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!

     

Remmers vs. Kalil


kungfoodude

Recommended Posts

RT MIKE REMMERS, 87.1 OVERALL GRADE

Both tackles get credit, where credit is due, simply because of how much they fueled the offense in this one. Remmers was also responsible for just one lone hurry and cleared the way for multiple big runs. The Vikings averaged 9.1 yards per carry on eight runs that hit off the right edge.

T MATT KALIL, 36.3 OVERALL GRADE

Kalil struggled to block Bears edge defender Pernell McPhee and Co., as the former Minnesota Viking surrendered 7 total pressures including a sack and a hit. He also struggled in run blocking, as Panthers’ rushers gained just 14 yards on 7 carries when running left.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/news/pro-refocused-game-recaps-for-all-of-the-nfl-week-7-matchups

 

Not sure if anyone here has full PFF access but it would be interesting to know how these guys are comparing over the course of the season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Khyber53 said:

No body wanted to believe me when I said last year we'd miss Remmers if we let him go... Even just average offensive tackles are hard to find.

Yeah and I am not one to imply Remmers was a stud but Kalil was just such an obviously atrocious move. It was stunning. I wonder how Whitworth is grading out? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah Remmers sucks against speed rushers which is why we hated him against the Falcons and Broncos with their  star speed rushers in Beasley and Miller.  Otherwise, he’s been stout against power guys.

Matt Kalil is decent against speed but sucks against power, which is the total opposite of Remmers. He kinda sucks every game. 

It is what it is though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Saca312 said:

Yeah Remmers sucks against speed rushers which is why we hated him against the Falcons and Broncos with their  star speed rushers in Beasley and Miller.  Otherwise, he’s been stout against power guys.

Matt Kalil is decent against speed but sucks against power, which is the total opposite of Remmers. He kinda sucks every game. 

It is what it is though.

Crazy enough, Daryl Williams is our best Tackle right now.  Regardless of your bias or not.  It's the truth.  And he's just average as well.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Carolina Cajun said:

Well, Moton is probably our best tackle, but he won't see the field because Rivera has a hard on for veterans.  I mean Matt Kalil got injured and we threw fuging silatolu in there...

Well, unfortunately Silatolu might BE our best option because we damn sure haven't seen much of Moton. At some level, I hope it is incompetent coaching rather than him just being subpar. That would be much worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Well, unfortunately Silatolu might BE our best option because we damn sure haven't seen much of Moton. At some level, I hope it is incompetent coaching rather than him just being subpar. That would be much worse.

I doubt it's possible to be worse than what we're starting.  If he's even equal with either tackle, then he needs to start so he can develop.  he's not gonna develop sitting on the bench.  In the past, the only way to get Rivera to start a rookie was by actually cutting the vet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...