snackattack

fair point. and i'm actually good with them dropping into coverage him every now and then to mix things up, so you gotta practice it. i'm bowing out... AG20 can fight his own battles...

i've never seen jaire alexander bull rush a left tackle successfully, but i'm going to assume and talk like he can't do it. you sir, either believe smith can cover or you don't. if you don't, then you are arguing just to argue and are the bane of rational posters, so i'm going to assume you think he can cover. if you think he can cover, then you should probably provide examples to counter AG20's logical assumption that he can't cover. edit: your second post was a better post.

Yes they will. No they shouldnt

i don't really feel this way, but admit its probably not right rubber stamp an A+ for someone who generates pressure but not sacks. finishing is definitely part of the evaluation. but a guy who generates pressure consistently is probably doing two things consistently- beating his man and doing what the play is designed to do. that gets you more than a participation trophy

i have been pretty impressed with a healthy kevin king. just need that man to stay healthy!

this isn't what i took away from LaFleur's presser the other day. he was asked about the difference between slot and boundary receivers / their skillsets. his response was that he doesn't think about it in terms of where they line up, but rather in terms of what sort of route they're expected to run. he said that you could have a guy line up in the slot, but run primarily vertical routes that have traditionally been run from the boundary. you could have a smaller / quick guy line up on the boundary but run a choice route. he also said one of his areas of focus is not allowing the defense to get a beat on what someone is going to do based on where they line up. so, i do think it matters who you place in the slot depending on what your play is designed to do / who is supposed to be the primary read. it isn't that all of our receivers are expected to be jacks of all trades because they could line up anywhere; its that they could line up anywhere based on how each play is designed to maximize their skillset.

spriggs gets no love

Didn't see this mentioned anywhere, and this sort of thing deserves its own thread coming into the dog days of summer. Thoughts?

is spriggs that bad? i thought he looked pretty decent last year.

Yall are making me think there is talk about gary here

i'm going with josh jackson. watching him last year, it felt like he was just a step behind many times. i think having a year under his belt learning the defense and the speed of the game will go a long way for him

agree that there are a million possibilities based on the details that we are only guessing at. not enough here to criticize someone over IMO.

you're going to go to the place where you want to be. said jerking around only becomes a deciding factor if you want to go both places equally. speaking from personal experience, i don't think negotiations during the hiring process significantly influence what you want to take. i think that is what a rational person would do anyway. maybe this guy is a real stickler and would take a less-preferred job just because he didn't get the first offer he was looking for from his preferred job.

haven't read all the back pages, so not sure if this has been discussed. i viewed the nixing as a budgetary thing. it doesn't mean that murphy would rather spend that money on a new parking lot instead of an expensive coach, it could have been that our coaching budget was already met and they needed someone's approval to go over, and didn't get it. it could also be a potential pay-disparity issue where the ST coach would be making more than other coordinators (do we know what lafleur and the coordinators make?), which can negatively impact engagement / culture in the organization, and they needed murphy's buy-in but didn't get it. murphy is responsible for not letting the organization fall into dysfunction again. until i see something that proves murphy was over-ruling or over-asserting himself, i'm going to take the path of least resistance and assume mark's involvement was needed for reasons that were not about the on field product.

this is probably the range where i'd like to start speculating on the rookies. that said, i still think graham has to win this round.