|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,177
Dawg Talker
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,177 |
A significant downgrade at RT, and he is much older than Shaffer. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,563
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,563 |
Can someone point it out to me where it says St. Clair will start?
If he does, then this is an incredibly dumb move. If he's a backup, then it's an average signing. As far as I'm concerned, the right side is Porkchop at RG and Tucker at RT.
you had a good run Hank.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,177
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,177 |
Well I sure as heck hope we arent planning to play Tucker at RT. Does everyone forget how awful Tucker was at RT in 2006? The man is slower than mud, every speed guy toasted tuck in 2006. The guys RT days are long over, hence why he was moved to RG in 2007. Tucker is a very good RG, a very valuable guy.
Plus its all moot as we don't know if Tuck will be healthy, and if he can play 16 games.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,188
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,188 |
Why don't u try using some COMMON DAMM SENSE for a change ... sheesh .... we have NO CLUE how this is going to pan out ... but u know what .. as of RIGHT NOW we have lost Shaffer and will replace with either PC or St. Clair ... BIG WHOOP ... your acting like we went from Joe Thomas to Ross Verba .... or from Stieny to J. Bundren (sorry Bundenrettes ..  .. ) ... in terms of TALENT DOWNGRADE at the position ... WELL WE DIDN'T LOSE MUCH IF ANYTHING DUDE ... so relx and quit acting like if this is the FINAL SOLUTION (witch it very well may not be) ... its the end of the world and we just lost some even average RT and went down to a BUM ... what we know right now is that last year we started RG - McKinnei/Hadnot ... RT - Shaff ... this year as of now .. we have 3 players vying for those two spots and we have NO CLUE WHO WILL END UP WHERE .. but jesus frickin christ .. HOW MUCH WORSE CAN IT BE THAN HADNOT/SHAFF ... please get a clue .... and we are more than likely not done with the right side of our line .. we may sign another BUM or we may go RT in rnd 1 or 2 of the draft ... I mean dude .. i am no fan of PC or St, clair .. but how much more giddy would u be of we re-signed Shaff at this point ... I know i would not be dancin in the streets ... but maybe u would ... tabber .... the Kracken is awake .. be afraid .. be very afraid ... 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,177
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,177 |
Nope, wouldn't be dancing in the streets...but would would rather have Shaffer at RT than Tuck or St. Claire. Also would rather have Shaffer at RT instead of using a 1st day pick on position that we didn't need heading into the off season. We lost money, created dead cap space, and lowered the talent level at RT. Is it major? Maybe not, but its going backwards anyhow...and this team doesnt need that. As another poster said, is this about the best football team, or the people making their mark? I don't see the logic in this whole RT deal whatsoever. We gained nothing, and lost cap space. And i'll chill when something on this team is improves. k? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,558
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,558 |
Quote:
Can someone point it out to me where it says St. Clair will start?
It doesn't, but i'm sure we wouldn't give this guy almost $3mil this year and make Tucker restructure at the vet Minimum if this guy was gonna back Tucker up.
#gmstrong
Live, Love, Laugh
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,563
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,563 |
Quote:
Quote:
Can someone point it out to me where it says St. Clair will start?
It doesn't, but i'm sure we wouldn't give this guy almost $3mil this year and make Tucker restructure at the vet Minimum if this guy was gonna back Tucker up.
Tucker's restructure isn't so much because that is what he's worth, but just in case he gets hurt, it's easy to cut him. Personally, Tucker is the only one of these guys I would feel semi comfortable with at RT.
you had a good run Hank.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,188
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,188 |
U know what there menZa .... heres something for u to think about (if your capable of thinking that is .. ) .... what if we wanna be a POWER RUNNING TEAM ... did that ever cross your mind or were you to angry and typing to fast to consider it .... or u just can't conjure up thoughts on your own ...
cause guess what MR RUSH TO JUDGEMENT ... if we do want to become a POWER RUNNING TEAM .... starting
Hadnot/Tuck/St. Clair with PC to back up Tuck and St. Clair looks a hell of alot more appealing than ....
Hadnot/Tuck/Shaff and who the hell knows who to back up Shaff ...
at the end of the day menZa ...... St. Clair and PC are BOTH much better DRIVE BLOCKERS THAN Shaff ....
and this group did not CREATE the hole at RT .... IT WS ALL REDY THERE ...
