Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 46 of 46

Thread: Does signing Foote mean no LB in Round 1

  1. #41
    Legend hawaiiansteel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Hawaii 5-0
    Posts
    15,827

    Re: Does signing Foote mean no LB in Round 1

    Quote Originally Posted by Lebsteel
    Quote Originally Posted by Chadman
    Urbik, at the Combine, showed he was weak in one-on-one blocking tests, constantly flailing around as the big guys pushed him back.

    Iupati is the opposite- big, strong at the point of attack.

    Urbik is more mobile, more a pass blocker, while Iupati obviously struggles with his footwork.

    The Steelers have already said they want to commit to improving the running game.

    Without adding a new RB, what is the best way to do that? Beef up the run blocking.

    If Ben misses time, the Steelers will fall back on the running game, not on Batch/Dixon's arm.

    If there is no Senior Bowl game, everyone talks about how dominant Iupati is. Chadman can think of one other guy that the Senior Bowl hurt his chances- LaMarr Woodley really struggled at the Senior Bowl, dropping from 1st round consideration as a result. However, if you took his college career as a greater guide, how could Woodley be anything BUT a 1st round pick?

    Steelers have a new OL coach brought in to improve that unit's play. One that has a history of working with young guys & finding roles for them to play that limits their liabilities.

    Here's betting Iupati is a Steeler.
    I wouldn't go to Vegas with that bet. Well, besides the fact it would be very long flight for you. If our new line coach is good, then I hope he can teach Urbik what he needs to know to start at RG.


    or Ramon Foster...

  2. #42
    Legend
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, Australia
    Posts
    5,576

    Re: Does signing Foote mean no LB in Round 1

    Honestly?

    More impressed with Foster than Urbik.

    Could Urbik be the future at Center? Foster move back to his college position of OT & replace Tony Hills?

    Iupati looks better than both Urbik & Foster coming out of college.
    Schiavone's Race Career:

    Starts- 9
    Wins- 1
    2nd- 4
    3rd- 0
    Other- 4

    Prizemoney- $28,050.00


  3. #43
    Pro Bowler Steelhere10's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    man from Sudan
    Posts
    2,061

    Re: Does signing Foote mean no LB in Round 1

    It might mean the end to Farrior. maybe an unexpected cut coming.

  4. #44
    Pro Bowler
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Delray Beach, FL
    Posts
    1,490

    Re: Does signing Foote mean no LB in Round 1

    Obviously from my mock I think the team should get Dan Williams as they are in a position to get the best player at his position at the appropriate place in the draft. NT - or DL - is still a position of need in this draft & we would be wise to get him in here, start spelling Casey & learning the defense. For those who say "but we just signed Casey to an extension!"...I would offer this - first, we are one Hampton injury away from being in dire circumstances again on the DL; & second, Hampton's contact is structured to where the team can get from it before it's conclusion. Williams is still an instant upgrade to our DL & it's never a bad thing to get the best player at his position.

    I like Spoon a lot, but with the recent signing of Foote & the possibility of late-round additions, I don't see LB as the highest priority for the team. As for Spillar...great player, but I'd fear he'd struggle for us the same way Reggie Bush has struggled with the Saints, besides Mendy NEEDS carries & there are more pressing concerns with getting a bruiser in the backfield.
    It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust & sweat & blood...

  5. #45
    Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,491

    Re: Does signing Foote mean no LB in Round 1

    Quote Originally Posted by Chadman
    Honestly?

    More impressed with Foster than Urbik.

    Could Urbik be the future at Center? Foster move back to his college position of OT & replace Tony Hills?

    Iupati looks better than both Urbik & Foster coming out of college.
    Urbik was the opposite of Iupati at the Senior Bowl. Iupati looked dominant in drills but played poorly in the game. Urbik looked poor in drills but solid in the game. You take the guy that shows up in the game versus the player who practices well. A Jackson practiced like a Pro Bowler but was terrible in the games. Iupati didn't even look like a Top 100 player in the game. However, Iupati's athleticism gives him tremendous upside and position flexibilty. Urbik's ceiling isn't that high at G.

    The thing that stands out with Iupati is his pulling ability and how he is in space on the run. Poor feet in pass protection but he is a mauler. Urbik needs work on his feet too in pass protection. Gs tend to get lazy because their shoulders are closed in the game. You can really see it in drills because they have an edge to protect versus when they are tucked inside in a game. The thing that concerns me about Iupati is his intelligence. I have heard he isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. Playbooks are complicated and that could have an impact on how coachable he is.

    As far as Foster, he is an emergency RT at best. Unless he trims down, his kick-slide is a liabilty. He needs to stay inside. He is very Stout at the point of attack and has enough lateral mobility in pass protection. Not a good puller and could make the offense one-handed. However, he is far from the finished product and lets see what Koogs could do. Players tend to get a good feel where they need to be at for their playing weight. That could have a big impact on his growth as an OL.

    I don't like Iupati at #18 but would not have a problem with him in the late 20's. I think at that point the "risk-reward" is favorable. I agree Iupati is hands down a better prospect than Urbik or Foster coming out.



  6. #46
    Pro Bowler Lebsteel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    1,007

    Re: Does signing Foote mean no LB in Round 1

    Quote Originally Posted by JUST-PLAIN-NASTY
    Quote Originally Posted by Chadman
    Honestly?

    More impressed with Foster than Urbik.

    Could Urbik be the future at Center? Foster move back to his college position of OT & replace Tony Hills?

    Iupati looks better than both Urbik & Foster coming out of college.
    Urbik was the opposite of Iupati at the Senior Bowl. Iupati looked dominant in drills but played poorly in the game. Urbik looked poor in drills but solid in the game. You take the guy that shows up in the game versus the player who practices well. A Jackson practiced like a Pro Bowler but was terrible in the games. Iupati didn't even look like a Top 100 player in the game. However, Iupati's athleticism gives him tremendous upside and position flexibilty. Urbik's ceiling isn't that high at G.

    The thing that stands out with Iupati is his pulling ability and how he is in space on the run. Poor feet in pass protection but he is a mauler. Urbik needs work on his feet too in pass protection. Gs tend to get lazy because their shoulders are closed in the game. You can really see it in drills because they have an edge to protect versus when they are tucked inside in a game. The thing that concerns me about Iupati is his intelligence. I have heard he isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. Playbooks are complicated and that could have an impact on how coachable he is.

    As far as Foster, he is an emergency RT at best. Unless he trims down, his kick-slide is a liabilty. He needs to stay inside. He is very Stout at the point of attack and has enough lateral mobility in pass protection. Not a good puller and could make the offense one-handed. However, he is far from the finished product and lets see what Koogs could do. Players tend to get a good feel where they need to be at for their playing weight. That could have a big impact on his growth as an OL.

    I don't like Iupati at #18 but would not have a problem with him in the late 20's. I think at that point the "risk-reward" is favorable. I agree Iupati is hands down a better prospect than Urbik or Foster coming out.
    I agree Iupati is a better prospect than Urbik or Foster for sure, I simply don't want us to take Ipuati at 18.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •