Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Worley looked horrible last night


ncsfinest21

Recommended Posts

He got out of position alot and got beat once but could've gotten beat more than that due to the rain. I believe he is the weak link in our defense. Henne targeted him a couple times as hurns burnt him. Hopefully we are just playing vanilla defense but regardless he has to make sure he isnt getting burnt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was never out of position. His technique needed a bit refinement in staying with his man, but hip flexibility has been an issue since last year. 

On that one big play, Worley didn't drop his hips enough and turn, leading to that wide open reception. He had some nice run plays and covered okay, but I would say it wasn't his best game by any stretch.

Hope that fixes by season start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's not garbage and he was not completely out of position but he does need to tighten it up.  Our D is sick all around so in comparison to the other guys we've got he & Mike Adams are the weakest links.  Him getting beat is the nature of the game.  Good throws and good receivers in conjuction are very hard to stop, even for the best of corners.  He does need to tighten up and be aware that opposing offenses will try to exploit him.  I think he'll be fine once things really get going.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Mojo said:

He's not garbage and he was not completely out of position but he does need to tighten it up.  Our D is sick all around so in comparison to the other guys we've got he & Mike Adams are the weakest links.  Him getting beat is the nature of the game.  Good throws and good receivers in conjuction are very hard to stop, even for the best of corners.  He does need to tighten up and be aware that opposing offenses will try to exploit him.  I think he'll be fine once things really get going.

I don't know about that he'll be fine but honestly what team has no weak links we will have to learn to compensate for that. Mainly with pass rush but yea he's seems to not have the needed recovery speed he's usually in place but a step behind time  and time again but we'll definetly be strong determine factor of how strong is  masking one or two weak spots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, trucpfan said:

I don't know about that he'll be fine but honestly what team has no weak links we will have to learn to compensate for that. Mainly with pass rush but yea he's seems to not have the needed recovery speed he's usually in place but a step behind time  and time again but we'll definetly be strong determine factor of how strong is  masking one or two weak spots.

Tomato Tomatto.  Me saying he'll be fine implies the possibility of defensive scheming.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
    • Get any shot you can at humane society, so much cheaper
×
×
  • Create New...