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!

     

Dan Graziano on Laviska Shenault trade


TheSpecialJuan
 Share

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, thunderraiden said:

He's taking more Chuba reps than TMJ reps if he has better hands than Chuba, mark my words.

I don’t think he has that much to do with Chubba at all.  Think it has to do with how small we are at WR and them not trusting TMJ to be ready for real reps.  He is the big congested red zone type guy I guess (which we don’t have at all, not even a TE) and run blocker at WR.  Which Robbie is neither and TMJ a was suppose to be more of than Robbie offered IMO. 

You don’t want the new guy pass protecting on 3rd down.  And he doesn’t know the playbook. CMC is the guy you want on 3rd down IMO.  If you were going to spell CMC it should be on early run downs and that is the one thing Hubbard is somewhat respectable at and Foreman can do. 


 

 

 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is does the staff really think Shenault is better than Shi Smith who has shown progress and knows the play book? Rhule said Smith was in convo to be a starter. How much confidence does our FO have in our current WR room to trade for one at this point? Should have traded for him before training camp to build chemistry. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, OldhamA said:

Hubbard won't see the field if McCaffrey can stay healthy.

McCaffrey is #1, Foreman is #2. 

Foreman was such a good signing. Dude was a freight train at Texas. I wanted him out of the 2017 draft. Injuries have slowed down his career but if he’s healthy he’s absolutely a #1 quality back.

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

    • Teams do some super stupid stuff with mid-fairly good QBs. I think they are just absolutely terrified they will be stuck with a QB that is not the quality of the QB they have now, even if its someone like Daniel Jones. Lots of trash QBs go in the first round. I encourage you to take a look at the sad, sad list of first round QBs in the last 15 years.  
    • No, it will be a raw 6'7" 17-year-old European who just played basketball for the first time in March and who the idiot GM "had first on our board." He'll play the whole G-League season, get in 42 games for the Hornets and average 1.1 ppg on 35% shooting. Been there, seen that.
    • We missed on Burns at his peak value. That’s the problem with trading for picks 2-3 years away (which people were convinced the Rams would suck by now and these would be higher picks btw). Each year away the pick is the further in value it drops. Fitt was clearly hired based on turning us around quickly. It’s one of the many reasons tanking isn’t really a thing as our player JJ is telling you in this original article. It would take the whole organization from the owners down admitting they aren’t winning soon with Burns and picks 2-3 years away having more value because that’s when we are still rebuilding. It would only make sense if Fitt had a longer leash and would more than likely be the ones making these picks anyway which you wouldn’t want. The question is would you rather have those Rams picks with the strong possibility of Fitt still being here or would you rather Fitt try to “win now” like he did and expedite his firing? Altering the timeline would affect more than just the Rams picks. 
×
×
  • Create New...