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!

     

Thompson talks Wilks, Reich, Evero


Mr. Scot
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, jfra78 said:

Shaq must have been talking to frankw for him to get his panties in a bunch about this.  I have no problem with Shaq remaining on this team with a sensible extension.

He'll be 29 in April. Giving an aging linebacker a "sensible" extension sounds like a Marty Hurney move. That's how we want to run things again?

  • Beer 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ricky Spanish said:

This fanbase was spoiled by Mills to Morgan to Beason to TD to Luke. All pro level talent at the LB position for 20+ years, and then we get a borderline pro-bowl player in there and they want to burn it all down because it's not good enough.

Shaq is worth keeping around.

Couldn't have said it any better. This franchise has been spoiled ROTTEN by great linebackers.  Shaq is our best traditional linebacker. He can't be replaced if the kids did have their way. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, frankw said:

He'll be 29 in April. Giving an aging linebacker a "sensible" extension sounds like a Marty Hurney move. That's how we want to run things again?

Giving a 29 yr old who is the best lb on our roster a two year contract is a marty hurney move now... wow

Edited by thunderraiden
  • Beer 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Wundrbread33 said:

What has Shaq done to be hated here? I mean there is a real shitty attitude toward him. 

That's been the casual fan's attitude towards him since he was drafted tbh. He was supposed to be the heir to TD and that made folks feel insecure because TD is beloved.

Since then, it's just been every excuse to denigrate him and/or his play. The man had one of if not the lowest missed tackle % on the team and posters were complaining that he was missing too many tackles. You just can't convince people that have already decided that they know better.

Edited by Icege
  • Pie 4
  • Beer 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "problem" with Shaq has always been his contract.  It simply didn't reflect his play at any point.

Statistically, Shaq and Frankie Luvu were the same player this year.  Eerily similar.  But cap wise, Shaq hit us at 13 million and Luvu at 3.5 million.  It's pretty hard to swallow.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The guy is the most consistently good player on our defense and leads the whole group. He sets the tone and covers for many of the holes we have in the schemes.

We need to keep him and I hope they can work things out, either with a redo of the contract or that we just pay the man as he was promised. He's certainly upheld his end of the bargain.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, thunderraiden said:

Giving a 29 yr old who is the best lb on our roster a two year contract is a marty hurney move now... wow

He said he won't take a paycut. He's been averaging about 13 million per season on his current deal. So 26 million minimum. Yeah that has a bit of a Hurney vibe to it sorry if you guys don't want to hear it but I thought we were done building our team overinvesting in linebackers and running backs.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BrianS said:

The "problem" with Shaq has always been his contract.  It simply didn't reflect his play at any point.

Statistically, Shaq and Frankie Luvu were the same player this year.  Eerily similar.  But cap wise, Shaq hit us at 13 million and Luvu at 3.5 million.  It's pretty hard to swallow.

Shaq's contract was one of Hurney's last parting gifts, along with CMC's and Teddy Bridgewater's.

If people are going to hate anyone in this scenario, hate the man shelling out top dollar for deemphasized positions in the modern NFL and backup QBs.

Has shaq lived up to the contract he signed? Probably not. I'd say at least a pro bowl or two would have validated it. But he has still played well enough and if our teams were playoff bound he might have gotten some pro bowl love. But right now there are no FA LBers on the open market better than him available, and if they are, they'd be even MORE expensive than Shaq currently is right now. 

Restructure/extend 2-3 years, and run it back with one of our defensive leaders. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, grimesgoat said:

Dude had 135 tackles and is the leader of our defense.

Extend him 3 years, 36m.  2023 12m bonus, 2024 12m salary, 2025 12m salary.

Saves 8 m in cap in 2023.

Cap hit in 2024 is 18m or if cut 8m dead.

Cap hit in 2025 is 18m or if cut 4m dead.

 

That doesn't add up.  Luvu averaged a bit more than 7.5 tackles per game played.  Shaq averaged 8 tackles per game played.  Please explain how Shaq is worth nearly three times what Luvu makes.

18 million for a non-rush LB is TOO MUCH MONEY unless you're talking about a guy like a Kuechly who makes everyone else better.  Shaq is no Luke.

If you want to keep Shaq here in the 7-8 million range over 2 additional years, ok.  Otherwise, thank you for your service, best of fortune in your future endeavors.

You've also got to consider that we will now need MORE LB's as we switch to a 3-4.  In that defense, it's the OLB's who make the bread.  Shaq is not a 3-4 OLB.

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

    • Almost may as well keep Dalton. Geno won’t be competition. IMO.  He could be but I don’t think they will take that approach. I think more Andy pt 2, big bro, mentor, emergency starter.  I really want to be wrong but we have had no encouraging signs there for two years.    If we are stuck with Bryce again, and it looks like we will be, I would so much more prefer a younger player with a possible future. A guy that hasn’t been great but maybe didn’t have the best situation - and let nature take its course. But I don’t expect anything that I want to happen, as far as it goes. It never does. Not one time yet under Tepper. Starting with the 3-4. 
    • We can go on and on about the players, but I'm more into judging Canales O based on the playcalling and general design. It's still a very mixed bag for me. There are times where I like what I see. The rolling pockets he'll call at times seem to play right into Bryce's best qualities which I like. Him using Jimmy Horn with certain plays is good - although execution by Horn has been frustrating when he missed an opportunity for a big play. if it's 4th down and a pass play, I like the odds of a good play. Giving Coker more snaps over XL recently is a potentially good sign that he's not satisfied with XL's mistakes and is adjusting accordingly. I don't follow why we don't use the tight ends more often in the pass game, but seems that those work better than average. At some point, we were really running the ball well, so that's something, I suppose. On the other hand, while he has shown to adjust, it often is too much of a swing in the other direction. Too often, we do something and it's working - like if running to the perimeter is getting us yards - only for Canales to then go back go stuffing up in the middle and wasting a down. Don't need to harp about the times when he tries to be too cute and it blows up in our faces. Canales has too many bad tendencies that our opponents are picking up on, like how we are quite likely to run on first down. Finally, I sometimes get the impression his play designs are for players that we don't actually have. We just don't really have explosive players on our teams that can make guys miss, and so these route concepts really should reflect the reality that YAC is not really expected and so it needs to be more vertical and/or have elements that help create separation by design. In other words, it still feels like the margin of error for a successful play, even a basic one, is too narrow.
    • Sure want him to play if possible!!!!
×
×
  • Create New...