Kirill Posted January 19, 2020 Share Posted January 19, 2020 Just now, The LBC said: Yeah, if anything, you offer to pay him heavier on the APY than the market says should be the case in order to get an easier-out on the guarantees after 2 years or so. Unless something substantially new comes out of the next CBA (which I wouldn't hold my breath to benefit RB's, because they rarely if ever have), that seems like the soundest solution to find a middle-ground between teams and elite-producing RB's. Seems very unlikely he sees the 3rd year of that deal then. Something like 14M after 2 more years of heavy touches? I would just tag him. 10M/1yr, and you get him playing like a madman in another contract year again. He's hard to take down because of his nasty stiff arm so defenders are regularly diving at his knees. He could take one hit and then be done. Tag is the safest option, even though it's kind of unfair, it's just the nature of that position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renndawg37 Posted January 19, 2020 Share Posted January 19, 2020 Just now, Soggust said: Yes it is. Is it a ****ty rule? Probably, but that's been called all season long. No, it really isn't DPI. Absolute joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rivers Posted January 19, 2020 Share Posted January 19, 2020 Just now, N4L said: Can't believe vrabel didn't challenge that good point. I would have and also thrown a fit - get the point across 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrry32 Posted January 19, 2020 Share Posted January 19, 2020 Just now, TitanLegend said: Sums it up, but we about to pay Henry 13 mil a year anyway. See what happens to Tannehill's effectiveness if you stop having a running game teams have to defend. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drew39k Posted January 19, 2020 Share Posted January 19, 2020 Just now, N4L said: Can't believe vrabel didn't challenge that Wouldn't be overturned because it wasn't ultra blatant, but yeah, i agree, should have at least throw the challenge to make a point Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oregon Ducks Posted January 19, 2020 Share Posted January 19, 2020 Good call. #35 is not good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanLegend Posted January 19, 2020 Share Posted January 19, 2020 Just now, jrry32 said: See what happens to Tannehill's effectiveness if you stop having a running game teams have to defend. This implies we need Derrick Henry to have a running game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dtait93 Posted January 19, 2020 Share Posted January 19, 2020 We got dominated in the 2nd half who cares if it’s a DPI 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony7188 Posted January 19, 2020 Share Posted January 19, 2020 That P.I. call was ridiculous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Linlin Posted January 19, 2020 Share Posted January 19, 2020 Just now, TitanLegend said: This implies we need Derrick Henry to have a running game. You don't? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChazStandard Posted January 19, 2020 Share Posted January 19, 2020 Just now, drew39k said: Wouldn't be overturned because it wasn't ultra blatant, but yeah, i agree, should have at least throw the challenge to make a point Except you can't interfere if you don't initiate contact, in that sense it was cut and dry. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Buzz Posted January 19, 2020 Share Posted January 19, 2020 Just now, TitanLegend said: This implies we need Derrick Henry to have a running game. I mean... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jakuvious Posted January 19, 2020 Share Posted January 19, 2020 1 minute ago, ChazStandard said: He doesn't even have to get his head around if he doesn't make contact. He's entitled to his ground, and faceguarding is not a penalty. The WR turns and jumps into the CB, that should be no penalty. Doesn't work that way, physically. The WR stops. He's entitled to his current ground. So on an underthrow, when the WR stops and the CB keeps running into him, it's the WR that's entitled to where he already is. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BayRaider Posted January 19, 2020 Share Posted January 19, 2020 (edited) I think Niners would beat KC in the SB. KC would beat GB in the SB. I would expect the line of KC vs SF to probably be -2 SF. If it’s KC vs GB I expect the line to be -5 KC. Edited January 19, 2020 by BayRaider 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrry32 Posted January 19, 2020 Share Posted January 19, 2020 Just now, TitanLegend said: This implies we need Derrick Henry to have a running game. It implies you might end up with a massive step down at HB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.