patented O'Shea "trick play" on special teams yet.  Unless you consider Washington fumbles as "trick plays"....

 

Renaud threw a pass in the first game of the season.

I love a lot of things about Mike O'Shea but one thing in particular puzzles me.

 

I totally understand the purpose of "loyalty" to his players but it seems like his loyalty only goes so far. Aaron Woods wasn't lighting the world on fire, but he was getting the job done. Grigsby at worst has contributed greatly to a few of the team's losses and at best has be maddeningly inconsistent. Woods gets pulled a few times, most recently for a dynamic PR player who showed that at least for one game, he was an improvement. Grigsby on the other hand, keeps getting plodded out there when there are other options who at least deserve an opportunity. We don't know if Cotton or Bolton or anyone else will be better (even if one could argue that there has to be someone out there who can average more than 4.3 YPC, by far worst in the league among starters) but we also didn't know that Stoudemire would be better than Woods and that switch was made. And I'd argue that Woods wasn't costing this team when at times, Grigsby has.

 

So why be loyal to one guy and not the other. Both had backups that likely deserved a shot. And it's not even as if Grigsby "earned" this starting job out of camp either.

 

I could make a similar argument about trotting out the rotting corpse of Romby Bryant for so many weeks but at least that was due in part to injuries.

 

Not sure loyalty is the big factory.

 

Woods is off the roster cause Stoudemire has his job.  Grigsby is on the roster because despite his low rushing numbers in recent weeks he's still been one of our most effective weapons.  Cotton hasn't had a lot of chances but in the chances he's had he's given the coaches no reason to pull the plug on Grigsby.  Bryant is on the 46 because he has to be somewhere.  I'll be shocked if he's in uniform tomorrow.

Bryant and Hinse will be the be sitting I assume.