Shaff is a BUM ... just like the two guys we brought in .. there just DIFFERENT TYPES OF BUMS ....
U can expect our TE's to chip block and help out the RT on passing downs. before getting into there routes ... SUMPTIN THEY NEEDED TO DO WITH SHAFF THERE ...
we MAY NOT HAVE IMPROVED .... but we did not DOWNGRADE EITHER ... were JUST DIFFERENT .... and IF POWER RUNNING is the goal .. we DID IMPROVE ... NO DOUBT ABOUT IT ...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
Quote:
what if we wanna be a POWER RUNNING TEAM
I brought uo this possibility when we dumped Winslow ... and was told I was nuts. 
All signs (and signings) do seem to point in that direction though. It is also supposed to be Mangini's preferred offense .... and what he wanted to build in New York before Lord Brett landed.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,224 |
Quote:
tabber .... Joyce is awake .. be afraid .. be very afraid ...
Fixed
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,365
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,365 |
Quote:
Well I sure as heck hope we arent planning to play Tucker at RT. Does everyone forget how awful Tucker was at RT in 2006?
psssttt Z were you in a coma in 2006 or what? Tucker was not awful in 2006 at RT 
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,682
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,682 |
Quote:
Can someone point it out to me where it says St. Clair will start?
If he does, then this is an incredibly dumb move. If he's a backup, then it's an average signing. As far as I'm concerned, the right side is Porkchop at RG and Tucker at RT.
That's how I see it.
I said it seemed to be a series of 1 year contracts. I doubt all 3 are divided up equally...they usually increase some on a year by year basis.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Can someone point it out to me where it says St. Clair will start?
It doesn't, but i'm sure we wouldn't give this guy almost $3mil this year and make Tucker restructure at the vet Minimum if this guy was gonna back Tucker up.
Tucker's restructure isn't so much because that is what he's worth, but just in case he gets hurt, it's easy to cut him. Personally, Tucker is the only one of these guys I would feel semi comfortable with at RT.
St Clair started 16 games for the Bears last season on a team that went 9-7, and I doubt we brought him here to be a back up to our great offensive linemen who play on the right side of the line?
It's St Clairs job to lose and I do not believe he's going to be given anything by Mangini. He will have to prove himself to the new coaching staff but I would not be surprised to see him as our starting RT...jmho
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246 |
Quote:
but it's clear they do not want a lot of money tied up in the line.
Any possibility that we're looking at OL with one of our first day picks this year? Just a thought.
I am unfamiliar with this feeling of optimism
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160 |
I honestly don't know...I do know they should..get either the best OG/OT in the draft and let'em compete..loser becomes backup  I commented in another thread that these moves they've made seem to be going away from the finesse type of linemen to more of a power scheme...not that these guys are huge maulers..but they have more strength than McKinnie/Shaffer..we haven't gotten a lot of push on the right side when Tucker is out and they want to correct that..our backups had lacked strength..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,212
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,212 |
Quote:
this year as of now .. we have 3 players vying for those two spots and we have NO CLUE WHO WILL END UP WHERE
isn't Hadnot still in the mix as well giving 4 guys for RG/RT (Hadnot, Tucker Porkchop, St Clair), or did i miss something on his release?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
psssttt Z were you in a coma in 2006 or what? Tucker was not awful in 2006 at RT
pssstttt GM ... don't you know? If a guy can't even make the Pro-Bowl ... he's a bum. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,711
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,711 |
Quote:
can expect our TE's to chip block and help out the RT on passing downs. before getting into there routes ... SUMPTIN THEY NEEDED TO DO WITH SHAFF THERE ...
this is exactly what i was thinking....there is gonna be a TE next tot the RT most of the time....and he's not gonna be going in motion either like winslow always was....
more importantly, is we will show less tendencies.....because with winslow in the game, your best bet was to motion him out, so a backer would go with him....then hope your tackle could make a block to get the rb to the 2nd level....since we couldn't block on the right side of the line our running to that side sucked....
we will have a decent all around te in the game, with either te...and be able to run and pass to them if we choose......might slow down the tee off on the qb club....
hope we do get some better talent, cause why would teams release these guys if they were great....but our scheme might just help us with giving us the option to run/pass more effectively....
