Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Shazier will start
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Pittsburgh Steelers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
MightyJoeYoung


Joined: 03 Jun 2010
Posts: 2966
Location: Wakefield, England
PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 10:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chieferific wrote:
MightyJoeYoung wrote:
Shazier is playing in the role that Timmons has been in for the previous seasons.

Timmons has slid over to where VW played last year.

Are you sure? I heard differently. That would be the better spot for Shazier (and perhaps Timmons) but usually the call playing comes from that Mack. I assume the play calling duties could move with Timmons to the Buck because Shazier cannot be ready for that role yet.

I am 99% certain yeah.

The play-calling duties have moved with Timmons. I'm not sure where you're coming from with the Mack calling the plays? Farrior and Foote both called plays from the Buck.
_________________


Thanks to Joe_is_the_best for the sig

"The King Stay the King"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Chieferific


Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Posts: 3251
PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 11:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

MightyJoeYoung wrote:
Chieferific wrote:
MightyJoeYoung wrote:
Shazier is playing in the role that Timmons has been in for the previous seasons.

Timmons has slid over to where VW played last year.

Are you sure? I heard differently. That would be the better spot for Shazier (and perhaps Timmons) but usually the call playing comes from that Mack. I assume the play calling duties could move with Timmons to the Buck because Shazier cannot be ready for that role yet.

I am 99% certain yeah.

The play-calling duties have moved with Timmons. I'm not sure where you're coming from with the Mack calling the plays? Farrior and Foote both called plays from the Buck.

I guess I'm confused. As I recall Farrior played the Mack and called the plays and Foote played the Buck and run-stuffed. Perhaps I'm getting Mack/Buck mixed up? Then Farrior was released and Spence was drafted to play the Mack and call plays (eventually). Because Spence got hurt, Timmons moved over to the Mack and took over the play-calling (right?). There may have been a time when Foote called it from the Buck but it seems that the Mack usually called the plays/adjustments. So much so that I had it in my mind that the Mack HAD to call the plays. Obviously not and just a dumb assumption on my part. I guess it's all moot as I really like the lineup of Timmons (though his awareness is questionable) sliding over to the Buck and calling the plays and Shazier covering TEs and RBs and flats at his correct fit at the Mack.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
3rivers


Joined: 01 Jan 2011
Posts: 2625
PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 2:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

warfelg wrote:
wwhickok wrote:
I actually feel the same way as 43M, now, I might like the Shazier Pick a bit more than hm but I don't love it and I hate the McCullers pick.

It's a foregone conclusion, no matter how good Worilds' season is this year, he's going to free agency next season, he likes that "Tag" cash too much to resign for much cheaper here and if he plays so crappy that he doesn't have a choice, we're not going to want him anyway.

I too hope I'm wrong about all of them but I don't have a positive outlook right now about our LB Corps. At this point I'm very concerned that Jones is going to be a bust, that Shazier is going to be too small, and that Worilds just isn't that good. If that is the way it turns out, and let's hope it's not, we are without a single starter beyond Timmons.

This team would be in a very bad way because we're looking at seriously needing to address the CB position next season.


I'm Sorry but I get REALLY tweeked when someone says this. Shazier is 6'1" 235. That's heavier than Farrior played at his peak (6'1" 225). Timmons is 6'1" 234. Willis is 6'1" 240, Bowman 6' 240. Lewis was 6'1" 240.

The point being is Shazier is right in that same size area of some of the best LB's in the game. In fact the average NFL ILB is 6' 230.

Lambert was lighter than his peers, did people make a big deal about that on forums back then

So how is Shazier too small?



Lambert was lighter than his peers, did people make a big deal about that on forums back then Idea

I didn't care about the Shazier pick because I thought we needed CB. If Lake thought otherwise, then I am good with that. As for Shazier, as long as he is where he is supposed to be, that is all that matters. His speed will be an advantage in coverage and offer more creativity in sub packages. The days of a Kirkland ILB seem gone. I think Shazier will be fine unless NT really has problems. If we had Hampton or Steed in their primes, Shazier could scrape clean and easily find his way to the ball.

Greg Lloyd, Lambert were both light , and Harrison was shorter than typical 3-4 OLB's. No need to explain effective they were. Triangle stats really don't tell the story, it comes down to football smarts and coaches scheming accordingly.

