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!

     

I think Hubbard might be a useful player in a real offense


electro's horse
 Share

Recommended Posts

Has good scoot, accelerates, kind a one cut guy but it's difficult to tell with the offensive line.

Doesn't block well but then again no one on the team does so I suspect it's more about coaching than talent or willingness.

Hard to tell how well he catches out of the backfield for the above stated reasons, but projected well in college. 

I dunno I'm just reaching on things to be optimistic about here. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, electro's horse said:

Has good scoot, accelerates, kind a one cut guy but it's difficult to tell with the offensive line.

Doesn't block well but then again no one on the team does so I suspect it's more about coaching than talent or willingness.

Hard to tell how well he catches out of the backfield for the above stated reasons, but projected well in college. 

I dunno I'm just reaching on things to be optimistic about here. 

I think with a solid line he can be a workhorse.  I think his TD run yesterday was strong and once he got to the 2nd level it was over.

I don't think you are being overly optimistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's just so very inconsistent.  There are times when he will fight through arm tackles and look very physical.  Then there are times when he's taken out by the first guy.   Then again, our OL is putrid, and that will effect any RB behind them.

I think he could be a quality guy.  I hope so.  You can see when he gets some room, he's got some wheels.  The problem is everyone knows we're playing within 10 years of the LOS all game long so he's running into 8-9 all day long.

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

    • 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...