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!

     

LB Justin Houston signs


ChuckWag78
 Share

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, csx said:

I wonder if this was always in the cards and the timing was based on Houston being a vet Reich was familiar with who wasn't excited about a full camp.

i think this is probably the way it shook out. Houston doesn't need a full camp regardless of what system he moves to, but especially if it's  a 3-4. he knows the job and would be able to pick any system up and get acclimated quickly.

plus he's the type older vet they look for...the player-coach/mentor type who can play and produce at an above average level and who will probably make a very natural transition to coach. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jon Snow said:

Haynes back must be the reason they had to do this. Haynes may be put on IR.

Made me wonder the same thing (re: severity of Haynes' injury).

Could also be a condemnation of the guys behind Haynes (YGM, Barno, and Johnson, though DJ is going to get the benefit of a season to develop).

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I swear I wasn't tipped off, lol!  I posted this in the DJ Johnson thread yesterday morning.

21 hours ago, 45catfan said:

Whether the rookie will be a bust is yet to be seen, but one thing is clear, he's not ready now.  That's why we need to sign a stop gap like Justin Houston.  Yes, he's 34, but as a rotational guy, that's completely okay.   We did the same with Jared Allen and worked out fine.

Haynes is too iffy for me.  He's stays dinged up and is undersized that results in him being unable to shed blocks.  He should thrive in this system, but HAS to stay clean.  That's where a proven vet can come in on a 1-2 year deal and give us the time to find/develop that guy opposite Burns.

 

  • Beer 4
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

    • Miller being less raw and more pro ready makes sense of why they picked him. With us having a capable starter in Walker the lower floor higher ceiling player makes sense for us as well. I agree with that. 
    • I'm from Michigan and have had this discussion with my Lions friends, and they all agree with me, they were never going to take Freeling over Miller.  As, yes, you are correct, they could have left Sewell at RT and taken Freeling, but they are in a SB contention window right now. An OL with Freeling at LT and Sewell at RT is not as strong as Sewell at LT and Miller at RT would be for this upcoming season and likely at least next year as well. 5 years it could be looked back upon as a long term "mistake" to take Miller over Freeling, but for a franchise like the Lions, you can't worry about the long term when you have current SB aspirations.  It's all about maximizing their current SB window over the next 1-3 years. And it's not about style, it's about day 1 readiness, and a lot of "experts" aren't even sure if Freeling is ready to play Week 1 yet at the position he's used to, let alone switching to a side he hasn't played before, but a career starting RT is going to be more than ready to fill that role for them Week 1. I'm 100% convinced that if our draft positioning was swapped, we'd have still taken Freeling, they'd have still taken Miller, and both teams would have got the OT that they preferred due to what each team needs right now and what their current realistic aspirations are for the 2026 season. We're in a position where we can let our drafted OT sit and learn for a bit, they needed a week 1 starter, for me that's where this discussion becomes very easy to understand why each team took the player they did.
×
×
  • Create New...