Attitude is everything....FEAR THE ELF!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
every 6th round OT can play RT when you give him a TE to chip block on most downs....no need to dish out 3mil/year for a 32yo underachieving bum...as Toad said: he reminds me of Shelton
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,558
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,558 |
Sorry Diam but i don't see it. St.Clair might be a bit better drive blocker then Shaffer but he's even worse as a pass blocker. So all we did was trade one bum for another just to save $2 mill this year. Why even get rid of Shaffer if your not going to upgrade? Making moves just to make moves?
#gmstrong
Live, Love, Laugh
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,365
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,365 |
Quote:
Quote:
psssttt Z were you in a coma in 2006 or what? Tucker was not awful in 2006 at RT
pssstttt GM ... don't you know? If a guy can't even make the Pro-Bowl ... he's a bum.
So that explains why my wife calls me that. Thanks buddy
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
Quote:
what if we wanna be a POWER RUNNING TEAM
I brought uo this possibility when we dumped Winslow ... and was told I was nuts.
All signs (and signings) do seem to point in that direction though. It is also supposed to be Mangini's preferred offense .... and what he wanted to build in New York before Lord Brett landed.
This is how I see it as well. Not only do we possibly want to be a power-running team, but Mangini might want to change the type of OL that we have.
Romeo was more about the finesse, technically-efficient guys on the left side, and power on the right (Belicheck style). Perhaps Mangini is more like Parcells in wanting power from all positions on the OL (with LT being the exception of needing a guy that can handle the speed rushers).
If we take that leap, then it is possible for a complete change in or OL this year...Fraley no longer fits as a starting OC, and, most importantly, Steinbach doesn't fit as a starting LG.
I love Steiny, but if we do want more power, then perhaps St. Clair is brought in for a possible LG, so we can shift Steiny to OC where he would be a significant upgrade to Fraley?
LT J. Thomas
LG St. Clair
C Steinbach
RG Hadnot/Womack (or whoever else steps up and takes it)
RT Tucker
Just a thought.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,563
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,563 |
Some of you are really underselling Steiny's run blocking ability. Just because he isn't a big fat guy doesn't mean he can't be a good run blocker. He's one of the best pulling guards in the NFL, and that could be useful on a power running team.
Hank, though, doesn't really fit in a power running game. Need to get a big battering ram there, and Hank is much more of a pass blocker.
you had a good run Hank.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,996
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,996 |
Guess I'm in the minority in that I LIKE this signing.
Mangini is showing that they are going in a clear direction. He is picking up versatile O-Linemen (Womack, St. Clair...brought in Goldberg for a look) who can play various positions on the line (in case of injuries) and are more along the lones of maulers...not these wuss, finesse types that we've had recently.
They also dumped a TE, via trade, that couldn't block and replaced him with a TE that specializes in run blocking. We are going to RUN the ball A LOT folks.
These guys are the gatekeepers that will be holding the door open for the younger O-Linemen that we obtain via the draft. Kind of stop gaps until the younger guys we draft will be ready.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160 |
Someone needs to explain why Issac Sowells is logging a roster spot when he never sees the field and each year since he's been drafted ,the Browns bring in other line players and he's never in the rotation..? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,188
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,188 |
Quote:
I brought uo this possibility when we dumped Winslow ... and was told I was nuts.
Yes U were ... and i was one of them ... that was because at that point we had made ONE MOVE and we weren't even sure why ... my guess is KW may have been gone no matter what he did ... I think after last years alleged "piercing" and what followed .. Lerner decided to axe Opie and KW ... NO MATTER WHAT ...
but never the less .... that was ONE MOVE .. now we've made 3 more that lead me to believe ... gettting rid of Shaff and bringing in TWO PLODDDING OAFS ... *L* .. thats a SIGN towards a direction ....
but ... in the sense of fair play ... I WAS WRONG ... U WERE RIGHT ..... there .. now u feel better ...
Riddler ..... *LOL* ... Good one ...
Big .. if were going to a more power running .. IMO and many others it makes alot more sense to play hadnot at C .. he can play there and is a much stronger/drive blocker than Fraley ... hes a much better fit for the C spot ... hence why I do not put him in the mix at RG ... but he is still a POSSIBILITY for that spot depending on how it works out ...