Even if we are near the bottom in run D, the Nickel with Shazier should have a few new looks. think of it, he has CB speed but weighs more than Greg Lloyd. That could add up to a few FF due to impact. If only Timmons could return to his speed levels of 2009 Razz

If Shazier plays well as a starting rookie, it might also help these stubborn coaches to allow other rookies to start in the future as well. I never liked the pick at first( because of needs at CB) , and now I am a proponent . We have depth and ILB, and if OLB becomes an issue, he might actually save the day there .
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
FourThreeMafia


Joined: 28 Sep 2006
Posts: 49848
Location: East of Sixburgh
PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

warfelg wrote:
I'm Sorry but I get REALLY tweeked when someone says this. Shazier is 6'1" 235. That's heavier than Farrior played at his peak (6'1" 225). Timmons is 6'1" 234. Willis is 6'1" 240, Bowman 6' 240. Lewis was 6'1" 240.

The point being is Shazier is right in that same size area of some of the best LB's in the game. In fact the average NFL ILB is 6' 230.


People focus on just height and weight too much when discussing size of a player, and I dont get it.

I dont have an issue with Shazier's size because of the way he is built, but just because a player is 6'1, 235 doesnt mean they all are the same size OFF paper. People are built to different proportions and carry weight/mass differently. On top of that, things like wingspan and frame are just as important when discussing size, yet people oversimplify it to just height and weight.

Again, I dont have an issue with Shazier's size, but you are really oversimplifying it

Quote:
Lambert was lighter than his peers, did people make a big deal about that on forums back then


Yes....INTERNET FORUMS in the 1970s were all abuzz over it.
_________________
SCPackersFan wrote:
I hold nothing against blue-collar people and I respect/admire them for doing what they do.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MightyJoeYoung


Joined: 03 Jun 2010
Posts: 2966
Location: Wakefield, England
PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 6:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chieferific wrote:
MightyJoeYoung wrote:
Chieferific wrote:
MightyJoeYoung wrote:
Shazier is playing in the role that Timmons has been in for the previous seasons.

Timmons has slid over to where VW played last year.

Are you sure? I heard differently. That would be the better spot for Shazier (and perhaps Timmons) but usually the call playing comes from that Mack. I assume the play calling duties could move with Timmons to the Buck because Shazier cannot be ready for that role yet.

I am 99% certain yeah.

The play-calling duties have moved with Timmons. I'm not sure where you're coming from with the Mack calling the plays? Farrior and Foote both called plays from the Buck.

I guess I'm confused. As I recall Farrior played the Mack and called the plays and Foote played the Buck and run-stuffed. Perhaps I'm getting Mack/Buck mixed up? Then Farrior was released and Spence was drafted to play the Mack and call plays (eventually). Because Spence got hurt, Timmons moved over to the Mack and took over the play-calling (right?). There may have been a time when Foote called it from the Buck but it seems that the Mack usually called the plays/adjustments. So much so that I had it in my mind that the Mack HAD to call the plays. Obviously not and just a dumb assumption on my part. I guess it's all moot as I really like the lineup of Timmons (though his awareness is questionable) sliding over to the Buck and calling the plays and Shazier covering TEs and RBs and flats at his correct fit at the Mack.

I started watching in 2010. Farrior played the left ILB spot as the Buck and Timmons was right ILB as the Mack. Before that I believe Foote played the Mack because Foote left on the back of knowing that Timmons was gonna take his spot. Unless Farrior did what Timmons is doing this year, and slid from Mack to Buck to accomodate the talents of the younger more athletic, more Mack suited guy.

The play calling duties just go to whoever has the most knowledge of the defence basically. That is Timmons for the time being but I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if Shazier takes that job off of Timmons in a few years as there have been reports of him displaying strong football IQ.

Timmons took over play-calls because Farrior retired and Foote was injured which left him as the senior ILB.
_________________


Thanks to Joe_is_the_best for the sig

"The King Stay the King"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
MightyJoeYoung


Joined: 03 Jun 2010
Posts: 2966
Location: Wakefield, England
PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 6:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Shazier is 235 of pure muscle.

I believe Timmons weighs about 240 at the moment. A couple of years ago he was 250 but he wasn't anywhere near as lean as Shazier is.

I do believe Shazier has another 10lbs of lean mass growing room before he would start to lose his special athleticism. But, that is total conjecture.
_________________


Thanks to Joe_is_the_best for the sig

"The King Stay the King"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
3rivers


Joined: 01 Jan 2011
Posts: 2625
PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 9:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MightyJoeYoung wrote:
Shazier is 235 of pure muscle.

