That's funny. Another point to be made would be that the UDFA made the team over the 3 drafted receivers(Matthews, Cunningham, Gates). Ireland
I'm having a little trouble with the idea of keeping 6 wide receivers. -Reggie Bush can and will be split out wide like a receiver. -Charles Clay can and will be split out wide like a receiver. -Michael Egnew can and will be split out wide like a receiver. -Even Lamar Miller has been tried split out wide like a receiver. -If Les Brown is kept he will most assuredly be split out wide like a receiver. So why do you need 6 untalented wide receivers? What talented players are you cutting from the roster in order to do that? Why are we discriminating against said talented players at other positions, and in favor of the wide receivers? Just because it's a sexier position?
4.53 was his pro day 40 time. That was last March 7th. He'd just come off a stress fracture in his foot from the Senior Bowl, so probably wasn't able to already run his best by March 7 either.
Yessir. He has 4.40 speed. So does Legedu Naanee, though he's never been a deep threat in his career.
And it was probably a friendly estimate, to be honest. I don't know if I see 4.53 on the football field with him. But then you could probably say the same about Fasano's 4.72 (although I personally find it believable), or Les Brown's 4.43.
Joe Philbin's ideals on defense are to keep 8 DLs, 7 LBs and 10 DBs. That's what he told his coaches when he asked them each to formulate their own 53 man roster. That leaves 25 spaces on offense. If you're keeping 3 QBs, that's 22 spaces. The bare minimum you can keep on OL is 8. That leaves 14 spaces for TEs, RBs and WRs. Say you keep 3 TEs, down to 11 spots for RBs and WRs. That leaves you the ability to keep 5 RBs/FBs (a normal amount) and 6 WRs...but it means that 6th WR came at the expense of a 9th OL (which is probably average) and/or a 4th TE. So really it's going to come down to whether you you're healthy enough on OL to feel like you have your bases covered injury-wise with Lydon Murtha, Eric Steinbach and perhaps Josh Samuda as your only backups...and whether that 9th OL (Dustin Waldron, Andrew McDonald, John Jerry, Will Barker or Ray Feinga), or that 4th TE (Les Brown), or that 9th DL (Derrick Shelby, Jarrell Root, Jacquies Smith, Ryan Baker). If you've already got Julius Pruitt on roster, I don't see how a Roberto Wallace wins that extra roster spot over one of the DLs, a 9th OL or a Les Brown. Likewise the other way around, if Wallace gets the job with his combination of STs play and promise as a receiver...how/why do you keep Pruitt? Who shows more promise, Jeff Fuller, Rishard Matthews, B.J. Cunningham or Clyde Gates? Do you really need Legedu Naanee on roster if you've got Brian Hartline healthy again along with Davone Bess and Chad Johnson?
That's what I'm saying---- there was nothing to leave him permanently damaged causing him to fall to rookie FA status.
It's hard to know unless you have insider knowledge. Ireland could have just signed him. Sherman could have requested they sign him. Tannehill could have suggested they sign him. Another scout could have been banging the table for him like Bess.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Ireland gets credit for the good UDFA just as he'd get credit for the bad 1st rounder.
At this point, which is ridiculously early, and all guesswork,I'm thinking about who would be the more talented player to fill out their respected unit, I think there is deeper talent at receiver than the other units, but that could change in the games..
I'd say the off season before this one till now is all on Ireland. Columbo is his bad. Reggie Bush is his good. Pouncey good. Thomas bad. etc. I still don't see why that's not fair.
Yes, I'm aware. Just as you're aware that I would say that the last 5 off seasons are for the most part on Ireland.
I know. I was just responding to your post. By the way, tell Dave Hyde he did a bang up job on those Draft Articles. His name is on the column.
You have no idea how ironic that line of argument is. Literally, I'm pretty sure you're not aware of the irony. Give it a rest. It's now become apparent that your primary method of argument on this issue is to pretend I haven't already explained my stance on the issue in 15,000 words 37 different times, until I'm tired of re-explaining it every time, and then you can pretend ignorantly that I'm not explaining my position because it's not valid, and therefore I must be wrong. Grow up, Peter Pan.
Actually what is abundantly clear is you really believe you can never be questioned. Case in point: But if I respond to that, you get pissy. Its ridiculous.
lol. I read it before I posted. I know how it got there. You made your stance clear. I made mine clear. You got annoyed. Rinse, repeat.
At which point was the horse dead, CK? When you made your point for the 100th time or only after that when I made mine for the 100th time?
Actually what happened is I addressed a point about whether Jeff Ireland should get criticized for his draft pick not making the roster, while his undrafted free agent does make the roster. To which I said, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, he should get credit for the good UDFA just as he should get credit for the bad 1st round pick. At which point you decided it would be a lovely time to bring up a COMPLETELY UNRELATED and totally d-e-d horse so that we can beat upon it with blunted instruments. Awesome work.
Exactly. He gets credit for Bess, Patrick Turner, Hartline, Marlon Moore, Roberto Wallace, Julius Pruitt, BJ Cunningham, Rishard Matthews and Jeff Fuller. Good credit or negative credit. You could say he gets the same for signing Naanee and Chad.
Well before either of us said anything. Which is why I gave that very tired sounding, "are we really talking about this" response saying yes I'm aware of your position on that argument just as you're aware of mine. It should have ended there. But nope...you've got to keep beating that dead horse.
I agree. Though I wouldn't include Patrick Turner in this particular discussion because it opens the door to a very old, very tired debate which I have no intention of debating at this point.
You're 2 for 2. I agree with that as well. Or at least, if you added the word "definitively" to your sentence, as in "It would be very shortsighted to definitively proclaim Thomas was a bad choice" then I would agree 100%. You can declare a bad pick a bad pick immediately, if you like. It's just a prediction. Nothing definitive.
How about: "At this point in time, it would be very shortsighted to definitively proclaim Thomas was a bad choice"
