M.O.A.B. Posted June 19, 2014 Report Share Posted June 19, 2014 As someone twitted, Hickman has connection with the Riders too - Corey Chamblin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBURGESS Posted June 19, 2014 Report Share Posted June 19, 2014 I get that other teams might have advantages that we can't match, but I'd be making a big offer for sure. I just don't want to hear 'were not interested' yet again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atomic Posted June 19, 2014 Report Share Posted June 19, 2014 I get that other teams might have advantages that we can't match, but I'd be making a big offer for sure. I just don't want to hear 'were not interested' yet again. Hickman is a hell of player, but I think management is pretty happy with Vega and Peach on the ends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GCn20 Posted June 19, 2014 Report Share Posted June 19, 2014 Hickman did a good job on a crap OL, but he was a pretty one dimensional DE. He struggled badly against the run, and Hamilton put up horrific numbers against the run the year he finished 2nd in the sack race. Not saying a pure pass rusher is a bad thing under certain defensive systems but he would be a below average player in an Etch defence. Since I don't see Etch going anywhere this year I would take a pass on Hickman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.O.A.B. Posted June 19, 2014 Report Share Posted June 19, 2014 I get that other teams might have advantages that we can't match, but I'd be making a big offer for sure. I just don't want to hear 'were not interested' yet again. Hickman is a hell of player, but I think management is pretty happy with Vega and Peach on the ends. It's not being happy about what we have. It's about adding a player that will be impactful to us. What do you think of a DL with Vega, Turner, Anderson, Hickman with Peach as the DI. The only challenge that I could see how we fit it on the ratio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted June 19, 2014 Report Share Posted June 19, 2014 GCn is right, there probably isn't a mutual interest because of scheme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floyd Posted June 19, 2014 Report Share Posted June 19, 2014 Huh, it seemed to me like Hickman would totally fit into Etch's scheme... as much as Peach does anyway. Also waiting to see one of our DL actually drop back into coverage - maybe I missed it, maybe we were running vanilla schemes too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBURGESS Posted June 19, 2014 Report Share Posted June 19, 2014 I get that other teams might have advantages that we can't match, but I'd be making a big offer for sure. I just don't want to hear 'were not interested' yet again. Hickman is a hell of player, but I think management is pretty happy with Vega and Peach on the ends. Hickman is way better than Peach IMHO. Blueandgold 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goalie Posted June 19, 2014 Report Share Posted June 19, 2014 GCn is right, there probably isn't a mutual interest because of scheme. I tend to agree but I'm going to ask anyways, What the hell type of scheme are we running when we have no interest in Laurent or Hickman? Don't you normally want the best players who are available and you make it work? If we aren't signing guys based on schemes we are setting ourself up for failure. Ratio breaking tackle in Laurent, pass cuz he doesn't fit the scheme? Hickman, i'm not sure what you'd get with him, he's been gone a while but to pass on him just because of scheme? Seems ridiculous. How many guys are we going to not be interested in due to scheme? Westy Sucks 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueandgold Posted June 19, 2014 Report Share Posted June 19, 2014 So because of our scheme guys like Jake Thomas & Greg Peach are superior to Ted Laurent & Justin Hickman? I ain't buying it. DR. CFL, Goalie, James and 2 others 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbrg Posted June 19, 2014 Report Share Posted June 19, 2014 GCn is right, there probably isn't a mutual interest because of scheme. I tend to agree but I'm going to ask anyways, What the hell type of scheme are we running when we have no interest in Laurent or Hickman? Don't you normally want the best players who are available and you make it work? If we aren't signing guys based on schemes we are setting ourself up for failure. Ratio breaking tackle in Laurent, pass cuz he doesn't fit the scheme? Hickman, i'm not sure what you'd get with him, he's been gone a while but to pass on him just because of scheme? Seems ridiculous. How many guys are we going to not be interested in due to scheme? Much as we would have liked to have Laurent here and will undoubtedly never hear the end of it from some guys, Laurent was a free agent and not terribly likely to come here regardless of scheme. In my opinion, Winnipeg would have been last on his list of teams to play for. As for the DL, they will be expected to attack from multiple angles, overload sides, drop into coverage on occasion and disguise blitzes. As I understand our defense that is. To do any of this they will have to be fast and dynamic. I don't know how well Peach is suited to this. Vega and Turner would seem ideal. Thomas is Canadian, but if he can also be relatively fast with this feet, that's a big step. If we were living in 2011 and looking for someone to replace Doug Brown in a 4-3 Greg Marshall defence, Laurent would be the best choice I could think of. Sticking him in this defence would likely be a disaster. He would not be able to do anything required of him. blitzmore 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.O.A.B. Posted June 19, 2014 Report Share Posted June 19, 2014 GCn is right, there probably isn't a mutual interest because of scheme. I tend to agree but I'm going to ask anyways, What the hell type of scheme are we running when we have no interest in Laurent or Hickman? Don't you normally want the best players who are available and you make it work? If we aren't signing guys based on schemes we are setting ourself up for failure. Ratio breaking tackle in Laurent, pass cuz he doesn't fit the scheme? Hickman, i'm not sure what you'd get with him, he's been gone a while but to pass on him just because