I believe Timmons weighs about 240 at the moment. A couple of years ago he was 250 but he wasn't anywhere near as lean as Shazier is.

I do believe Shazier has another 10lbs of lean mass growing room before he would start to lose his special athleticism. But, that is total conjecture.


sorry dude, it's the other way around for Timmons. He put on weight in recent years, and lost his speed which was rare.

Why even care about weight of a LB these days? LB's have to cover and as long as they can be in their gaps and tackle well, that is where the importance is. Triangle numbers really don't mean much, production does as well as the right player for the scheme.

Greg Lloyd was 226 and his peers were about 245. From 93-96 ask a steeler fan if there was another OLB they would rather have.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MightyJoeYoung


Joined: 03 Jun 2010
Posts: 2966
Location: Wakefield, England
PostPosted: Thu Aug 07, 2014 10:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

3rivers wrote:
MightyJoeYoung wrote:
Shazier is 235 of pure muscle.

I believe Timmons weighs about 240 at the moment. A couple of years ago he was 250 but he wasn't anywhere near as lean as Shazier is.

I do believe Shazier has another 10lbs of lean mass growing room before he would start to lose his special athleticism. But, that is total conjecture.


sorry dude, it's the other way around for Timmons. He put on weight in recent years, and lost his speed which was rare.

Why even care about weight of a LB these days? LB's have to cover and as long as they can be in their gaps and tackle well, that is where the importance is. Triangle numbers really don't mean much, production does as well as the right player for the scheme.

Greg Lloyd was 226 and his peers were about 245. From 93-96 ask a steeler fan if there was another OLB they would rather have.

I'm fairly sure he's slimmed down in the last few years after he ballooned up to about 250 in '11.
_________________


Thanks to Joe_is_the_best for the sig

"The King Stay the King"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
kethnaab


Joined: 05 Jan 2009
Posts: 10020
PostPosted: Thu Aug 07, 2014 11:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

MightyJoeYoung wrote:
3rivers wrote:
MightyJoeYoung wrote:
Shazier is 235 of pure muscle.

I believe Timmons weighs about 240 at the moment. A couple of years ago he was 250 but he wasn't anywhere near as lean as Shazier is.

I do believe Shazier has another 10lbs of lean mass growing room before he would start to lose his special athleticism. But, that is total conjecture.


sorry dude, it's the other way around for Timmons. He put on weight in recent years, and lost his speed which was rare.

Why even care about weight of a LB these days? LB's have to cover and as long as they can be in their gaps and tackle well, that is where the importance is. Triangle numbers really don't mean much, production does as well as the right player for the scheme.

Greg Lloyd was 226 and his peers were about 245. From 93-96 ask a steeler fan if there was another OLB they would rather have.

I'm fairly sure he's slimmed down in the last few years after he ballooned up to about 250 in '11.


yeah, he bulked up to 250ish because it "would help with his run stopping"

all it did was make him slow.

he noticeably slimmed down. My guess is he's around the low 240s now. Read some good things about him at the buck, let's hope that continues.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ward4HOF


Joined: 11 Apr 2011
Posts: 4044
PostPosted: Thu Aug 07, 2014 3:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Shazier -- 6'1" 237

Zumwalt -- 6'4" 235

Timmons -- 6' 0.7" 234

Spence -- 5' 11.3" 231

Foote -- 6' 0.7" 231

If anyone is too small, it's Zumwalt. 235 is AWFULLY lean for a 6'4" LB.

But regardless, Timmons filled out fine and we saw no ill effects from size. And as was mentioned, Foote was never huge, either. The size concerns for Shazier I find comical, when compared to all the others listed about, he was the heaviest. Williams weighed in at 247, but as we all saw, has limited athleticism.

Then compare Shazier to some of the good LBs to come out over the past few years:

Kiko Alonzo - 6'3" 238
LaVonte David - 6'1" 233
Alec Ogletree - 6'2.5" 242
Luke Kuechly - 6'2.3" 242

So Shazier compares favorably with these LBs when comparing height/weight ratio. And yes, I get that these are 4-3 LBs, but doesn't really matter.
_________________


Props to Jamison on the sweet sig!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Pittsburgh Steelers All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group