From the Tribune
A day after quarterback Matt Hasselbeck expressed disappointment about imperfect camp attendance, Holmgren offered a softer view. “Well, Darrell Jackson is not here and he will be our starting flanker,” Holmgren said. “I would like him to be here, but he has his reasons for not being here. He comes in and he practices hard when he is here. … Every player in that locker room is different, he is a different guy. It is voluntary.” …
What is with this guy, he lets his receivers do anything and its ok. What happened to Iron Mike, he's gone all soft. I am disgustipated, and becoming a bigger Pathon fan by the minute.
"disgustipated"...I love it!
ReplyDeleteActually, coming from a management perspective, sometimes you know things about a situation but you just can't say.
Mike is piping up exactly for the reasons outlined in the "Why are we so hard on Koren but not on D-Jax" thread.
It sounds like his absence is approved, that he's in touch with the organization about it, and that he's not pissed off at the number of guys in camp vying for his job. (as was my speculation)
That being said, Milli better get his fat-ass back in practice, to take some of that weight off, and to take the pressure off Stevens and Hannem.
What did he do, cash in his entire signing bonus for Twinkies??!!
Alba, I would tend to agree with you, I think that voluntary should be just that, and if any player has something else he committed to, Disneyland with the kids, honeymoon, charity golf tourney, then that is fine. And if D Jack has a hall pass that is great, but if he does, why are Hucklebucks panties in a wad? Is Big Mike not telling the field general about his troops? I wouldn't think so, and if there was a miscommunication, you'd think that Mike would've said so, and maybe had Matt soften his stance as well.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Mili, I agree, and isn't is awesome to call an athelete that is in far better shape than you or I will ever be in "fat ass". I love being a fan.
Normally I would agree, voluntary certainly should mean just that; however, in light of the dissapointing drops that continued last season, from the previous season, I think that of all the players who need to involved as much as possible the recievers are those players.
ReplyDeleteIn my mind, not attending a "voluntary" camp is one thing when you are a seasoned veteran who is at the top of your game and really doesn't need the work as much as others might, and a whole other thing when the season before you made tons of mental mistakes.
I get the point you guys are making,I really do, and normally would agree, but given the problems with our recieving corps, which in my opinion kept them from achieving more last season, all recievers ought to be in every camp no ifs and or buts.
I agree with both of you, kind of.
ReplyDeleteIn today's NFL, there's nother "voluntary" about voluntary camps, and no such thing as an "off" season.
Coming into these voluntary camps is also as much about LEADERSHIP and COMMITMENT as it is about getting into shape and practicing.
ESPN had a piece on the Bill's QB Losman, who took off maybe 1 week since last season, as he knows he needs to assert his leadership as the new starting QB.
That all being said, if a guy works something out with management, and is granted an excused absence, then that's gotta be good enough for us.
Green Bay excused Farve from mini-camps. Sharper was given the last day of mini-camp off due to his age as well.
However, if you just signed a fatty contract, and then let your gluteus maximus get just as fatty, then there's no excuse not to be in Kirkland sweating off some of those twinkies, ho-hos and little debbie cakes!
And yes, while I'm seriously out of shape, it is good to refer to a professional athlete as a fat-ass!