of scheme? Seems ridiculous. How many guys are we going to not be interested in due to scheme? Much as we would have liked to have Laurent here and will undoubtedly never hear the end of it from some guys, Laurent was a free agent and not terribly likely to come here regardless of scheme. In my opinion, Winnipeg would have been last on his list of teams to play for. As for the DL, they will be expected to attack from multiple angles, overload sides, drop into coverage on occasion and disguise blitzes. As I understand our defense that is. To do any of this they will have to be fast and dynamic. I don't know how well Peach is suited to this. Vega and Turner would seem ideal. Thomas is Canadian, but if he can also be relatively fast with this feet, that's a big step. If we were living in 2011 and looking for someone to replace Doug Brown in a 4-3 Greg Marshall defence, Laurent would be the best choice I could think of. Sticking him in this defence would likely be a disaster. He would not be able to do anything required of him. In that sense, IF Bilukidi becomes available comes August, should the Bombers pursue him? Does he fits Etch scheme? Floyd 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goalie Posted June 19, 2014 Report Share Posted June 19, 2014 GCn is right, there probably isn't a mutual interest because of scheme. I tend to agree but I'm going to ask anyways, What the hell type of scheme are we running when we have no interest in Laurent or Hickman? Don't you normally want the best players who are available and you make it work? If we aren't signing guys based on schemes we are setting ourself up for failure. Ratio breaking tackle in Laurent, pass cuz he doesn't fit the scheme? Hickman, i'm not sure what you'd get with him, he's been gone a while but to pass on him just because of scheme? Seems ridiculous. How many guys are we going to not be interested in due to scheme? Much as we would have liked to have Laurent here and will undoubtedly never hear the end of it from some guys, Laurent was a free agent and not terribly likely to come here regardless of scheme. In my opinion, Winnipeg would have been last on his list of teams to play for. As for the DL, they will be expected to attack from multiple angles, overload sides, drop into coverage on occasion and disguise blitzes. As I understand our defense that is. To do any of this they will have to be fast and dynamic. I don't know how well Peach is suited to this. Vega and Turner would seem ideal. Thomas is Canadian, but if he can also be relatively fast with this feet, that's a big step. If we were living in 2011 and looking for someone to replace Doug Brown in a 4-3 Greg Marshall defence, Laurent would be the best choice I could think of. Sticking him in this defence would likely be a disaster. He would not be able to do anything required of him. Oh no, i agree with you, I knew Laurent wouldn't come here, I'm just saying, what type of scheme are we running when we don't have interest in ratio breakers and former game breaking defensive ends? It seems ridiculous to me that we are passing on guys (regardless if they would sign here or not) based on scheme. I understand they probably wouldn't come here but... to have no interest in them because of our scheme? It doesn't really make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billfrank Posted June 19, 2014 Report Share Posted June 19, 2014 GCn is right, there probably isn't a mutual interest because of scheme. I tend to agree but I'm going to ask anyways, What the hell type of scheme are we running when we have no interest in Laurent or Hickman? Don't you normally want the best players who are available and you make it work? If we aren't signing guys based on schemes we are setting ourself up for failure. Ratio breaking tackle in Laurent, pass cuz he doesn't fit the scheme? Hickman, i'm not sure what you'd get with him, he's been gone a while but to pass on him just because of scheme? Seems ridiculous. How many guys are we going to not be interested in due to scheme? Much as we would have liked to have Laurent here and will undoubtedly never hear the end of it from some guys, Laurent was a free agent and not terribly likely to come here regardless of scheme. In my opinion, Winnipeg would have been last on his list of teams to play for. As for the DL, they will be expected to attack from multiple angles, overload sides, drop into coverage on occasion and disguise blitzes. As I understand our defense that is. To do any of this they will have to be fast and dynamic. I don't know how well Peach is suited to this. Vega and Turner would seem ideal. Thomas is Canadian, but if he can also be relatively fast with this feet, that's a big step. If we were living in 2011 and looking for someone to replace Doug Brown in a 4-3 Greg Marshall defence, Laurent would be the best choice I could think of. Sticking him in this defence would likely be a disaster. He would not be able to do anything required of him. When I look at the combine numbers for Jake Thomas versus Laurent, they are virtually identical for 10,20 and 40 yard dashes, even though Laurent is/was about 45 lbs heavier. I have to admit I have not seen Laurent play much recently, and these numbers are from 2011, but for those of you that are more familiar with his recent play, is he really less mobile, or just bigger? His draft profile talks about him having great mobility for a big man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Dee Posted June 19, 2014 Report Share Posted June 19, 2014 Much as we would have liked to have Laurent here and will undoubtedly never hear the end of it from some guys, Laurent was a free agent and not terribly likely to come here regardless of scheme. In my opinion, Winnipeg would have been last on his list of teams to play for. I understand why our fans want these guys, I really do, but to continually drag these names into the conversation, when there is very, very little chance of an interest in coming to Winnipeg, is useless. But of course the same names keep being brought up, whether they make sense or not. blitzmore 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goalie Posted June 19, 2014 Report Share Posted June 19, 2014 Much as we would have liked to have Laurent here and will undoubtedly never hear the