Results 37 to 48 of 87
-
08-12-2013, 06:06 PM #37Regular 1st Stringer
- Join Date
- Aug 2011
- Posts
- 185
Re: Boldin Replaced by Durmervil and Huff?
If we kept Boldin and still lost Pitta
i believe Boldin would have been actually diminished by more attention toward him in the short passing game.so its done
-
08-12-2013, 06:07 PM #38
-
Re: Boldin Replaced by Durmervil and Huff?
You also said "and posters". I'm assuming that you mean message board posters.
As for those others you communicate, I can't speak for them other to say I don't think they are too knowledgable. But I do know that based on thing like ticket sales practice attendances and the TV ratings of our preseason game, Boldin or not, this city is still extremely excited about this team and not anticipating a year where we "suck".
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HDAlthough Walsh's system of offense can compensate for lack of talent; however, defense is a different story. According to Walsh, talent on defense was essential and could not be compensated for. What did Walsh do in 1981? He acquired physical and talented players on defense.
-
Re: Boldin Replaced by Durmervil and Huff?
"Please take with you this final sword, The Excellector. I am praying that your journey will be guided by the light", Leon Shore
-
08-12-2013, 06:14 PM #41Veteran Poster
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
- Posts
- 4,553
Re: Boldin Replaced by Durmervil and Huff?
-
08-12-2013, 06:19 PM #42Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Houston, TX Y'all
- Posts
- 34,414
Re: Boldin Replaced by Durmervil and Huff?
It's a combination of the "sum of the parts" and being in the position to capitalize.
I agree, we didn't need to get rid of Boldin to get Canty *or* Doom *or* Huff etc.
But we did need to get rid of him to (1) be in the position to revamp our defense (2) to be in a position to allow an opportunity like Doom to be capitalized one (3) sign the rookies and (4) react quickly and smartly should we have any injury issues.
I remember the numerous threads on these boards about the space we had going into camp, with critics saying we needed to spend that money. Well, Pitta going down is why you leave a little wiggle room so you can go out and snag a Stokley / Clark.
Are they going to be world beaters? No, of course not. But they don't have to be. We're only talking 900 yards and 4 TD's (Boldin's output in the regular season). They are roll players at this point in their careers and I imagine our coaching staff is smart enough to use them that way.
-
Re: Boldin Replaced by Durmervil and Huff?
FWIW, I may not be speaking for them (the others who think other moves may have been more prudent), but I know for myself, I fully expected this team, even before Stokley and Clark post Pitta injury to be a good team and make the playoffs.
We felt the lack of a guy like Boldin or a suitable replacement may have an impact on seeding and how far we go. That's all.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HDAlthough Walsh's system of offense can compensate for lack of talent; however, defense is a different story. According to Walsh, talent on defense was essential and could not be compensated for. What did Walsh do in 1981? He acquired physical and talented players on defense.
-
08-12-2013, 06:22 PM #44Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Houston, TX Y'all
- Posts
- 34,414
-
08-12-2013, 06:33 PM #45Veteran Poster
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
- Posts
- 4,553
Re: Boldin Replaced by Durmervil and Huff?
Boldin's regular season stats are irrelevant. We don't win the Superbowl if Boldin is putting up regular season stats. 0% chance. No one here who is complaining about letting Boldin go are doing so because they are fearful of losing the regular season stats.
Revamp the defense is an entirely relative term. Again, that could have been done with Boldin here. It just would have required a couple less FAs. Doom and the rookies could have been signed with a Jameel McClain and Leach release (at the time).
As for reacting to injuries and having wiggle room. I would say that when you start off voluntarily creating a big hole on the offense, saying you did it to possible patch another hole that might be created by injury doesn't make much sense. We also do not have to cut all our cap space we will ever possibly need in the month of March.
The whole debate comes down to two arguments 1) did we voluntarily subtract more from the offense than we gained from the more marginal additions to our defense, and 2) could we have found most or all of that cap space in way less painful moves (Jameel, etc.).
If the situation was actually (as opposed to erroneously claimed) that we had to choose between Boldin and Dumervil + Canty + Huff. I would choose Dumervil + Canty + Huff. Because Dumervil and Canty especially, but also somewhat Huff, are goind to be great additions at spots where we were lacking. So I am well aware of the necessity to weigh the gains and losses, i.e. the sum of the parts.
But if Boldin was let go to afford Jameel, Leach, Spears, Reed, and maybe Smith, then I think the loss absolutely outweighs the marginal gains of that handful of players (above their replacements). Obviously you and others disagree.Last edited by Haloti92; 08-12-2013 at 06:41 PM.
-
-
08-12-2013, 06:45 PM #47Regular 1st Stringer
- Join Date
- Jul 2007
- Posts
- 873
-
08-12-2013, 06:46 PM #48Veteran Poster
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
- Posts
- 4,553
Bookmarks