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!

     

Myles Garrett calls relationship with Baker Mayfield “slightly complicated,” admits “some disagreements”


WarPanthers89
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Mr. Scot said:

Please tell me we're giving Ickey help this Sunday...

 

1 hour ago, panthers55 said:

McAdoo said he wasn't going to be alone in protection but did say that Ickey has to be able to hold his own 1 on 1 at times. 

QB roll outs to the right. Someone tell McAdoo and thank me later. 😁

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, WarPanthers89 said:

Out of context or whatever I have no clue what his point is. Baker was a good teammate and invited guys out to dinner but it was weird? Maybe because Stefanski and Garrett didn't want him? The "adult" and "character concerns" don't really add up, just a guy that played hurt the whole season

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jackie Lee said:

Out of context or whatever I have no clue what his point is. Baker was a good teammate and invited guys out to dinner but it was weird? Maybe because Stefanski and Garrett didn't want him? The "adult" and "character concerns" don't really add up, just a guy that played hurt the whole season

I think the "but it was weird" was in reference to "...but Baker was a good teammate too, you know I hung out with the offense guys too and..." (obviously paraphrased). I don't think he meant it was weird that Baker took him to dinner / was weird himself, but the SITUATION was weird (which seems likely based on Garrett's comments)

edit: Yeah, the end he talks about "those relationships" being f'd, and he seems to be referring to the wider team relationships, rather than his with Baker.

Edited by mav1234
  • Beer 1
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

    • I'd hold on to Walker - we have no OT depth at all. Freeling is a block of clay - all the tools are there and he appears to have a great attitude. He needs serious work on his technique to realise his potential though.
    • From my watch last night: They weren't trading out of 19 unless it was a daft offer once Freeling got there. They were clearly antsy to get Hunter - and Minnesota actually called to offer the trade down. They weren't trading out of the third round pick once Brazzell fell to it (and Canales would have been happy with him in the second round). They traded back a lot on Day 3 - even if Morgan 'Babe Ruth'd' it with Lee, Hecht and Wheatley; they clearly weren't the only guys they would have taken at those picks. I'm curious to know which player caused the reaction at the start of day 2 (Dan Morgan): "of course they'd pick him"
    • Watching this confirms that this staff and front office is super high on Monroe Freeling. I wouldn't be surprised if he's gotta a real chance to win the starting LT job in camp. If he does, we can look to flip Rasheed Walker to a contender desperate for tackle help.   As for Ickey I still really like him and wanna extend him but based on how the staff was talking about Freeling it might be time for ickey to start taking some practice sets at guard if he wants to stay here as we are gonna have to have figure out a solution for the contracts of Lewis and Hunt.  My preferred scenario for the Oline in 2027 is Freeling-Ickey-Hech-Lewis-Moton. 
×
×
  • Create New...