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!

     

ICKEY


MechaZain
 Share

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Now put yourself in Matt Rhule's seat. If you don't win this year you're gone. The future doesn't matter. You have to put your best group on the field.  

And plenty of future great LTs didn't play LT as rookies. Our best LT on franchise history did not play LT as a rookie.

The same is true of other positions. Chinn played LB as a rookie. The best way to handle a talented rookie is often playing them where their current skill set is best suited regardless of your eventual plans for them. You're better off letting a guy get game experience where he can be successful rather than play him where you eventually see him but where he may not be currently suited.

 

Gross played RT as a rookie because we had a 9 year vet in Steussie at LT that year. Chinn wasn't a LB in the traditional sense and should still be playing that role IMO, but our coaches are fuging idiots.

You can't just say that "plenty of LT's didn't play LT as rookies" without the context of the individual situations. In our situation its fuging stupid to not play him at LT.

  • Pie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Floppin said:

Gross played RT as a rookie because we had a 9 year vet in Steussie at LT that year. Chinn wasn't a LB in the traditional sense and should still be playing that role IMO, but our coaches are fuging idiots.

You can't just say that "plenty of LT's didn't play LT as rookies" without the context of the individual situations. In our situation its fuging stupid to not play him at LT.

If his current skill set is better suited to playing OG and Christensen is currently better at LT then it would be dumb to play Ickey at LT simply because that's where we see his future.

The guy claiming I have a tendency to get overly defensive sure is being mighty defensive. 😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

If his current skill set is better suited to playing OG and Christensen is currently better at LT then it would be dumb to play Ickey at LT simply because that's where we see his future.

The guy claiming I have a tendency to get overly defensive sure is being mighty defensive. 😂

I'm not sure why you think I'm being defensive? I just think that it's dumb to play them out of position for a year and hamper their progress at their natural positions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Floppin said:

I'm not sure why you think I'm being defensive? I just think that it's dumb to play them out of position for a year and hamper their progress at their natural positions.

 

It's dumb to force a square peg into a round hole. Just like it would've been dumb to try to play Chinn at S as a rookie. If Ickey is better suited currently that's where he should be playing. It's very possible the staff doesn't think he's better suited elsewhere. We'll see how it plays out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m confused. Was it not already announced Icky would be our starting LT? BC is getting looks at LG, where he has looked solid AND that a position where he can have a longer term starting gig on this team as Moton and Icky should have our tackle positions locked down. If they want to flip Icky and BC, it doesn’t really matter to me but if they like them where they are at it makes the most sense since that’s Icky’s long term position (hopefully). 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ForJimmy said:

I’m confused. Was it not already announced Icky would be our starting LT? BC is getting looks at LG, where he has looked solid AND that a position where he can have a longer term starting gig on this team as Moton and Icky should have our tackle positions locked down. If they want to flip Icky and BC, it doesn’t really matter to me but if they like them where they are at it makes the most sense since that’s Icky’s long term position (hopefully). 

Yes, that's exactly what's happening. Icky is the starting LT and BC is for all intents and purposes now the starting LG, though still unofficially. Yet, there's plenty of people who are advocating that this is the wrong approach and that their roles should be switched this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Floppin said:

Yes, that's exactly what's happening. Icky is the starting LT and BC is for all intents and purposes now the starting LG, though still unofficially. Yet, there's plenty of people who are advocating that this is the wrong approach and that their roles should be switched this year.

What we currently have is the best long term play. If Rhule is willing to do this in a must win season then I’m all for it. Making Icky play a new position because it’s easier and provides better play in the present would be a short term play IMO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

What we currently have is the best long term play. If Rhule is willing to do this in a must win season then I’m all for it. Making Icky play a new position because it’s easier and provides better play in the present would be a short term play IMO. 

I think that Rhule has obviously made decisions based on the short term with regards to this season. That's evident in the QB bullshit among other things. So he and the line coaches obviously feel like for both the short and long term that this is the best decision.

I also tend to agree with them, which I don't do often.

Edited by Floppin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Floppin said:

I think that Rhule has obviously made decisions based on the short term with regards to this season. That's evident in the QB bullshit among other things. So he and the line coaches obviously feel like both for the short term and the long term that this is the best decision.

I also tend to agree with them, which I don't do often.

Maybe he is letting Campen make that call which would be a breath of fresh air honestly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Floppin said:

 

🤣

How is this defensive? 😂

I'm just mocking people who can't understand that we're just talking football here. Meanwhile, that seems very upsetting to you. So who's being defensive here? 😂

It's hilarious you come into this thread calling other opinions "fuging stupid" then have the nerve to accuse others of being defensive. Self awareness seems to be a tad lacking.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, LinvilleGorge said:

How is this defensive? 😂

I'm just mocking people who can't understand that we're just talking football here. Meanwhile, that seems very upsetting to you. So who's being defensive here? 😂

 

Carry on sensitive Sally. I'm having no problem discussing football with you. I don't think anyone is getting upset other than you.

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

    • lol, that second part is quite literally one of the dumbest things ever. Having or not having guaranteed contracts has absolutely nothing to do with how much these billionaires have to pay.  Because there is a hard cap and a minimum cap spend requirement, and teams either use their cap or roll it over to use it all the next year, so the owners have to pay the same amount of money in the end no matter what. Having fully guaranteed contracts in the NFL would only hurt salary cap management, and thus would end up screwing over the team and its fan base when teams kiss on signings as they take up cap room that is needed to improve the roster. Look at the Browns with Watson, they gave him the fully guaranteed deal and all it’s doing is sucking up massive cap space now.  If they hadn’t done that, the owner would still be paying the same amount of money each year as that cap space would still be used elsewhere. If you want to argue for fully guaranteed contracts because the players deserve it, that’s an entirely different argument and a fair one to discuss.  But anyone against fully guaranteed deals isn’t doing it to argue for the billionaire owners.
    • Start posting in threads in the other forums instead of just creating threads. No one comes over here so you aren't starting conversations.  Get your ass up to 100 posts. It's not that hard. Don't create 100 posts. Contribute to conversations. 
    • Ryabkin could be the steal of the draft, he was a Top 10 pick heading into last season and had a rough year.  Lots of GMs passed on him because of that and his workouts. Pick has really high upside and Svech should be able to translate Rod tearing his arse a new one for making dumb plays since Svech has had several years of it.  🤣😂
×
×
  • Create New...