Djngo ... the contract is for an average of 3 mill a year ... WE HAVE NO CLUE WHAT WERE PAYING HIM THIS YEAR .... it could be 6 mill or it could be 2 mill .. WE DON'T KNOW .. and who cares ... we have PLENTY OF CAP SPACE and next year will be an uncapped year ... SO WHO CARES ..
do u or do u not agree if we want to be a POWER RUNING team these guys are UPGRADES .... HOWEVER SLIGHT .. *L* ..
U know they are bro .. U know the game to well to not know it .. there not going to be HUGE UPGRADES .. but they are also not HUGE DOWNGRADES in pass blocking .. hence there just DIFFERENT TYPES OF BUMS ..
66 ... see above ... they are an UPGRADE IN THE RUN GAME ... theres no doubt about it ... so there not just making a move for the sake of making a move .. we lose win pass blocking and gain in run blocking ... not much either way .. plus .. Lerner does save some OUT OF POCKET MONEY this year ... we lose "ded money' but Lerner does save some actual cash ... NO CLUE if that hd nything at all to do with it .. but it could have been a factor ..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
Some of you are really underselling Steiny's run blocking ability. Just because he isn't a big fat guy doesn't mean he can't be a good run blocker. He's one of the best pulling guards in the NFL, and that could be useful on a power running team.
I agree, but it depends on the scheme of whether or not Steinbach would fit in as a run blocking RG.
Here are the main ones I see in the NFL (and there are a million variations on each, but I'm giving the main ones that I see)
Denver/Atlanta Zone-blocking - all about giving your OL the angle on the block and you do it by blocking a specific space instead of man. Also, these teams tend to do a bunch of quick-pulls so that the defense has a tougher time reading the OL assignments.
Parcells power scheme - assignment based blocking where the OL is required to be able to maul the man regardless of the angle. You need bigger more powerful OL to accomplish this and because of that, you don't pull as often.
Joe Gibbs System - this one has a lot of tackle pulls along with guards...using slot-backs instead of TE's...et cetera. You need a highly athletic OL to pull this off where they can run as well as take on a man at the point of attack. Toughest scheme to pull off because everyone on the OL needs to have a complete skillset.
Bill Walsh System - this is where you have the more finesse guys on the left hand side and the power guys on the right. The LG may pull a lot to give even more of an overload to the right and generally the TE. The LG also needs to be an outstanding pass-blocker because he will get left on an island with the middle rusher most often (to protect the power RG from getting beat to the inside).
The Bill Walsh system is what Cincinatti used when Steinbach was there and we ran a variation of it with Romeo as well. It fits Steinbach's skillset the best because he is a great pass-blocker and can move around alot on run blocking to open holes (even when we run left, we tried to make sure Steiny had a good angle on the block...using Vickers/Fraley combos to pickup the harder angle guys).
Now, if we are to believe we are going to a Parcell's system..then, Steinbach fits in more as an OC where he will control the assignments on blocking and usually have a good angle on the blocks (and when he doesn't, he'll get double-team help).
Hope that helps.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,267
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,267 |
Quote:
Someone needs to explain why Issac Sowells is logging a roster spot when he never sees the field and each year since he's been drafted ,the Browns bring in other line players and he's never in the rotation..?
Ok,since you asked here's my theory. He's mobbed up. I saw it on the Sapranos.The mob gets their guys on a payroll but they don't actually have to show up for work. I can't think of anything else.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
Quote:
Guess I'm in the minority in that I LIKE this signing.
Mangini is showing that they are going in a clear direction. He is picking up versatile O-Linemen (Womack, St. Clair...brought in Goldberg for a look) who can play various positions on the line (in case of injuries) and are more along the lones of maulers...not these wuss, finesse types that we've had recently.
They also dumped a TE, via trade, that couldn't block and replaced him with a TE that specializes in run blocking. We are going to RUN the ball A LOT folks.
These guys are the gatekeepers that will be holding the door open for the younger O-Linemen that we obtain via the draft. Kind of stop gaps until the younger guys we draft will be ready.
Good input,...sounds like Beanie. ?? ?? Also sounds like we don't need to have a gunslinger like Cutler either.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,563
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,563 |
Quote:
Quote:
Some of you are really underselling Steiny's run blocking ability. Just because he isn't a big fat guy doesn't mean he can't be a good run blocker. He's one of the best pulling guards in the NFL, and that could be useful on a power running team.
