Playing not to get hurt is like playing not to lose, it never has the intended effect. Not putting your best 5 lineman on the field also endangers the QB and RB's... who would be allot harder to replace than a RG.
There are 114 users in the forums
Originally posted by 5280High:That whole argument is a pretty bad one, you dont sit a player because of his backup value at a different position. You put the best players on the field at all positions.
Playing not to get hurt is like playing not to lose, it never has the intended effect. Not putting your best 5 lineman on the field also endangers the QB and RB's... who would be allot harder to replace than a RG.
Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:
We have 4 or 5 potential right guards and one potential reserve tackle. Unless Boone puts out a Iupati type of performance keep him at T. If he's marginally better then the other four, is it really worth it?
Originally posted by dtg_9er:
Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:
We have 4 or 5 potential right guards and one potential reserve tackle. Unless Boone puts out a Iupati type of performance keep him at T. If he's marginally better then the other four, is it really worth it?
Almost all the young reserves played LT in college; so I would expect them to be OK at OT in a pinch.
Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:We have 4 or 5 potential right guards and one potential reserve tackle. Unless Boone puts out a Iupati type of performance keep him at T. If he's marginally better then the other four, is it really worth it?
Originally posted by NinerGM:
Originally posted by dtg_9er:
Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:
We have 4 or 5 potential right guards and one potential reserve tackle. Unless Boone puts out a Iupati type of performance keep him at T. If he's marginally better then the other four, is it really worth it?
Almost all the young reserves played LT in college; so I would expect them to be OK at OT in a pinch.
But none of them have any NFL playing time where Boone at this point does. I don't like OT being playing in a pinch. That means the passing game becomes non-existent and we become predictable.
Originally posted by Young2Rice:I looked up the height of good guards,
6'3'' - 6' 5'' seems to be the ideal size.
The following are 6'3''- 6' 5'': Iupati, Hutchinson, Bruce Matthews, Carl Nicks, Randle Mcdaniel, LArry Allen, Mike Munchak, Gene Upshaw and the list goes on.
Originally posted by MadDog49er:
Originally posted by 5280High:
Translation: If the team drafted how I would have we would have a roster full of All Pros and at least 10 more superbowl rings.
At least we wouldn't have a guy playing RG with a gigantic question mark on his back instead of a number. So, the answer is "Yes". How many years do we have to play with someone not fit to start at right guard before we say...how about we find a legitimate starting right guard and solve this issue once and for all.
Right now, we are playing games at the position.
Finally, not 10 rings, 12. Get it straight.
Originally posted by OnTheClock:
Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:
We have 4 or 5 potential right guards and one potential reserve tackle. Unless Boone puts out a Iupati type of performance keep him at T. If he's marginally better then the other four, is it really worth it?
If Boone is even just marginally better, it's absolutely worth it. You know how Harbaugh is about gaining the slightest of advantages now matter how small. If Boone turns out to be the best RG option, then I would put him there in a heartbeat. It could be the difference between one win that gets us to the playoffs or a division title, or a loss that knocks us out, by not playing him. The best players need to play. Boone and/or our OTs could get hurt anytime, anywhere, bench or practice or during a game. Playing grandma-style "I don't want to get my little baby hurt" football is a losing mentality, in my opinion.
But to backtrack all the way to a key point mentioned a while back -- if Boone doesn't win the RG job, none of this matters anyway.