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!

     

Newton starter vs Bengals, Week 1 starter TBD


Sword

Recommended Posts

wow rivera, wow

"so uh, guys... we really wanted Cam to look good, but damn, he just isn't stepping up like we hoped, so we're gonna give him three quarters this time and hope he does :)"

just name him the starter, jesus. it's obvious that is what you want to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wow rivera, wow

"so uh, guys... we really wanted Cam to look good, but damn, he just isn't stepping up like we hoped, so we're gonna give him three quarters this time and hope he does :)"

just name him the starter, jesus. it's obvious that is what you want to do.

Maybe he decided to ditch the whole idea of having at least 1 preseason game treated as a regular season game and give Clausen 3 quarters in game 4 too and then make a decision?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe he decided to ditch the whole idea of having at least 1 preseason game treated as a regular season game and give Clausen 3 quarters in game 4 too and then make a decision?

Perhaps, but that would massively lean things in Clausen's favor, because very few teams are going to play starters in game 4 for more than a quarter at most and if he takes out our starters, jimmy will be playing with our 2nd team which may make a difficult comparison. Still, you may be right.

I think he really wanted one of the guys to step up in these games and neither did so he's just going to go with the one with more upside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • 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...