I agree, but it depends on the scheme of whether or not Steinbach would fit in as a run blocking RG.
Here are the main ones I see in the NFL (and there are a million variations on each, but I'm giving the main ones that I see)
Denver/Atlanta Zone-blocking - all about giving your OL the angle on the block and you do it by blocking a specific space instead of man. Also, these teams tend to do a bunch of quick-pulls so that the defense has a tougher time reading the OL assignments.
Parcells power scheme - assignment based blocking where the OL is required to be able to maul the man regardless of the angle. You need bigger more powerful OL to accomplish this and because of that, you don't pull as often.
Joe Gibbs System - this one has a lot of tackle pulls along with guards...using slot-backs instead of TE's...et cetera. You need a highly athletic OL to pull this off where they can run as well as take on a man at the point of attack. Toughest scheme to pull off because everyone on the OL needs to have a complete skillset.
Bill Walsh System - this is where you have the more finesse guys on the left hand side and the power guys on the right. The LG may pull a lot to give even more of an overload to the right and generally the TE. The LG also needs to be an outstanding pass-blocker because he will get left on an island with the middle rusher most often (to protect the power RG from getting beat to the inside).
The Bill Walsh system is what Cincinatti used when Steinbach was there and we ran a variation of it with Romeo as well. It fits Steinbach's skillset the best because he is a great pass-blocker and can move around alot on run blocking to open holes (even when we run left, we tried to make sure Steiny had a good angle on the block...using Vickers/Fraley combos to pickup the harder angle guys).
Now, if we are to believe we are going to a Parcell's system..then, Steinbach fits in more as an OC where he will control the assignments on blocking and usually have a good angle on the blocks (and when he doesn't, he'll get double-team help).
Hope that helps.
Great post, but the thing that I love about Steiny is that even though he's small, you can't really tell. Now should we be running at him as the point of the attack? No, but he can certainly thrive on the system that I think we are going to run.
Steiny is all about leverage, and he's one of the best in the NFL when it comes to leverage. Certainly Steiny won't be looking for a job anytime soon.
As for him fitting the Parcells type running team, I think he can do it but then again, I really like Steiny. I think he and Joe create the best left side in all of football and really work well off of each other. They have basically been our run blockers the past two years anyway, so we know they can do it. What we need to do is create a team that can run to both sides, and I'm glad to see we are doing that.
Now can the right side pass block so our QB won't get killed? I hope so.
Quote:
Big .. if were going to a more power running .. IMO and many others it makes alot more sense to play hadnot at C .. he can play there and is a much stronger/drive blocker than Fraley ... hes a much better fit for the C spot ... hence why I do not put him in the mix at RG ... but he is still a POSSIBILITY for that spot depending on how it works out ...
I agree, Hadnot would definitely fit at center, even over my boy Hank. Hadnot is the type of bowling ball center that I was thinking about, but I'm not sure if he can handle the line assignments, even though Steiny handles those *I think?*
I hate to see Hank go because the guy loves to play the game, but if it's best for the team, then we gotta do what we gotta do.
you had a good run Hank.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
I was hoping Hank could be moved to G,...but it doesn't look like that's in the plan. Maybe he get's moved to "depth." ??
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
Steiny is all about leverage, and he's one of the best in the NFL when it comes to leverage.
As for him fitting the Parcells type running team, I think he can do it but then again, I really like Steiny.
I agree and I love Steinbach...but I also like that if the Parcells-style is the plan (and none of us know if it is or not) that Mangini and staff are giving themselves many different combination options on OL to try out. So, if Steinbach struggles more than he should as a power-LG, well try him out at OC and put St. Clair at LG.
Versatility is a great thing for the first 2 weeks of camp...after that you want to be more settled and let the guys gel (barring injuries where versatility again becomes key).
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
I was hoping Hank could be moved to G,...but it doesn't look like that's in the plan. Maybe he get's moved to "depth." ??
