Results 13 to 24 of 32
Thread: Leach versus Grubbs
-
10-24-2012, 05:43 PM #13Hyperbolic curmudgeometer
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
- Location
- Balmer Merlin Hon
- Posts
- 5,854
- Blog Entries
- 1
Re: Leach versus Grubbs
I think the OP may be giving Grubbs too much credit for the resurgence of the OL. Recall, if you will, that McKinnie wasn't signed until August 24 of last year, 18 days & 1 preseason game before opening day to learn calls & settle in with the rest of the OL. Grubbs was (& is) a good LG but part of his value that year was as someone who knew the system & as McKinnie's bridge to the rest of the line, could help him acclimatize. Once Grubbs went out, McKinnie was playing next to (first) the disaster known as LeVoir and (later) Gurode, who were not only less able than Grubbs but were also newcomers trying to settle into the system.
In sum, I don't think retaining Grubbs would have been quite so dramatic an upgrade as the OP seems to think over either Williams or Harewood, & I expect (or hope) that gap will narrow as the season progresses & everyone gets more experience playing next to one another.
Leach, meanwhile, is a force of nature, but he can only block one man at a time, & when he's leading Rice he's also showing the defense where the attack is coming. Giving him carries & swing passes is a good idea just to give the opponents something else to defend against, but maybe the team should explore a bit of misdirection keyed to him (keeping him in to pass block, faking dives into the line while Rice bounces outside for a flip from Flacco, etc.).
-
10-24-2012, 05:52 PM #14
Re: Leach versus Grubbs
Ok, point taken on Rice's lack of 3rd and long runs, it was just an example I threw out with absolutely ZERO research.
But I still disagree. Baltimore, Houston and San Fran have all been amongst the few best teams in football the past couple of years. 2 out of 4 teams in the championship games were running teams(Bmore and San Fran) and Bmore possibly only beat Houston because Schaub was out. The power run game, IMO is not dead. Consistantly being able and willing to run for 4 yards per carry will still win more games then you will lose.
-
Re: Leach versus Grubbs
They offered Grubbs the same contract as Yanda. That was with Leach on the team. There was room for both at that price.
Last edited by GOTA; 10-25-2012 at 05:36 AM.
-
10-24-2012, 05:55 PM #16Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Houston, TX Y'all
- Posts
- 34,414
-
10-24-2012, 06:45 PM #17
Re: Leach versus Grubbs
OK, a slightly different slant: Since we are "stuck" (LOL!!!) with the best FB in football, can we not make use of him in the passing game?
Pass to Rice, Boldin, Torry, and Jacoby or Pitta (depending on yardage needed). Play Leach in the backfield, bolstering Flacco's pass protection -- with our O line, Leach will be plenty busy! He is no great threat as a runner, but he's good for a few yards and he's not hopeless as a check-off receiver. Not being totally facetious here -- Leach might be able to get Flacco that extra half second he needs. And I'll bet he wouldn't hesitate to plant a leaping D lineman.
-
10-24-2012, 06:47 PM #18Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Houston, TX Y'all
- Posts
- 34,414
-
Re: Leach versus Grubbs
It is clear that Ravens fans have been so spoiled by draft success that they undervalue players who provide stability. Since Grubbs wasn't an All-Pro caliber player, like most of the Ravens' first round picks, he was overrated. However, they now lack stability at the position and could be looking at their third LG already (Osemele).
The same went with Jarret Johnson and Cory Redding."Please take with you this final sword, The Excellector. I am praying that your journey will be guided by the light", Leon Shore
-
Re: Leach versus Grubbs
I remember that draft well. OZ coveted Joe Staley to replace JO who would have had a year to groom him. Perfect scenario until former Raven assistant, Mike Nolin under Billick, knew Oz wanted Staley and traded above Oz to get him. Nolan left the Ravens to coach SF.
But it was a costly move because he gave up a future #1 and that cost him his job later when he was fired and didn't have enough talent.
But Ozzie's press conference was like a morgue. The company line said they were satisfied
with Grubbs, the next best player on Ozzie's board but you could tell by their body
language they were livid about losing Staley.
And we wouldn't have all these probs moving Oher back and forth.
-
10-25-2012, 07:35 AM #21Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2008
- Location
- Pasadena
- Posts
- 14,123
- Blog Entries
- 4
Re: Leach versus Grubbs
Grubbs also had a turf toe which we know linger. I was glad they didn't overpay for him.
-
10-25-2012, 07:42 AM #22Veteran Poster
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
- Posts
- 4,610
Re: Leach versus Grubbs
Last edited by srobert96; 10-25-2012 at 08:40 AM.
-
Re: Leach versus Grubbs
Not sure if you guys remember, but we did want Grubbs and offered him a pretty similar deal by most reports. He didnt want to play here anymore and went to play for his hometown team. I agree with Jonboy though, its not really one for one situation. If Grubbs did choose to sign that deal and stay we would have had issues and no Jones. I certainly would have been fine with that before the season, but hes been a nice surprise and im not sure what we lost with Grubbs isnt made up for by Jones, Williams, and Leach.
-JAB
-
10-25-2012, 09:25 AM #24
Re: Leach versus Grubbs
Grubbs was overpaid and not having a stellar year, but he's not awful either.
Scoring as the 24th ranked OG while allowing 2 sacks, 2 hits and 2 hurries as per PFF.com.
(Yanda scores at the 2nd ranked OG, just a hair behind Alex Boone)
Paying $65M to your OGs is just a bit crazy, so for that reason alone, I favor Leach.
However, I'd be fine with a 3WR/1TE (byebye Dickson) + Rice and Pierce platooning the single back position, if we'd put Leach's $3M into the OL.
Bookmarks