Tweet
No room for Rookie love?
-
Go Rivers! -
This 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.Comment
-
Sure there is but given the state of the OL it could be rough going with a rookie startingOriginally posted by Stinky Wizzleteats+ View PostHashtag thepowderbluesComment
-
Better this weak, than last or next week IMO...Go Rivers!Comment
-
Yes--This is a good week for all our dinged players to heal up and let the backups in some key areas show what they have. Interested to see Legursky do his thing at C. Smart move on TT's part to anticipate the need for a vet backup there a few weeks ago. Steelers have always had hard-nosed linemen, although the past 5 years hasn't seen the best O-line play by Pittsburgh...Originally posted by Stinky Wizzleteats+ View PostFighting for Carson...and Wilmington...
ity:Comment
-
Uhhh....Originally posted by homeless simpson View Post
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.Comment
-
in some thread a month ago (and maybe a few other times dating back to last year), someone stated that McCoy's coaching staff has a vastly different philosophy of playing/starting rookies because the previous staff preferred veterans and rookies only started due to injury or desperation. I asked which rookies or inexperienced players did we refuse to play or use before in the Norv era and which veterans did we start over them?Originally posted by blahblahblah View Post
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?Comment
-
Yet 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.Originally posted by oneinchpunch View Post
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.AdiposeComment
-
Both.Originally posted by homeless simpson View Post
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.AdiposeComment
-
Te'o Verret, Attachu, Addea, Fluker, Williams is really in his rookie year, he has been playing some to.Go Rivers!Comment
-
I 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.Originally posted by Panama View Post
He could be promoted at some point hopefully soon. But it hasnt happened yet. At least try and keep up.Originally posted by Formula Two One View PostLast edited by oneinchpunch; 09-27-2014, 11:55 AM.Hashtag thepowderbluesComment
-
Comment