Add Timmons and the QB won't know which way to look.
Originally Posted by phillyesq
I also found it interesting that in the backs on backers drill, when he faced Bell 4 times, he used the same technique each time. To me, this shows a player who is advanced beyond the "fighting for his life" position that most rooks find themselves in and instead is in the "trying to perfect certain techniques" place that is usually reserved for seasoned vets. To me, I was envisioning a man whose focus was not winning each drill. He is working to master his bull rush, which is not known to be his greatest asset as a rusher. Maybe that is just me looking for a silver lining somewhere, but I found it an interesting tidbit.
Originally Posted by steelsnis
Yup. I didn't mean to omit Timmons - I was just thinking of the three outside guys.
Originally Posted by steeler_fan_in_t.o.
I would suggest that in order for Jones to be as productive as he was in college that he needed superb rushing technique. Jones does not have elite burst or twitch. But, he is strong, smart, and plays with good technique.
Yeah, this can be encouraging or worrisome.
Originally Posted by Shawn
Did he have a technique edge in college, being more advanced than his peers?
In a league where others with more talent gain technique through coaching will this edge disappear?
There was the theory that Jones has little upside, which this might support.
Others are raw but talented, Jones is skilled with modest talent.
Then again some people use skills instinctively in a way that it difficult to teach.
How the heck is Welker so good in a way that you cannot teach to a more talented receiver?
I hope this is what we are seeing in Jones, but I really dont know how to feel about the fact that his skills are so advanced.
I get it's use in Social Media apps like Twitter and Facebook. But what's the purpose in a simple online article? Is the writer just trying to look cool/hip/with-the-times? "@ Tough day" ?
Originally Posted by SidSmythe
I've always thought of the "@" symbol as directing something to someone - like AT them. So, @Troy Polamalu would mean you are directing something specifically to Troy in a thread that may have multiple people in it. I see it used in Facebook this way often. But in Twitter, the @username actually directs what you type to their username if it exists.
But typing the following in an article seems to make no sense to me, "@ Bell also got some work with the first team in the final team portion of practice, splitting time with Isaac Redman."
Here, nothing is directed to Bell. It's about what Bell did. It's more of an "RE: Bell" than an "@ Bell". And the writer doesn't even use it consistently. For example, McFadden is referenced at the top without an "@".