Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

66 Chevelle

Members
  • Content Count

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About 66 Chevelle

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

40 profile views
  1. I never said that there isn't a plan to get Streveler into games now... but what I question is, will they give him similar play time as in the past, come in on a 2 and short and then let him play the following down or two, or... will they get him there and let him play a couple of series? I don't think the amount of time that he got last year will tell us anything more than we know now... to be allowed to get a series or two we're going to have to be up or down really big, probably... to be seen, I guess...
  2. and the upside with him is, even if he doesn't work out at QB, with his 4.5 speed and size you could still put him in at slot or running back, lol... while at Minnesota he was getting snaps at QB and asked to play WR, which they did... but seriously, I think O'Shea owes it to the team to vet both properly and keep the best person to move forward with... however, last year when asked if we see more of Streveler in games, O'Shea replied with something along the line of he's already played more than most back ups do this year already... telling? maybe, maybe not... to be seen...
  3. not at all, in fact, that's my biggest fear... the truth of the matter is I don't believe there is any way to be able to keep both, not with the questions about what the new going rate for a QB is... I'm of the opinion that O'Shea needs to give Streveler enough snaps this year in live game action to ensure we as a team make the right decision on who to keep. I have no doubt that given the QB shortage in the CFL and the small sampling Streveler has shown, there will be teams interested in signing him. If we're going to do it, now would be time instead of letting him go and then be forced to keep a less mobile, aging Nichols for 3+ years more... I think O'Shea drags his feet on Streveler and then wants to sign Nichols because that would equal job security for him. Nichols would be a safe bet to win enough games a year to not get him fired. If Streveler struggles the first year he may feel like they make a change... but that's how I see it...
  4. while it's sad to say, and nobody wants to see any player get hurt, it does make for an easier transition to a new future QB.... even when they struggle you get to lean on the fact that you had no choice and fight thru them, where teams generally fight that difficult time as long as possible...
  5. and here in lies the rub... they've set the bar for what a should be making, at least by them getting paid that much is has set the precedence... but they are overpaid, but you have to believe that every starting QB will start with that number to back into what they think they're worth... so basically you'll QBs that should be making $300,000 to $400,000 asking and probably getting $500,000 to $600,000...
  6. as this is the end of a contract year for Nichols, it will be interesting to see what his 'ask' is in regards to pay...
  7. agree 100%, but when it is actual reality and actual truth, I'm talking fact based narrative, not "I think he sucks" type of crap, it's not an opinion, it is reality... no bubble busted here, but thanks for the insight...
  8. Collaros being 1 more hit away from being unable to play, probably... Collaros with out the multiple head bums? hard pass for me if I'm SSK...
  9. not promising you that I'll take your side, but I will promise you I won't be a straight up **** to you... but when or if you're right, I'll have no problem acknowledging it...
  10. if you're speaking to me, I have zero problem with anyone disagreeing or questioning my opinion, thoughts, or logic... further more, I enjoy discussing these difference with those that want to do as I've found over the years that I've learned way more from those I disagree with than those that agree, in most cases... but if people rather call names and make personal attacks, well, I guess we can go that route as well... you'll get what you give with me...
  11. all that from me posting Fajardo 's stat line from last night's game? lol... and I wasn't necessarily taking Ripper's side, just pointing out that it was a pretty impressive stat line, regardless of who you play. then when you consider what he's done in 2 and half games... but that's beside the point... but no chip on my shoulder... and I don't know what a 'TEP' is but I've got no issues... now that's not to say that some Nichols' fans may have issues with me because they have difficulties at time accepting reality, but... me? no issues? I'm good to go...
  12. Yo Skunk! good to hear from ya... I had seen you on here from time to time but didn't know how much you actually hung out here... thx for the kind words, much appreciated... at the time you left, me and you were kind of in the same boat, lol... it's gotten only slightly better for me since you've left... but you know me, lol... I'll probably hang out, at least for a while anyway and see how it goes... I was told that I didn't get off to a very good start though, so.... it may be bumpy, lol...
  13. when asked a question such as "does Nichols throw for enough yards" I would have to say that it depends as 'enough' is a relative word and could vary depending on what it's referring to. If you are referring to if he's throw for enough yards for us to win, the answer would be 'yes'.... one could easily come to the conclusion that while his total passing yards in each specific game would generally be considered a low total, it was enough to help get us a win so therefore any additional yards could be viewed unneeded... if you are referring to if he has thrown for enough yards to only help us win, but also the extra yards that could be expected from in game situational manner, yards that would help keep our offense on the field and their offense off the field, I'd say 'both yes and no'... in game 1 my answer would be yes, even though that game was the lower of the two in actual passing yards, but, not as many yards were required from him because Harris was picking up big chunks of yards that kept drives alive, getting first downs, and winning the time of possession battle. So in game one, while low in total, enough to meet both objectives. However, there were some blown opportunities in game one due to missing receivers deep that had their man beat that could have resulted in additional points and a larger buffer... in game 2 however, the answer is no... even though he threw for more yards than he did in game 1, just slightly more, we could have used more yards from him or his position as the running attack had struggled all night and for the most part ineffective. the team needed more yards from Nichols via the pass in order to keep drives alive, gain first downs, and keep the opponent's offense off the field in order to preserve the win. if you ask why does that fall on Nichols, I'd say because he's the only person that touches the ball on each offensive play and that when the run isn't working, in his role as field general, it's up to him to create offense when and as needed. I will say that there should be a component of reasonableness added to what should be expected from him though... personally, I don't feel that Nichols met the threshold of what should be considered reasonable in fulfilling his requirement of yards needed, even though we won the game. while everyone should be entitled to have those occasional 'off nights', it doesn't give you a 'pass' even when you win. though some feel that as long as you win why would it matter? I'd say that there are more components to winning a game than just the final score on the board. with as lopsided as the time of possession was, you had to be concerned not only with the possibility of losing the game, but also the health/safety and the mindset of the defensive players. asking those defensive player to go out there time and again will take a toll of them. fatigue can set in and cause a lapse in mental judgement that can result in blown assignments or costly penalties. and can also be demoralizing for your defense to go out there time and time again and keep them out of the end zone, come to the sidelines and a minute later be asked to go back in and do more. if this team is going to win a championship it's going to required all facets of the game. but the big for me is, the extra time out there for these guys puts them at higher, unneeded risk for injury. nothing can kill a run like having key injuries to players down the stretch. moving forward, how many yards are enough in future games, again, it's game by game relative to need. also, it depends on loss yards due to over/under throws, missed targets, etc., and how it effects the outcome of the game... I'll keep you posted...
  14. are you implying that my post are off topic? it's not as if I came into the thread and created a post that was completely unrelated... I was replying to post that already existed in this thread and were specific to the current conversation... but, I'd be more than happy to give you my take whether or not Nichols throws for enough yards... really not sure what all the hub bub is about... I added a post to the specific to the conversation that was currently being discusses and add information that was new as it had just happened that evening, hours maybe... after that, I'm replied to to comments made by others relative to my previous post... however, I didn't think that by taking part in the current conversation that I'd be accused of being a troll, but I didn't take issue with or come all unhinged and crap... I don't have an issue, I'm not sure why you all do...
  15. the only problem here is, it's not my 'boring and superficial opinion... it's fact... real truth... verifiable if you choose... surely that makes it less transparent, wouldn't you agree?
×
×
  • Create New...