end of it from some guys, Laurent was a free agent and not terribly likely to come here regardless of scheme. In my opinion, Winnipeg would have been last on his list of teams to play for. I understand why our fans want these guys, I really do, but to continually drag these names into the conversation, when there is very, very little chance of an interest in coming to Winnipeg, is useless. But of course the same names keep being brought up, whether they make sense or not. It's not even about signing them (i think we all understand these guys wouldn't come here) but it's about having interest in them, I mean, why not make an offer even? I get it, they won't come but to not even make an offer? to not show any interest at all? why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweep the leg Posted June 19, 2014 Report Share Posted June 19, 2014 I get why Laurent wouldn't have fit here, but why doesn't Hickman? If our D is all about speed & aggression, wouldn't a top notch pass rusher fit right in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Dee Posted June 19, 2014 Report Share Posted June 19, 2014 Much as we would have liked to have Laurent here and will undoubtedly never hear the end of it from some guys, Laurent was a free agent and not terribly likely to come here regardless of scheme. In my opinion, Winnipeg would have been last on his list of teams to play for. I understand why our fans want these guys, I really do, but to continually drag these names into the conversation, when there is very, very little chance of an interest in coming to Winnipeg, is useless. But of course the same names keep being brought up, whether they make sense or not. It's not even about signing them (i think we all understand these guys wouldn't come here) but it's about having interest in them, I mean, why not make an offer even? I get it, they won't come but to not even make an offer? to not show any interest at all? why not? You mean like asking that hot girl out because you have tons of interest, but really you know you are the snowball of that famous idiom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrenaline_x Posted June 19, 2014 Report Share Posted June 19, 2014 So because of our scheme guys like Jake Thomas & Greg Peach are superior to Ted Laurent & Justin Hickman? I ain't buying it. shhhhh.. Don't question the team.. People will think you are a negative nancy and call you out :/ James 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DR. CFL Posted June 19, 2014 Report Share Posted June 19, 2014 Scheme my pass rush....u can't convince me that Laurent can't push the pocket. I would say that fits any BS scheme. Westy Sucks 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goalie Posted June 19, 2014 Report Share Posted June 19, 2014 Much as we would have liked to have Laurent here and will undoubtedly never hear the end of it from some guys, Laurent was a free agent and not terribly likely to come here regardless of scheme. In my opinion, Winnipeg would have been last on his list of teams to play for. I understand why our fans want these guys, I really do, but to continually drag these names into the conversation, when there is very, very little chance of an interest in coming to Winnipeg, is useless. But of course the same names keep being brought up, whether they make sense or not. It's not even about signing them (i think we all understand these guys wouldn't come here) but it's about having interest in them, I mean, why not make an offer even? I get it, they won't come but to not even make an offer? to not show any interest at all? why not? You mean like asking that hot girl out because you have tons of interest, but really you know you are the snowball of that famous idiom. Why wouldn't you ask the hot girl out? Hot girls are just normal girls really, just a lot prettier then some. How do you know what the hot girl would say if you don't even talk to her once? Sure she might say NO but she might be intrigued and give you a chance. You don't know if you don't ask her. If you go in thinking I got no chance here but it's worth a try, man you lost already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Dee Posted June 19, 2014 Report Share Posted June 19, 2014 It's not even about signing them (i think we all understand these guys wouldn't come here) but it's about having interest in them, I mean, why not make an offer even? I get it, they won't come but to not even make an offer? to not show any interest at all? why not? You mean like asking that hot girl out because you have tons of interest, but really you know you are the snowball of that famous idiom. Why wouldn't you ask the hot girl out? Hot girls are just normal girls really, just a lot prettier then some. How do you know what the hot girl would say if you don't even talk to her once? Sure she might say NO but she might be intrigued and give you a chance. You don't know if you don't ask her. If you go in thinking I got no chance here but it's worth a try, man you lost already. ………….Result Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floyd Posted June 19, 2014 Report Share Posted June 19, 2014 'Not fitting Etch's scheme' is apparently the new 'he wanted to play closer to home anyway'.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SPuDS Posted June 20, 2014 Report Share Posted June 20, 2014 It's not rocket science folks.. Can Laurent follow a FB/RB in pass coverage if need be? What about spying a mobile QB or RB? Etch thrives on multi-dimensional players capable of pass rushing, speed attacking the line and sometimes coverage in passing situations... Don't you think Walters said to etch "hey man, should we offer contracts to these guys? Are they valuable to your game plan?" Im assuming etch would have veto'd any players who wouldn't be valuable to his game plans... And that's the crux of it, his defenses DEMAND specific players, to a point of causing a complete collapse of it when square pegs are attempted to be shoved into round holes.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted June 20, 2014 Report Share Posted June 20, 2014 So because of our scheme guys like Jake Thomas & Greg Peach are superior to Ted Laurent & Justin Hickman? I ain't buying it. That was awesome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now