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!

     

Am I wrong in thinking MLB is our biggest weakness on defense?


Eazy-E

Recommended Posts

Good god were we spoiled with Luke. We need a QB on the defense who can cover in the middle between the sticks. Whitehead is terrible and Shaq has never been able to cover anything in his career. Chinn is basically turning out to be what we had hoped Shaq would become when drafting him. We have been dropping Burns into coverage because our linebackers are such a liability. Only problem with that is Burns is also our best pass rushers and we aren't generating much pressure without him. Burns, Brown and YGM look like a very promising young d-line group. It really sucks thinking what could have been if Luke never retired.

Come draft time, If there isn't an elite QB or LT prospect available I would not be mad with a stud MLB. Just Look at what Devin White has done for Tampa's defense paired with Lavonte David. I know many of us hated the Luke pick originally but look how that turned out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mr. Scot said:

For what it's worth, I don't generally see a lack of effort on Whitehead's part.

Boston sometimes looks like he's making "business decisions".

I just think Boston is soft. He played like this back in college too.  Whitehead is just athletically limited. It's frustrating because I think Boston has the tools to be really good. Whitehead doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

For what it's worth, I don't generally see a lack of effort on Whitehead's part.

Boston sometimes looks like he's making "business decisions".

Boston has at least two horrible plays a week, Whiteheads mistakes often result in less yardage/scoring than Bostons. I still can't believe we extended him at what we did...  the guy still can't executed a basic tackle.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

I just think Boston is soft. He played like this back in college too.  Whitehead is just athletically limited. It's frustrating because I think Boston has the tools to be really good. Whitehead doesn't.

Watching him hold back while a guy caught an easy pass in front of him today about made me go through the roof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Too late to edit above but the quote is from this Diane Russini article in the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5941684/2024/11/23/russinis-what-im-hearing-the-day-the-jets-fell-apart-and-the-broncos-rallied-belichick-best-fits/ Okay.. there you have sorry I left that out the first post.  Also waivers keep the contract intact. That is the major difference in released and waived. It's all in that link from the other post.
    • Okay so I am reading something in The Athletic and it says that Jones had to pass through waivers. So I don't know. I looked this stuff up when we were number one there all offseason and I thought it said 4 years in the league got you vested, as they call it.  Vested gets you out of waivers as I understood it. I probably got something wrong, but when I think about the slack quality of journalism these days I wonder about that. So I went and looked, again. Well, well.  For everyone: "When a player has accrued at least four seasons in the NFL, they are considered a vested veteran. When these vested veterans get cut, they are released and their contract is terminated. When a vested veteran is released, they are an unrestricted free agent that can sign with any NFL team, and the team that released them doesn’t need to provide any additional compensation." It runs it all down here, where the quotes came from: https://www.profootballnetwork.com/waived-vs-released-nfl/ As far as Jones, the team turned down his 5th year option so I knew that meant he had 4 years in, because they re-signed him anyway, after turning down the much cheaper extra year.  The Athletic is owned by the New York Times so I shouldn't be surprised. That paper was an institution once upon a time but they let their standards go.
    • Well, we got our answer on Army today.
×
×
  • Create New...