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!

     

Grant Gordon of NFL.com says O-line IS a thing in so many words

top dawg

By top dawg,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

NorthTryon Mentor

NorthTryon

Posted
Posted

The thing about OL is continuity. First of all, they are learning a new offense. Second, they are subbing guys in and out like crazy. At least Friday they let one set get more than one drive together. Third, Brady has looked pretty overwhelmed the last two weeks going against some premiere defensive tackles and add in Ickey's brain farts as someone put it. Lastly, again for the cheap seats, they are being crazy vanilla and I know winning preseason games are very important to fans, but scheming also takes in account the line shifts as well as the protections. Give this group some time to get fully healthy and gel. RG will look a lot better, Ickey will get some chip help, and there will be a game plan! Go to the hot mic thread and read how David Newton was caught talking about putting out bad OL press for clicks.  

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
frankw Grand Master

frankw

Posted
Posted
Just now, ForJimmy said:

I don’t think it was that bad. I remember stats of how Darnold was holding the ball towards the top of the league in terms of time. Icky went a long time without giving up a sack and that’s who people seemed to be concerned with. 

Most people had high expectations for Icky as a top ten pick. He was asset more often than not. Generally the thorn for us has been interior pressure. I don't expect that to drastically change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ForJimmy Grand Master

ForJimmy

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, frankw said:

Most people had high expectations for Icky as a top ten pick. He was asset more often than not. Generally the thorn for us has been interior pressure. I don't expect that to drastically change.

BC has been a pleasant surprise plus Corbett should be back soon. Bozeman is more than capable at C, but I wouldn’t be against trying to get Bryce a long term solution there next year to develop with him. 

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
Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • PNW_PantherMan
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By PNW_PantherMan · Posted

      This 1000%.  Hey who wants to sign with the guy that couldn't even get his client the guaranteed contract of a 3rd round pick?  Lmao
    • tukafan21
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By tukafan21 · Posted

      I don't think it's any weird or unique clause, it's the offset language, same thing so many contract disputes are over. It just means that including it, if a player is cut and then signed by another team, the original team would be able to subtract how much they're getting paid by the new team from what they still owe him on their guaranteed money. For example, it's why Russell Wilson signed for the minimum last year with the Steelers as that was included in his Denver contract.  So if he signed with the Steelers for $1 million, he'd get $1 million less from the Broncos, if it was $2 million, he'd get $2 million less, basically he couldn't make any more money than he was already going to make, so you sign for the minimum to not take unnecessary cap room from your new team while giving extra cap room to your old one. The problem with trying to include it in rookie deals is that a team trying to include it, it says they think they don't really believe the player will make it 4 years with the team before they cut them.  And this usually comes up with one or two rookies in most seasons, the difference is it's usually handled much more quietly and not as public and ugly as this one. The other difference is that it's happening with the Bengals, which I believe I saw are one of the few (or only?) team that doesn't have protections for rookies in rookie and mini camps to be able to participate even if they haven't signed their contract yet.  The other teams have injury protections that allow them to still play, but the Bengals do not, which is also why this one is so public and ugly, as most the time this happens, the rookie is still participating in the rookie and subsequent mini camps, giving them more time to get the contract done before training camp when they'd then hold out.
    • Dave Gettleman's Shorts
      TIME TO SPECULATE

      By Dave Gettleman's Shorts · Posted

      adamantium? adam? adam thielen super bowl game winning catch ?
×
×
  • Create New...