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!

     

Christensen vs The Draft Prospects


Mr. Scot
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, MHS831 said:

from what I saw, he is average--and the way they moved him around, understandable.  Great athlete and a great coach--

I think Bozeman  will be the LG and Elf will play C.  Love for Elf to be depth. 

If we go OT at 6 then Elf becomes depth probably.  I think they try to slide BC at LG which I'm not entirely sold on.  He seems like more of a tackle than a guard to me.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Idunno how much stock anyone is to put is PFF. But FWIW, 

Cross: 86.7

Ickey: 91.6

Neal: 85.8

Lastly,

Christensen broke the PFF record for overall grade by a tackle at 96.0

Keep in mind Greg Little was 75.8 and All-SEC. 

As far as me, even if Brady is in our plans at LT, after the years we've had to endure previously, I'd make sure LT was no longer a problem for this franchise going forward. LT at 6.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Shotgun said:

Passing on a LT because you have Christensen would be like passing on a QB because you have Daniel Jones.

Which might be what the Giants are doing.  I get what you are saying though.  However BC has only his rookie year's couple games to go off of.  Daniel Jones has a much larger body of work...

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

Which might be what the Giants are doing.  I get what you are saying though.  However BC has only his rookie year's couple games to go off of.  Daniel Jones has a much larger body of work...

They both seem like back ups or low tier starters to me.  Either could improve to become average starters or better though.

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BC doesn't compare well to most of the guys we could take at 6, he looks like a backup honestly. He would have to take a big time jump in playing strength for that to change in my mind. I'm not even sure he could beat out Elf at LG and that is a low low bar. It's a stupid and completely self inflicted position. 

Take the 10 year LT prospect and don't look back. If you end up with 2 LTs then trade the worse one for more than you drafted him for (it would be BC baring a miracle or roids). 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is another failure of Rhule to not foresee that BC needed to be evaluated. If a top LT falls to us we have to take him. BC might be a good player. He should have been starting mid season. But he didn’t because he was mismanaged by coaching. That’s not his fault. But tough poo for Matt Rhule. We have a problem that needs fixing. If we waste time giving him a starting leash and he’s just average then we lose yet again. We have to get a cornerstone LT. 

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It's honestly pretty interesting just seeing this pairing play out. Canales’ offenses (Seattle, Tampa) are run-first, under-center, play-action systems built around defined reads and intermediate/deep timing throws. That structure worked when he had QBs like Baker Mayfield or Russell Wilson in a system that created clear launch points and sightlines. His success has always been tied to a credible run game + play-action gravity. You can see that with the Panthers team building philosophy as well. Coker and TMac both are bigger receivers that won't get the best YAC production but thrive as possession receivers in contested scenarios. They're not the best in space and creating additional yardage in such, and would likely fair better systematically with a stronger armed QB who can create better opportunities on those boundary 1v1 matchups with stronger throws. Bryce, on the other hand, is a spread-native QB. His strengths are rhythm, spacing, quick processing, and off-script creation. Asking him to live in condensed formations with long-developing play-action concepts just hasn't been his forte. And well, his boundary throws are limited in velocity which takes a big chunk of the playbook off. And I mean a QB like Bryce can still work, it's just Dave's offensive philosophy and foundation is very much at odds with Young's physical limits and his own experience. So it's certainly still a learning experience for Dave to figure out how he can mesh his offensive philosophy with Young's strengths. He's very inexperienced with maximizing Bryce's strengths with his system. Would love to see us bring in an OC with spread experience and adaptability to implement a cohesive system with Dave to allow Bryce to thrive, as it's obvious we're sticking with him for a bit longer.   
    • Only thing I really agreed with is questioning why we didn’t take any timeouts on their last drive.  I know hindsight is 20/20, but I think it would’ve saved clock bc they were desperate to score as soon as the opportunity presented itself, but I also think it could’ve helped the defense regroup and maybe give us a better chance to stop them.
×
×
  • Create New...