| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
StRawz11
Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 3414
Location: Not in Pittsburgh
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 5:57 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
Is it just me or does Suggs look big in a bad way?
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
diamondbull424
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 10017
Location: Baltimore, MD
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| StRawz11 wrote: | | Is it just me or does Suggs look big in a bad way? |
Not sure what picture you're referring to, but Suggs on tv looked about the same size as I'm used to seeing him. He's 6'3" and like 270 lbs... that's not going to look small by any means. It's just playing without the uniform likely shows just how much of his size is him vs what's the uniform.
_________________
Blind arrogance sows the field of it's own destruction. - Commander Greil, Fire Emblem |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
StRawz11
Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 3414
Location: Not in Pittsburgh
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| diamondbull424 wrote: | | StRawz11 wrote: | | Is it just me or does Suggs look big in a bad way? |
Not sure what picture you're referring to, but Suggs on tv looked about the same size as I'm used to seeing him. He's 6'3" and like 270 lbs... that's not going to look small by any means. It's just playing without the uniform likely shows just how much of his size is him vs what's the uniform. |
I was referring to the video out today of him returning to practice
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
drd23
Joined: 26 Oct 2010
Posts: 5001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 1:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| StRawz11 wrote: | | diamondbull424 wrote: | | StRawz11 wrote: | | Is it just me or does Suggs look big in a bad way? |
Not sure what picture you're referring to, but Suggs on tv looked about the same size as I'm used to seeing him. He's 6'3" and like 270 lbs... that's not going to look small by any means. It's just playing without the uniform likely shows just how much of his size is him vs what's the uniform. |
I was referring to the video out today of him returning to practice |
Yeah it does look that way a little bit unfortunately, but its not that unexpected imo
_________________
db424 on the sig! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
diamondbull424
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 10017
Location: Baltimore, MD
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 1:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| StRawz11 wrote: | | diamondbull424 wrote: | | StRawz11 wrote: | | Is it just me or does Suggs look big in a bad way? |
Not sure what picture you're referring to, but Suggs on tv looked about the same size as I'm used to seeing him. He's 6'3" and like 270 lbs... that's not going to look small by any means. It's just playing without the uniform likely shows just how much of his size is him vs what's the uniform. |
I was referring to the video out today of him returning to practice |
Ahh.. I wasn't aware of that. It wasn't up there this morning when I checked. But yeah, he does look more "fat" big now as opposed to "muscular" big.
He looked like he had some fat around his midsection that's not ideal... and his backside didn't look as firm as you'd want it... which makes sense when you think about the fact that not only could he not run to keep himself in shape (because of the Achilles) but he also would've been unable to do squats to keep his leg and backside firm and muscular.
That said, the area being fat is probably a good thing. The muscle he had likely turned to fat and now it's just a matter of converting it back... whereas had he gotten skinny, not only would he have been less explosive, he'd have been less stout as well. Suggs probably won't be able to return as a pass rusher this season, that'll likely have to wait until next season, but he can return- and with his lower body strength and experience- give a boost to our run defense at the POA. Kruger's inability to hold up at the POA in conjunction with McPhee being much better in the 43 role DE we had him playing in last season... has helped to turn this run defense to crap.
If Pees were smart, we'd see him experimenting with the defensive front the Seahawks tend to use. Three big down lineman: Ngata, Cody, Kemo... with another quicker/faster DL playing DE. The down lineman in this role would have less responsibilities than a stand up edge threat in the 34 and wouldn't have to be as firm at the POA, so Kindle while not showing the development you look for as a LBer might be better served if we just tell him to put his hand into the ground and get after the QB. I think he could succeed given that role. We'd sit him on the line at LE- thus dealing with generally the less athletic OT and he'd have his right ear for hearing.
I'd then look to start Upshaw at SLB and Kruger at WLB with Ellerbe/McClain lined up in the middle. McClellan could then be our utility player and sub in at each of the LBers spots. McPhee could sub in for Kindle if we want to put more beef on the LOS in obvious rushing situations.
I know Bernard Pollard said, "it's not the coaching"... but looking at the film from last year... you can just tell by the variety of formations we're running that we're doing more to counter a strong rushing attack (the 49ers film) as opposed to just putting our players out there and expecting them to a) win their matchups all the time and b) without being sure to put them in a position to win their matchups. Pees scheme just seems incapable of stopping the run without committing more men to the box unless the players themselves are consistently winning 1on1 matchups, whereas Pagano made sure to move guys around based on offensive alignments and shifts. Really... it's like night and day when simply watching the presnap formations and adjustments. Part of this could be because of having more experienced players in our system that can handle all the responsibilities, but I still have to doubt Pees competence in that area until proven otherwise.
