SJDK Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Oakland Raiders made Lee do his dance for the contract Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LB3 Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 (edited) Vs declaring the 3rd tackle eligible 100% of the time? What's the advantage? Less announcements from the refs interfering with the in stadium ads?Yup. Interference with stadium ads. He is a good blocker and a below average receiver. An actual receiving threat, albeit small one. Unless you are on the one yard line, it is much better to have him in than a third tackle. Even in that situation, giving a route to a guy who just blocks 85% of the time is less predictable than the guy who just essentially said "Nothing to see here." A third tackle (not a starter), is likely to be an average to good blocker at best with no receiving ability to speak of at all. The drop off in skill from one area to the other (blocking vs receiving) is, in most all cases, likely larger in the receiving area. If playing 3 tackles was a better option 100% of the time, a coach might have tried it at least once. Maybe it happened a long time ago, but I can think of no instance of this in recent memory. Edited March 11, 2015 by KikoSeeBallKikoGetBall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Greg Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 He never has to declare as eligible though. That can be advantageous. So Lee Smith's greatest asset is that he doesn't have to report as eligible. And for this, he gets paid 9 million dollars. God bless America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Oakland Raiders made Lee do his dance for the contract I recall the gif, just not the subject matter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 (edited) Yup. Interference with stadium ads. He is a good blocker and a below average receiver. An actual receiving threat, albeit small one. Unless you are on the one yard line, it is much better to have him in than a third tackle. Even in that situation, giving a route to a guy who just blocks 85% of the time is less predictable than the guy who just essentially said "Nothing to see here." A third tackle (not a starter), is likely to be an average to good blocker at best with no receiving ability to speak of at all. The drop off in skill from one area to the other (blocking vs receiving) is, in most all cases, likely larger in the receiving area. If playing 3 tackles was a better option 100% of the time, a coach might have tried it at least once. Maybe it happened a long time ago, but I can think of no instance of this in recent memory. The saints have used a 3rd tackle extremely frequently. Streif got his start there - got him extra reps on the field as a young guy and got them a better blocker than a depth tight end. I'm not arguing he do it every play, but to replace a lot of reps for a 2nd/3rd tight end that's seeing a handful of snaps. It's not a strange argument I'm making, I promise it's not unheard of to replace a guy like smith with a tackle. Smiths 20 catches and 2.6 career yards per game (and what 2 career catches over 10 yards with none at 20+) werent keeping defenses honest anywhere on the field Edited March 11, 2015 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts