• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About skinny21

Contact Methods

  • Location
    Round Rock, TX via Cabin John, MD
  1. The Defensive Line Thread - Who makes the cut?

    Good catch @Califan007, lol! Edited my post.
  2. The Defensive Line Thread - Who makes the cut?

    Interesting article about the roster below (thanks Hap!). Talks about positional numbers. Unless something changes, I think Standig (the author) is right that we carry a 7th Dlineman - Allen, Taylor, Hood, McClain, McGee, Ioannidas and Lanier. Unless something changes, I'm now thinking they keep an extra db, wr and Dlineman. Of course, injuries happen and this next game being our dress rehearsal, well, who knows. I think they can pretty safely PS Sudfeld, Sprinkle and Mack Brown (he's probably the least safe given the nature of backs fitting in more readily) and call them up in the event of an injury. Marley and Harvey Clemons are PS candidates as well, IMO. Nicholson and Davis don't seem as safe to try to stash. 2 qbs, 3 rbs, 4 tes, 6 wrs, 9 oline = 24 5 safeties, 6 corners, 4 ilbs, 4 olbs and 7 dline = 26 I think Carter is my current wildcard. I'm guessing there's a small chance they keep him over Harris/Nicholson/Dunbar/Blackmon. One last thing... I wonder what they do when Hall's eligible to return. Hmm... Anyway, here's the article... it's a good read and snapshot of the situation. Edit: thanks for checking my math Cali - edited the numbers accordingly... which meant adding an olinemen and which makes me think it will come down to Sudfeld or Sprinkle/Carrier. I'd like it to be Sprinkle, but I think they hold on to Sudfeld given Gruden's penchant for keeping 3 qbs.
  3. Bill Callahan and the Offensive Line

    Interesting that last year (with McVay calling the O), was the best showing from the run game (in terms of average vs attempts). Also interesting that forcing the run (the two times his team was top 10 in attempts), were the two worst results. Of course, I'm leery of putting too much weight on these for numerous reasons, but it certainly looks like striving for a more balanced approach leads to solid running (breaking even ranking-wise) and better than average passing.
  4. @tshileI'm not sure I'm for nation building persay, but I do feel that most times using force leads to long term, ingrained hatred. I'd (generally) much prefer to try to win hearts/minds. Of course, we've gone so far down the rabbit hole, and digging our way out looks virtually impossible. BTW, Russia supporting the Taliban, ugh.
  5. Bill Callahan and the Offensive Line

    Right there with you. Honestly, I have to wonder if he has some sort of injury, 'cause the only other reasons I can up with are 1) he really took it easy in the offseason or 2) they're trying new things with in terms of scheme. #2 doesn't really make too much sense to me (still gotta block your man), but it does maybe fit (communication-wise) with the missed assignments, etc. I don't know, the poor line play (and the extent of the ineptitude of the run game), including Scherff's play has me a little befuddled.
  6. @RandyHolt - you've been sorta banging the drum for the hurry up for a while now, right? When you see Cousins run the two minute offense, I think he often looks comfortable and plays at a high level. I feel like it gives him less time to over think things (I felt the same about Griffin). Anyway, utilizing the hurry up and a spread offense more often are two things that could be great weapons in the arsenal. I'd argue that both are best run by smart qbs that have quick releases, and both can be an asset to the run game. The last piece to the puzzle is the defense. You want to be able to rest them, but I think having solid depth on the line can help this.
  7. Bill Callahan and the Offensive Line

    That 7/10 remark takes me back. That was an issue I had with Gruden early on in his tenure here. Of course, as frustrated as it made me, it makes some degree of sense. 1) It can help make 1st down PA that much more effective. 2) a modest gain means you're more willing to utilize short passes on 2nd and 3rd downs. 3) It forces a bit more balance, which I'd guess is especially helpful to an ex-qb coordinator. Tendencies can be helpful, in that when you break it, you're more apt to catch the defense off guard. Personally though, I'd put a lot of effort in avoiding tendencies altogether (well, as best you can). On to the oline... I seem to recall the idea that Gruden's PA passing was set up to mesh with a man blocking scheme and the only reason they kept the zone blocking was to give some familiarity to the current (at the time) oline. Not sure what developed from there though (seems we're still running a hybrid scheme in terms of run blocking). I'm assuming he added some PA off the zone stuff, but...
  8. The 2017 Training Camp Discussion Thread

    Well, our starting safeties were both 2nd round picks, so there's that. Swearinger also played at a high level last year, which is more than we can say about most of the guys we've tried back there in recent memory. As has been mentioned though, I think our scheme, coaching and improvement in the front 7 will be have the biggest impact on the safety position. I believe Cravens can play SS at a high level for us, but 1) there's no guarantee that he does, and 2) if he does, it may take a good while. The biggest concern seems to be his speed (well, his health first and foremost), but I think he can make a difference coming forward, and hopefully he'll help vs more athletic tes. I expect his transition to take some time though... and I wouldn't be surprised if Everett starts in his place for a bit. Regarding Swearinger, I wonder if the best thing he offers us is cerebral - improved communication, heart/swagger, and leadership.
  9. The 2017 Training Camp Discussion Thread

    Addressed? Yes. Answered? Who knows. Hard to be too optimistic given our recent history, but at least our starters are younger guys with pedigree.
  10. The Official "Marvel" Thread (Movies,Comics etc)

    Wasn't real big on Iron Fist. Of course, it has the disadvantage of being compared to Daredevil (and the other two), as opposed to comparing it to the CW type super hero shows. It's a little like Tom Hanks' character in Big becoming a superhero except far less endearing and with more (pretty corny) anger. Anyway, I have a few Defenders episodes left, and I gotta say that I like his character a bit more now. Also, Jessica Jones is a good foil for the others (I was initially worried how she'd fit in).
  11. Game Day Thread - Redskins vs Packers

    I don't have NFL network and will be at an awesome concert tonight, so I'd appreciate as much play-by-play as possible! Thanks #spoiled
  12. Can't even spell "heil". Sad.
  13. Eh, he's a whiny baby - he could resign and then blame it on the fake media, witch hunt, swampy Washington or whatever... and he might even believe it. You're right that he's got a huge ego, but I think he's also delusional enough to convince himself of absolutely anything.
  14. Seems to me that the big winners in the case of a stricter immigration policy (of enforcement of it) would be the big farms. The massive companies (Monsanto) that can actually afford the automation (or already have it in place). The other group would be importers... or so I'd guess. If I'm right about that, does this pit importers against these large farming orgs? And if that's the case, does that mean that either way, Americans lose ground? To clarify, this is coming from my opinion that expanding exports and increasing the monopolies of big businesses generally goes against what is best for our country - similar to manufacturing being outsourced overseas (China). Edit: not that I'm a protectionist, but I assume the above removes more money from our economy, and I worry that too much reliance on importing food can be highly problematic in terms of global crises (extended supply lines in wartime, for example).
  15. Nationwide Removal of Confederate Statues

    I truly appreciate you (and some others that have echoed the same sentiments) as a poster. And so it kind of saddens me to see this point made. Predicto nailed it way back in the thread - you have to look at why people have statues, roads, schools, etc. named after them. The WH is pushing the equivalency of Lee and Washington because they were both slave holders, but that's not why they are celebrated. For Lee, it is/was due to his role as a Confederate general, for Washington it's due to his role as a Revolutionary general, Founding Father and 1st President. Nobody is perfect, but we can generally agree that people are memorialized for the good things they've done, not their flaws. The "good" thing(s) Lee did are directly related to his role as a traitor fighting to uphold slavery. I'd go into the folks you mentioned, but hopefully you get the idea.