No room for Rookie love?
Hello Watt
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Stinky Wizzleteats+ View PostBetter this weak, than last or next week IMO...Fighting for Carson...and Wilmington...ity:
- Top
- Bottom
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by homeless simpson View PostThis just goes against the myth that the current regime is the exact opposite of the previous regime, in that the previous regime would only play rookies as a last resort but prefers to start veterans.
Is that myth in your head? As evidenced by all the young players get snaps and practice time there is clearly more emphasis on player development. That doesnt mean theyre going to put someone in there who is detrimental.
- Top
- Bottom
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by blahblahblah View PostUhhh....
Is that myth in your head? As evidenced by all the young players get snaps and practice time there is clearly more emphasis on player development. That doesnt mean theyre going to put someone in there who is detrimental.
And is McCoy (or any other HC in the league) not preferring to start a more experienced player first....example, KA was not originally meant to play much his rookie year but Alexander never recovered from injury, Floyd went to IR, and Royal got injured which is when KA was forced to start opposite brown (that's 4 veterans starting ahead of KA); Pork chops didn't start ahead of more experienced players last year (even when on the board there was the thought that we should give these young guys experience since we're rebuilding anyway); fast forward to this year and neither of the Wats are getting a starting nod since we've been bringing in vet replacements (and still starting chops and reinhart); instead of using rookie rbs for return duties ahead of Donald Brown/woodhead (even before his injury) and even royal we've opted to stick with vets, with Mathews/woody out we brought in slightly more experienced rbs than the rookie rbs we already have on the roster; we brought in flowers even though some people thought Stevie Williams (even before he got injured) would've been the 3rd cb with Verrett being the other young starter; jj & freeney getting the majority of playing time ahead of the younger olbs or any other TE getting more snaps than green, even when posters keep saying limit freeney and JJ's snaps, or give Green more snaps.....
so, is the current staff that drastically different than the previous coaches in preferring to give playing time to vets over rookie or inexperienced players, or is it not just normal preference leaguewide by majority of coaches to play a higher percentage of vets over inexperienced players or rookies?
- Top
- Bottom
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by oneinchpunch View PostIm not reading anything into it.
Here's a case in point: Watt was not listed on the depth chart as the backup C; Legursky was. Watt reportedly took a few practice snaps, but no credible source has ever suggested Watt would start Sunday. Yet here you are asserting he's been demoted. Typical. Tell me what evidence you have that he was demoted. That's ok, no rush, I'm not expecting an actual answer from you.Adipose
-
👍 2
- Top
- Bottom
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by homeless simpson View Postso, is the current staff that drastically different than the previous coaches in preferring to give playing time to vets over rookie or inexperienced players, or is it not just normal preference leaguewide by majority of coaches to play a higher percentage of vets over inexperienced players or rookies?
Most coaches will, with the possible exception of rebuilding situations, start vets over rooks.
Norv seemingly only started rooks/young players if he had no vet alternative.
Current coaching staff seems sincere about playing the best players. They had no problem starting Fluker or giving Addae a lot of playing time as a rook. But they're not just going to start a rook over a vet for the sake of doin so. Legursky reportedly has picked up the offense and the line calls quickly, which is easier to do when you have experience. With the rash of injuries and the inconsistent play of Troutman, it's smart to have a stabilising vet presence on the line. Watt will have his day in the sun, and it may even come this season, but right now the coaching staff doesn't seem to think he's the best option at C. Heck, it may even be to protect Watt, given the slop at RG.Adipose
- Top
- Bottom
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Panama View PostYet you use charged words like "demoted." You are the most consistently inconsistent and hypocritical poster on this forum. You love to call out people for being imprecise or for making assertions without any evidence, yet when you are called out your dodge tactics would make a politician proud.
Here's a case in point: Watt was not listed on the depth chart as the backup C; Legursky was. Watt reportedly took a few practice snaps, but no credible source has ever suggested Watt would start Sunday. Yet here you are asserting he's been demoted. Typical. Tell me what evidence you have that he was demoted. That's ok, no rush, I'm not expecting an actual answer from you.
Originally posted by Formula Two One View PostLooks like Watt has been promoted. Changes needed to be made to the O-line.Last edited by oneinchpunch; 09-27-2014, 12:55 PM.Hashtag thepowderblues
- Top
- Bottom
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by oneinchpunch View PostI used the word "demoted" because someone said he was "promoted". He never was promoted so my comment that he was demoted was to say status quo for Watt right now.
He could be promoted at some point hopefully soon. But it hasnt happened yet. At least try and keep up.
- Top
- Bottom
Comment
-
Comment