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!

     

So long for now, Moose 2.0


Mr. Scot
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Donald LaFell said:

Thankful for the “neat” factor if anything 

Yeah I couldn't get excited, and didn't even read the story when we signed him. It would've been very cool about 2 years ago. This year we're so deep at WR you know it would take a lot for him to stay on anything more than Practice Squad (which is still an amazing accomplishment in life I should say).

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Camp Fodder said:

I think it was more of us having to start our fifth string running back as to why we didn’t get to the superbowl

No chance we were going into Seattle that year in the NFC Championship and beating the Seahawks. Maybe if we had managed to get the #1 seed and hosted the game, but people tend to forget how good that Seahawks team was in 2005.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Camp Fodder said:

I think it was more of us having to start our fifth string running back as to why we didn’t get to the superbowl

We had no real offensive threat outside of 89. Even with moose,  we had no rushing attack.  Seattle in Seattle that year.  Wouldn't have mattered anyways. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, pantherclaw said:

We had no real offensive threat outside of 89. Even with moose,  we had no rushing attack.  Seattle in Seattle that year.  Wouldn't have mattered anyways. 

Foster was great that year. I remember him going off vs Atlanta in the last game of the season and vs the Giants in the wild card round.

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

    • Sure it does, maybe not every position and not every draft.  You have to admit the hit rate goes down the further in the draft you get.  Would you more readily find a generational talent at the #2 pick or #19 pick?  High picks are considered "busts" if they doesn't pan out, whereas guys drafted later don't have that level of scrutiny upon them.  Different expectation levels.  If Styles does indeed go #2, I already listed the rarefied air that he would be in.  Maybe he doesn't set the League on fire, but my gut feeling is he does.  Again, you don't take an off-ball LB #2 if he is just a 'really good' player.
    • To illustrate my point, I watched (and commented on the Huddle) that Rozeboom would often wait a full second (or close to it) before taking his first step.  I assume that he probably had issues with false steps, a faulty practice that can take an ILB out of the gap completely.  Watch Luke and you see a step with the snap, and rarely was it a false step.  Rozeboom may have had 100 tackles (speculating) but initial contact was 2-3 yards on the defensive side of the ball.  Luke's 100 tackles were made 1-2 yards from the LOS.  Over the course of a year, Luke was much more productive (more fumbles, fewer long gainers, more OL penalties, fewer first downs, etc) that Rozeboom, but on the stat sheet, they both had 100 tackles.  In fact, Rozeboom's inefficiency kept him on the field more (more first downs, fewer OL penalties, turnovers, and punts) so he should have MORE tackles.   I would like to see stats that break down those things.   For example again, Josh Norman was slow--4.68 or so at CB.  However, his anticipation speed was incredible.  He made as many plays as a 4.4 CB.  I had one coach (college--later became the head coach at WCU) tell me that slower players have to use their brains more to still be around.  Elite athletes can just get by on their physical superiority.  He added, "Rarely does a football player run full speed.  Most of the time, they are not, so the 40 time is misleading stat.  Smart players overcome shortcomings--when the elite athlete becomes average (slows with age, advances in level of competition) they struggle against smarter (football IQ) competition.  
    • Obviously tongue in cheek hyperbole. But we do not need a first round RB to competete for a championship. We need intelligent roster building. That to me is the complete opposite of intelligent roster building because it is a prime resource at a devalued plug and play position when we have needs across the defense.
×
×
  • Create New...