Jump to content

2019 NFL Combine


squire12

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Toddfather said:

Not to mention if we learned something from last years draft Gutey likes his WRs over 6 feet.

Well, if we were going to add another WR, it's unlikely to be another 6'4" 4.4 guy, since we have two of those.  It's conceivable that who we want to replace is Cobb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, PossibleCabbage said:

Well, if we were going to add another WR, it's unlikely to be another 6'4" 4.4 guy, since we have two of those.  It's conceivable that who we want to replace is Cobb.

I was thinking about that last night. It sounds like our base offence is going to be 21 personnel (2WR, 1TE, 1FB, 1 RB) then that means the slot receiver is not as important fixture in our offence. The short area receiving work would be done by our TE, RB and FB instead.

I would say it is much more likely LaFleur will look to add a speed guy alongside a precision route runner (Adams) in two wide WR sets as Shanahan and McVay has done with their teams. Whether that speed guy is 6'4" or 5'10" who knows? I don't think we will be looking for someone who skillset is built for the slot to replace Cobb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Chili said:

I was thinking about that last night. It sounds like our base offence is going to be 21 personnel (2WR, 1TE, 1FB, 1 RB) then that means the slot receiver is not as important fixture in our offence. The short area receiving work would be done by our TE, RB and FB instead.

I would say it is much more likely LaFleur will look to add a speed guy alongside a precision route runner (Adams) in two wide WR sets as Shanahan and McVay has done with their teams. Whether that speed guy is 6'4" or 5'10" who knows? I don't think we will be looking for someone who skillset is built for the slot to replace Cobb.

What the hell are you talking about? What on earth makes you think we're going back to using a Fullback?

The Zone Running schemes don't heavily utilize a fullback. Why would you want a lead blocker running when he doesn't know where the hole your RB is going to pick is?

The positional groups from last year of our HC and OC's offenses along with the 2018 Rams and Packers:

Titans: 2.45 WRs/1.52 TEs/1.02 RB/FBs per snap.

Jaguars: 2.61 WRs/1.22 TEs/1.16RB/FBs per snap.

Packers: 2.72 WRs/1.27TEs/1.01RB/FBs

Rams: 2.9WRs/1.1TEs/1.00RB/FBs

The Fullback is dead. Leave it in the past.

Stop trying to make your 1980 offense happen. It's not going to happen.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Stop trying to make your 1980 offense happen. It's not going to happen.  

Lol i'm not. Just going off what LaFleur and Gute said. It sure sounds like we will be incorporating the fullback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Chili said:

Lol i'm not. Just going off what LaFleur and Gute said. It sure sounds like we will be incorporating the fullback.

FBs are death to an offense. 

If you can't beat your defensive counterpart running a route, you shouldn't be on the field in an NFL offense, with the possible exception of strong pass blocking RBs, and even there you would favor the guy who can actually contribute catching the ball. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

FBs are death to an offense. 

If you can't beat your defensive counterpart running a route, you shouldn't be on the field in an NFL offense, with the possible exception of strong pass blocking RBs, and even there you would favor the guy who can actually contribute catching the ball. 

The Patriots won the superbowl using a FB. Just saying....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

FBs are death to an offense. 

If you can't beat your defensive counterpart running a route, you shouldn't be on the field in an NFL offense, with the possible exception of strong pass blocking RBs, and even there you would favor the guy who can actually contribute catching the ball. 

I usually tend to agree with you. 

Not this time..

i believe that the FB does have a place in this offense..

why? LaFleur said as much.

To be fair, he also said that , said FB, needs to be able to catch the ball.

I am really looking forward to seeing the new version of this offense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, 66PinG said:

I usually tend to agree with you. 

Not this time..

i believe that the FB does have a place in this offense..

why? LaFleur said as much.

To be fair, he also said that , said FB, needs to be able to catch the ball.

I am really looking forward to seeing the new version of this offense.

As a redzone guy who catches passes off of playaction, sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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




×
×
  • Create New...