- Joined
- Oct 7, 2012
- Messages
- 17,357
Ok, this I can work with because you're just sticking to the statements. I'll address (in red) your statements (in bold):@LuCane
You are obfuscating.
YOU SAID THE FOLLOWING:
“Let's stop for a second and take note that @Mico Jones doesn't acknowledge the massive changes in formations and how TE usage has changed over the past 20 years”
Plus this gem
“You just named me Keith Jackson, who still played inline a ton, and Jim Jenson, who doubled as an H-Back, as your counterexamples? You're BSing with the wrong guy. Winslow senior played inline as well.”
I showed you how that it hasn’t changed at all. There are no massive formation or usage changes just the frequency of use.
I also showed you how Winslow spent the majority of time flexed. Its not just him. Todd Christianson was the quintessential H Back. Jim Jensen another. Marino flexed, Green, Jackson, etc. Remember Shannon Sharpe.
None of this is new.
You also said
"You go on to say: LIKE RICHT(Stanford, Michigan, FSU, Alabama,etc.) that still use a TE in line and double tight formations a TON.
No ****. That's the point. The frequency (as you put it) of flex'd out TEs vs inline TEs has gone 180 degrees. Which is to say there is a bigger use for flex guys' quickness now than there was back then. You are basically making my argument for me, but too emotional to realize it, apparently.
NOOOO. You are saying he gets to 285 you start looking to move him DT because the college game requires/prefers smaller athletic TEs. I’m saying the reverse. At 285 he's bigger than most Tes. He’s a rare asset teams stopped looking for because they were so difficult to find. Therefore, you take advantage of the mismatch he creates at TE.
You are obfuscating.
I'm not. Certinaly not intentionally. But, will gladly clarify whatever seems like it to you.
YOU SAID THE FOLLOWING:
“Let's stop for a second and take note that @Mico Jones doesn't acknowledge the massive changes in formations and how TE usage has changed over the past 20 years”
To me, we're talking passed each other at this point. I am aware and have acknowledged that TEs were moved around, moved into the slot or out wide (minority cases) in the past. My point has consistently been this has drastically changed. You call it frequency. I call it massive changes because all over football - from HS to the NFL - you consistently (this is my key word for this discussion) see traditional TEs flex'd in the slot, out wide and overall used in positions other than inline. It happens so much more now than before that I consider that very big. Apparently, you agree it happens more.
Plus this gem
“You just named me Keith Jackson, who still played inline a ton, and Jim Jenson, who doubled as an H-Back, as your counterexamples? You're BSing with the wrong guy. Winslow senior played inline as well. I showed you how that it hasn’t changed at all. There are no massive formation or usage changes just the frequency of use.”
Are you saying Keith Jackson didn't play a bunch of inline? Or, Winslow? I don't get it. Winslow was moved around more than even Jackson. Jim Jenson played everywhere and was used in motion a ton. Shannon Sharpe played inline in the single back a ton. You know that as well as anyone. You mentioned guys who anyone will concede were used in a lot of different ways to contradict what? My point is things have changed.
Where guys capable of flexing out before were used that way and inline, they'd now primarily be used flex'd. You're saying that nothing has changed "only the frequency." What exactly are we disagreeing with here? Isn't that precisely what I'm saying? Because TEs are used A TON more a particular way now (which you agree with), that = big changes.
Some time ago during this season, I posted the differences between 11, 12, 22 personnel groupings in current football. It has changed a bunch (in terms of percentage used) where it's in the minority now. To me, and you can correct me by all means, it seems like you're arguing to argue and prove "superior football knowledge." I find that pointless, but ok.
NOOOO. You are saying he gets to 285 you start looking to move him DT because the college game requires/prefers smaller athletic TEs. I’m saying the reverse. At 285 he's bigger than most Tes. He’s a rare asset teams stopped looking for because they were so difficult to find. Therefore, you take advantage of the mismatch he creates at TE.
Ok, if this is the heart of our disagreement, this back and forth could have been a lot simpler and far more substantive. I disagree. If he gets up to 285, which is a total "what if" I'd assess his attributes at that point. If you've seen him play live, which maybe you have, he's already not the quickest guy out there. I never said it's because it requires. I said it's because it relates to potentially placing him at whatever position makes him the most $$$. You disagree with that?
Because of that, IF (i'm capitalizing not to yell but so no one misses this again) he gets up to that weight, I'd have a simple talk with him about how he intends to make his $$$. Could it be at LT? Could it be at SSDE in the pros? Could it be at DT? I have no idea. But, I consistently go across this board sharing what players have told me over the years: they want to make money. I want them to stay motivated. I will always consider moving a player to keep him motivated and put him in the best position to make $$$. To be clear, I'm not predicting it or calling for it. I'm saying if those conditions happen, and I'm a coach and even Haskins, I strongly consider all the alternatives.
Is that really something to get so bent out of shape over?
More red ink than a 6th grade teacher
