DC.com: "Doubtful" Raiders Go Hard After Huff

CCBoy

CCBoy

Well-Known Member
Messages
53,028
Reaction score
25,008
"Doubtful" Raiders Go Hard After Huff
Posted by jellis at 6/29/2011 1:51 PM CDT on dallascowboys.com


http://www.dallascowboys.com/news/j...&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest


Peeling back the curtain here: This morning, we filmed next week's DallasCowboys.com Roundtable, discussing potential impact free agent signings for the team.

One of the names brought up, and one that has been continually connected to the Cowboys this offseason, is Oakland safety Michael Huff, an Irving, Texas native who came into his own to make second-team All-Pro last season.

But one of the questions that must always be asked of free agents is why their former team is letting them get away. For Huff, the answer could be that his value has been inflated in 2009 and 2010 following several disappointing seasons to begin his career under defensive coordinator Rob Ryan, now with the Cowboys...
 
Huff is decent. Nothing more.

Improvement over Ball, but then, so are most safeties in the NFL.
 
CCBoy;3982876 said:
But one of the questions that must always be asked of free agents is why their former team is letting them get away.
Click to expand...

page5_blog_entry777_3.png
 
I don't blame Oakland for not going hard after him. Funny thing is, Rob Ryan was his coach then, wouldn't he have some say about signing him now after what he saw early on his his career? If it was a work ethic issue, that he is just plain stupid or something like that, I'm thinking Ryan would want no part of him.

I wonder how this is actually going to play out. Most people seem to think it's a forgone conclusion. I hope that isn't the case. I definitely don't want the Cowboys to give him a fat contract. (or anything close to that) If we sign him it should be as a stop gap. He just isn't that good. The Cowboys need better.
 
But one of the questions that must always be asked of free agents is why their former team is letting them get away.
Click to expand...

Often it's because the team in question simply can't pay them. If what was insinuated by this question were true then no FA would ever be worth signing.
 
I'll gladly take Huff any time. I think he got off to a slow start in his career but has played very well over the last 2 years.
 
Doomsday101;3982951 said:
I'll gladly take Huff any time. I think he got off to a slow start in his career but has played very well over the last 2 years.
Click to expand...

Indeed. His arrow is pointing up.
 
adbutcher;3982981 said:
Indeed. His arrow is pointing up.
Click to expand...

That's not his arrow...and it is pointing up because he is excited about the cash he is about to make.
 
BrAinPaiNt;3982984 said:
That's not his arrow...and it is pointing up because he is excited about the cash he is about to make.
Click to expand...

I believe the two of you represent the million dollar question.

Huff was universally considered a bust in Oakland until last year. Then he played quite well. Was that just natural growth or did he simply suck it up in a contract year. That contract year status is something you look for heavily in other sports. It hasn't been so big in football. But it is worrisome to pay a guy based on his highest overall value as opposed to a larger body of work.

I like Huff as a fit here but do not like that he he thinks he will be highly paid.

If money is the issue I'd rather us pass and opt for guys with more consistent performances.

A free safety who doesn't need to even blink in the direction of Nnamdi should produce top notch numbers imho.

End of the day I'll gladly defer to Rob Ryan's evaluations. He knows what he wants far more than I do.
 
jterrell;3982996 said:
I believe the two of you represent the million dollar question.

Huff was universally considered a bust in Oakland until last year. Then he played quite well. Was that just natural growth or did he simply suck it up in a contract year. That contract year status is something you look for heavily in other sports. It hasn't been so big in football. But it is worrisome to pay a guy based on his highest overall value as opposed to a larger body of work.

I like Huff as a fit here but do not like that he he thinks he will be highly paid.

If money is the issue I'd rather us pass and opt for guys with more consistent performances.

A free safety who doesn't need to even blink in the direction of Nnamdi should produce top notch numbers imho.

End of the day I'll gladly defer to Rob Ryan's evaluations. He knows what he wants far more than I do.
Click to expand...

he played well in 09 and 10, so it was not just a contract season. I grant you the 1st part of his career he got off to a slow start but over the last 2 season he has matured as a player and it has reflexed in his play.
 
I think the reality is few Cowboy fans have probably even seen Huff play in the NFL during his six year career. Those that have probably have seen just a few games being that the Raiders have perenially been bad and don't receive a lot of primetime coverage (even locally, most of their home games are blacked-out). I'm guessing a lot of their familiarity is from his days as a Longhorn.

Raiders fans are not enamored by Huff. Think of Huff in the same way most fans feel about Sensabaugh in Dallas. Most fans run from cold to lukewarm regarding Sensi.

You can't get caught up in just looking at statistics because they don't tell the whole story. For example, say you were a Seahawks fan and your team was actively looking for safety help in free agency. Sensabaugh is available. The first thing you would do is look at his stats from this past year and be like "man, he's pretty darn good...he had 71 tackles to go along with 5 INTs and 2 sacks!" Yet, if you're a Cowboy fan, you know the shortcomings that don't show up in the statsheet.

The same can be said for Huff.

IMO, two things are equally true about Huff: One, he's an upgrade over Alan Ball, point blank. Two, he's likely to get a contract that pays him much more than he's worth.
 
Doomsday101;3983002 said:
he played well in 09 and 10, so it was not just a contract season. I grant you the 1st part of his career he got off to a slow start but over the last 2 season he has matured as a player and it has reflexed in his play.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Plus Oakland was not considered a bastion of young player development.
 
adbutcher;3983061 said:
Agreed. Plus Oakland was not considered a bastion of young player development.
Click to expand...

true. I will say if the coaching staff chooses to go with someone else I'm fine with that but I do think Huff would be a good addition to the secondary.
 
Huff should have never been playing strong safety in the NFL.
 
Doomsday101;3983002 said:
he played well in 09 and 10, so it was not just a contract season. I grant you the 1st part of his career he got off to a slow start but over the last 2 season he has matured as a player and it has reflexed in his play.
Click to expand...

FS is one of the hardest positions to evaluate because half their plays aren't even on camera.

Further, the guy plays for Oakland which sees National tv about 3 times a year.

All that said the metrics do NOT support Huff being strong in '09. He went from 0 career forced fumbles to 3 in 2010. He went from 87 total tackles his first two years to 94 last season.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/player/16150/michael-huff

His work rate and overall play-making was fairly high in 2010 but very low previously.

He was drafted very highly thus obviously offers great athleticism but his metrics are very poor and in fact would be below what Dallas had at FS except in 2010.
 
jterrell;3983155 said:
FS is one of the hardest positions to evaluate because half their plays aren't even on camera.

Further, the guy plays for Oakland which sees National tv about 3 times a year.

All that said the metrics do NOT support Huff being strong in '09. He went from 0 career forced fumbles to 3 in 2010. He went from 87 total tackles his first two years to 94 last season.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/player/16150/michael-huff

His work rate and overall play-making was fairly high in 2010 but very low previously.

He was drafted very highly thus obviously offers great athleticism but his metrics are very poor and in fact would be below what Dallas had at FS except in 2010.
Click to expand...

I'll gladly take Huff you may not want to that is your right. To make the claim that it was a contract year so he played well that is your take. I'm fine with it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

Total: 26,401 (members: 23, guests: 26,378)
Robots: 987

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
474,317
Messages
14,530,317
Members
24,209
Latest member
spartansde88
Back
Top