I want him moved to the street. No way he's a guard. He's barely strong enough to be a center. He'd get killed as a guard.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877 |
I see where you guys may be right about us running the ball more. Going to a more "plodding" type of offense. But these pickups still have me scratching my head for the most part. A running type offense is fine. But let's be serious, other than the year the Ravens won with a much younger JL and a stud-laden defense when was the last time a run first offense won the Super Bowl? The NFL is a pass first league now. Like it or not. The guys we've signed on offense are mostly filler that are not appreciably better than the guys we lost. We may be in the midst of ANOTHER rebuild but it's looking more like a cut-rate remodel from where I sit. I hope I'm wrong. I also question the idea that we wouldn't want to upgrade the QB position. I know this isn't the "Cutler" thread but if I'm gonna watch a losing team,again, while we rebuild once more wouldn't it be a whole lot more interesting with a proven guy with a "gunslinger" mentality. Of course, that is assuming that having a guy like Cutler would help our WRs catch the ball. Which may well be an erroneous assumption.
"People who drink light 'beer' don't like the taste of beer; they just like to pee a lot."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,177
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,177 |
Wanting to run the ball is totally reliant on a competent defense. If your constantly letting the other team score at will, your going to have to throw the ball. Also, nothing is going to change until we replace Jamal, who is long gone. He's got all the heart and leadership we need, but his legs are totally dead.
We can want to run the ball, we can try to run the ball....but until we get a bunch more players of defense, it won't really matter. We couldn't get off the field last year on 3rd down, because we not one player besides Rogers that has any pass rush ability.
We also have a serious need at MLB, so teams don't gash us over and over with the run.
To me, both of those areas are far far more important to us ever establishing a power running game than signing bum TE's and RT's. Unfortunately, we had to attempt to fill a hole we ourselves created. And now may be forced to use a valuable first day picks on a OT in a rich linebacker draft!
Can someone show me the combined cap number we will take by cutting Shaffer and signing St. Claire? Won't it be right around $7 million? St. Claire counts as $3mil and Shaff's dead space about $4mil?
And to think, had we kept Shaff....we coulda used the money we spent on St. Claire to sign Matt Birk.....or heck even Jason Brown.
I'll Take Joe Thomas, Eric Steinbach, Matt Birk, Ryan Tucker, Kevin Shaffer. You guys can have Joe Thomas, Eric Steinbach, Hank Fraley, Rex Hagnot, Ryan Tucker. My OL will paste yours every sunday.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
Two ways to look at it (that),....
If indeed the NFL is a "Pass-First" game, then defenses are now all geared to stopping the pass---maybe we should run, instead. Funny how the Browns worst part of its defense seems to be stopping the run. (?)
If indeed stopping the "plodding run game" is easier for defenses to adjust to (from the defend-the-pass-first mode), then the offensive attack has got to become more diverse and balanced; a mixture of run-and-pass surprise. (?) Hopefully this has been cured with the hiring of Mangini and crew,....
In either case, these both require a dominating offensive line and a creative thinker for an OC.
Don't mean to condescend. Just want to know what the FO is really up to.
Last edited by OoooRahJoice; 03/18/09 01:05 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,523
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,523 |
I kinda like this move,it solves the WR depth problem.
With any of these guys at RT we are going to have to keep a TE and a RB in to help out with pass protection.Eliminating the need for 4 wideouts.
Indecision may,or maynot,be my problem
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877 |
Quote:
In either case, these both require a dominating offensive line and a creative thinker for an OC.
And at this point we can't really say we have either one.......
Obviously the jury hasn't even be sent in to deliberate on our OC. But even with the new linemen I'd hardly call our Oline crew dominating.
Time will tell. But so far I'm not ready to do cartwheels.
"People who drink light 'beer' don't like the taste of beer; they just like to pee a lot."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,188
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,188 |
*LOL* ... great stuff my man .. that was frickin HYSTERICAL ...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
Quote:
I'll Take Joe Thomas, Eric Steinbach, Matt Birk, Ryan Tucker, Kevin Shaffer. You guys can have Joe Thomas, Eric Steinbach, Hank Fraley, Rex Hagnot, Ryan Tucker. My OL will paste yours every sunday.
I would like to see that matchup, since it will never occur,....
You don't know what you have until you have it. I was really counting on the pre-season Steeler talk about how poor and decimated their line was going to be last season,......
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Browns sign St. Clair
|
|
![[Linked Image from media.scout.com]](http://media.scout.com/media/avatars/1/6/GlennChannell.jpg)