But anyway, rant aside. Suggs returning should present one more body that should be able to beat his man 1on1 against the run game to help make Pees system look more competent than what it really is... a system overly reliant on the players and not reliant enough on the coaching prowess.
_________________
Blind arrogance sows the field of it's own destruction. - Commander Greil, Fire Emblem |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SnA ExclusiVe
Joined: 01 Jun 2011
Posts: 10607
Location: Spokane, WA
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 1:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
The attention to detail you put into looking at Suggs' butt is kind of disturbing lol.
Anywho, I agree about the way Pagano used formations and stuff to get a good run D set up, and Pees definitely doesn't do that as much. However, there's not much more we could have done Sunday beacuse we did have 8 guys in the box consistently, Dallas was just single-blocking everyone and dominating us and we were missing tackles as well.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
diamondbull424
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 10017
Location: Baltimore, MD
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 2:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| SnA ExclusiVe wrote: | The attention to detail you put into looking at Suggs' butt is kind of disturbing lol.
Anywho, I agree about the way Pagano used formations and stuff to get a good run D set up, and Pees definitely doesn't do that as much. However, there's not much more we could have done Sunday beacuse we did have 8 guys in the box consistently, Dallas was just single-blocking everyone and dominating us and we were missing tackles as well. |
Why does that disturb you?  ...  ...
But yeah, I try to be meticulous... and the fact that I used to train some of my chic friends to achieve a more firm build, helped me to notice the difference between good bubble and bad bubble. And I had a chance to notice the difference a lot via the training methods I would implore.
#nicesaveFTW 
_________________
Blind arrogance sows the field of it's own destruction. - Commander Greil, Fire Emblem |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jpeter15
Joined: 17 Dec 2007
Posts: 170
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
diamondbull424
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 10017
Location: Baltimore, MD
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 9:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Interesting. I thought for sure that Harbaugh would hold him out at least until after the bye week. Not sure this is a good idea. But if we're going to do it, then I think we should follow a snap count- treat it similar to preseason. Give him about 8-10 snaps or so (1-2 drives worth). Then the next game give him about 15-20 snaps: that should cover about 4 drives or so. Then wait until the game after allow him to play the full game.
_________________
Blind arrogance sows the field of it's own destruction. - Commander Greil, Fire Emblem |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bmore4life815
Joined: 22 Nov 2010
Posts: 3427
Location: Climbing up M&T
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 12:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Interesting... I expected a week 9 debut, but let's see how this works out. If anything, the mere presence of Sizzle on the field should help boost the confidence of our young guys. He has that kind of impact.
_________________
Bernard "Crush Boy" Pollard- Forever a Raven
El Ramster on the sig that isn't going anywhere |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HokieRaven5
Joined: 29 Sep 2009
Posts: 1633
Location: The Land of Pleasant Living
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 12:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Smells way too much like sizzle trying to trick Schefter after how the injury discussion went.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mancunian Raven
Joined: 09 Oct 2012
Posts: 511
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 12:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I don't buy it. If they're teasing Suggs playing, I'm going to guess that it's just to force the Texans to at least consider having to plan for him.
Don't show your hand until you have to. I would expect him to be inactive on Sunday, unless he shows a staggeringly quick return to form in practice over the next day or two.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steadypimpin
Joined: 01 Jan 2009
Posts: 7271
Location: Rockville, Maryland
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I heard on the radio this morning that Suggs might play this weekend? Any truth to this? I wouldn't want him coming in just yet. They said they have 3 weeks to activate him now that he's off the PUP list.
_________________
2011 & 2012 NFC West Champs!!! Back to back baby!!!
Xbox: Steadypimpin49
"Keep choppin' wood" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DontTazeMeBro
Joined: 20 Jan 2008
Posts: 20517
Location: 321
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 2:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
You trick the media. Exaggerate, embellish to them. Mix words. You don't out-and-out lie to the media. If they are saying it definitively I believe it.
I'm just going to trust that Harbaugh would't let him back on the field if he wasn't recovered and would possibly compromise his recovery. Because he is who I am going to blame if it goes wrong.
What I'm thinking is that we see him on a few 3rd downs Sunday. Probably more after the bye.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coordinator0
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Posts: 5873
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 2:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| I don't think there's any chance Suggs plays against the Texans. Just now he started practicing on a very limited basis for the first time since late April, no preseason or training camp, and there is no way he's in football shape. My guess is that we see him for the first time in the Raiders game. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
