throwback week



Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 24
  1. #1
    STLRAMSFAN Guest

    Should the Rams consider Mack Strong?

    Should the Rams consider Mack Strong who is a free agent with Seattle? He is one of the top FBs in the league and Hedgecock could possibly move to TE. Strong would give Jackson one of the best lead blockers in the NFL. Hedgecock is 6'3 266 he looked okay when they did throw to him. I could see him developing as a good blocking TE and occasional receiving TE.

    I think having Hedgecock and Strong blocking would help the running game.

    If this were to happen I could see Hedgecock (starting TE), Williams, Manu (cap only reason here) as our three TE's. With Hedgecock also being a backup to Strong.
    Last edited by STLRAMSFAN; -01-31-2006 at 09:36 PM.


  2. #2
    psycho9985 Guest

    Re: Should the Rams consider Mack Strong?

    Depends on the Price tag,but that could be right up linehan's alley.

  3. #3
    RamsFan16 Guest

    Re: Should the Rams consider Mack Strong?

    No he will be resigned by Seattle. And Hedgecock is going to be good at FB why waste that?

  4. #4
    r8rh8rmike's Avatar
    r8rh8rmike is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    29 Palms, Ca.
    Age
    55
    Posts
    12,065
    Rep Power
    131

    Re: Should the Rams consider Mack Strong?

    I don't think we have the luxury, too many other critical areas that have to be addressed. Hedgecock looks more than capable and we need a legitimate playmaking TE, not another experiment.

  5. #5
    general counsel's Avatar
    general counsel is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    atlanta, georgia
    Age
    52
    Posts
    5,695
    Rep Power
    83

    Re: Should the Rams consider Mack Strong?

    I dont think he will be cheap, if he is cheap, why would he leave seattle, and if he is pricey, i dont think we can afford it. I agree that hedgecock is a fine young player, perfect as a fullback/h back in the linehan system. Lets spend the cash on defense. No question strong would help a lot in the running game, but as always, it comes down to priorities and how you are going to spend your cap dollars.

    ramming speed to all

    general counsel


  6. #6
    psycho9985 Guest

    Re: Should the Rams consider Mack Strong?

    Quote Originally Posted by r8rh8rmike
    I don't think we have the luxury, too many other critical areas that have to be addressed. Hedgecock looks more than capable and we need a legitimate playmaking TE, not another experiment.
    I have to agree with this.If Manu stays on the team his money demands us to play him at tight end.We could sometimes use Hedge in a two TE set. I hear Linehan is partial to that.

  7. #7
    STLRAMSFAN Guest

    Re: Should the Rams consider Mack Strong?

    I don’t think Strong will command big dollars he will be 35 this year and a two or three year contract is about all I can see him getting. I think our running game would be better with Hedgecock and Strong both blocking as opposed to Hedgecock and Manu or some other Free Agent. I don't think we are going to have money to go after a top TE in free agency that can either block or receive good and I don't have faith in Manu as our #1 TE. Williams would be a nice backup but I am not sure about him as a starter at this point in his career and coming off another injury.

    IMO we will still have to sign another TE this off-season if we don’t do this. If we could sign Mack to a two year deal then Hedgecock could move back to FB when the contract is up and we could get a new TE. In the mean time the next two years we could spend our money improving the D and three years from now go for a legitmate playmaking TE (assuming Hedgecock don't prove to be a playmaker).

    Most of all with the new regime I would like to see a dominant running game that can help runtime off the clock and keep our defense off the field. I would like to have the type of running game that can help us win the time of possession battle. With Jackson as our RB who needs to run north and south we need lead blockers that can open holes. I would like to have a good receiving TE but we have a lot of receivers and we need a good consistent running game.
    Last edited by STLRAMSFAN; -01-31-2006 at 10:07 PM.

  8. #8
    Hodgins Guest
    I doubt strong plays for much longer especially anywhere other then seattle

  9. #9
    RealRam's Avatar
    RealRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Mexico
    Posts
    8,576
    Rep Power
    68

    Re: Should the Rams consider Mack Strong?

    And Hedgecock is going to be good at FB why waste that? --RF16
    Nice try on Strong but as commented already, Mack is probably running low on fuel -- perhaps a couple more seasons?

    Hedecock seems to have the right mindset to ba a good, reliable FB -- just as good or better (hopefully) than Strong. He's certainly big enough and has the reputation of being hardnose and aggressive.

    :football: Let's see if this year No. 44 grows into that power blocker, Ram through and help lead Steven Jackson to a great year.

  10. #10
    contak Guest

    Re: Should the Rams consider Mack Strong?

    I think that Hedgecock is just fine. Jackson just needs to run downhill instead of hopping around thinking he's Marshall. Once he does that the running game will be fine, oh yeah it would be nice if he held on to the ball also.

  11. #11
    LaRamsFanLongTime Guest

    Re: Should the Rams consider Mack Strong?

    I think that Hedgecock is just fine. Jackson just needs to run downhill instead of hopping around thinking he's Marshall. Once he does that the running game will be fine, oh yeah it would be nice if he held on to the ball also.
    Hopefully the new coach will not try to run Jackson around the ends.

  12. #12
    Fat Pang's Avatar
    Fat Pang is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    1,603
    Rep Power
    65

    Re: Should the Rams consider Mack Strong?

    Keep Hedgecock at FB, forget strong. strengthen the TE position and commit to the running game.

    Attempting to sign strong will just muddy our waters again personnel-wise and i'd like to see a couple of years where we play people at their natural positions.

    No more projects please, Hedgecock is a FB let's keep him there. (I know he moved around in college, but let's keep it simple)

  13. #13
    rawkhrdr Guest

    Re: Should the Rams consider Mack Strong?

    Mr. Mack Strong is a Seahawk, and will probably always be a Seahawk. He has been with the team for 13 years, through some of the leanest times in franchise history. I do not see the man leaving after the best season the team has ever had. It would be just weird seeing him in another uniform. I would bet that there is a 99% chance that Strong is in Seattle next year, unless he retires. Then we have another young FB ready to take his spot. A man we affectionately refer to as "The Hydrant" Leonard Weaver.

  14. #14
    chiguy's Avatar
    chiguy is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Illinois
    Age
    42
    Posts
    1,223
    Rep Power
    24

    Re: Should the Rams consider Mack Strong?

    Let me make this simple -- no.

  15. #15
    SFCRamFan Guest

    Re: Should the Rams consider Mack Strong?

    I believe that if and when Alexander re-signs with the Hawks, part of his decision will hinge on Strong staying. Strong is a big part of Alexander's success in finding the hole. Just have faith in Hedgecock. I think that under this new staff he will reach his potential.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

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
  •