June 20, 2019, 08:16:40 AM

Author Topic: Ahmad Bradshaw  (Read 5957 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

maxman44

  • Guest
Re: Ahmad Bradshaw
« Reply #15 on: March 28, 2013, 06:54:06 PM »
There will be no external free agents signed by TT until ARod and Matthews contracts are signed - then it will still be minimal

Offline jthiel86

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: Ahmad Bradshaw
« Reply #16 on: March 29, 2013, 04:53:48 AM »
There will be no external free agents signed by TT until ARod and Matthews contracts are signed - then it will still be minimal

I agree.  Arrigo tweeted that the Pack and Clay are about as close to getting his deal done as Rodgers deal.  Encouraging, and it will be really interesting to see how much Clay gets.

I guess I wouldn't mind Bradshaw, still think he is kind of redundant.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2013, 04:54:31 AM by jthiel86 »
If you're gonna be dumb, you've gotta be tough.

maxman44

  • Guest
Re: Ahmad Bradshaw
« Reply #17 on: March 29, 2013, 05:34:29 AM »
Quote
Adam Schefter ‏@AdamSchefter  4m 
RB Ahmad Bradshaw will be visiting Steelers again in a few weeks to check on rehab progress from foot injury. Pittsburgh still interested.

Offline Pugger

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5324
  • Karma: +4/-1
Re: Ahmad Bradshaw
« Reply #18 on: March 29, 2013, 07:31:18 AM »
I'm beginning to suspect Bradshaw's foot injury may be more serious than anyone is letting on.

Offline davekenya

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 506
  • Karma: +4/-0
Re: Ahmad Bradshaw
« Reply #19 on: April 06, 2013, 08:13:29 AM »
Bradshaw definitely has more upside than Benson (if TT is looking to bring in/back an established RB).  Either AB is asking too much money for a 1 year deal (and TT is waiting him out or waiting to grab a back in the draft) or TT thinks what he has in the cupboard is as good as AB. 

Not to co-opt the thread, but just reflecting on the past season, it seems to me the problem is less with WHO the back is than there's no place to run -- no daylight.  Do all our backs just have poor vision and miss holes that are there?  It felt more like our OL sucked and the opposing team's DL was disruptive all the time.  Is Harris that much better than our other RBs or did he benefit from improved run blocking EDS and Barclay provided?  I'm sure it's a combo of both.

While I think bringing in Bradshaw COULD improve the running game, by itself I don't think it would...or bringing in any RB short of Adrian Peterson.  This O-line needs to improve its ability to run block more...that will make any of our backs better...or any back we get via FA or the draft...otherwise, I think it'll be just more of the same. 

Offline Shanedorf

  • All Pro
  • ****
  • Posts: 439
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ahmad Bradshaw
« Reply #20 on: April 06, 2013, 08:30:41 AM »

Not to co-opt the thread, but just reflecting on the past season, it seems to me the problem is less with WHO the back is than there's no place to run -- no daylight.  Do all our backs just have poor vision and miss holes that are there? 

Indeed, it was painful to watch at times, especially when they tried to feature Green. I was just reading about Marshall Newhouse being rated as the worst starting OT for run blocking per PFF....Saturday couldn't reach like Wells did, musical chairs at RT etc. My understanding of the run game says they need a consistent unit on the OL so they can gel and a consistent RB so they can get their timing down with the blockers. Unfortunately, GB had neither of those in '12.

Bradshaw would likely become the bell cow like they tried with Benson, but with Starks' injury history, Alex Green's ongoing recovery and Saine's recovery its tough to pick another oft- injured RB who is in recovery mode too.