HumanCockroach wrote:LOL Pryor, LOL.....
Old but Slow wrote:What about the choice at backup fullback? Coleman is likely a lock, but Ware had an up and down performance, and Small looked intriguing.
monkey wrote:Old but Slow wrote:What about the choice at backup fullback? Coleman is likely a lock, but Ware had an up and down performance, and Small looked intriguing.
This one I'll take an educated guess at; I don't think they will carry a backup FB at all this year.
I think they'll put Small on the practice squad (he's not going to get claimed because he's a fullback) and I think Ware is going to be cut, leaving Coleman as our #1, for those occasions (which are steadily getting less frequent) when we actually use a fullback.
EDIT: I agree on that "Carr kid"I thought that he was by far the most intriguing QB prospect this last draft. In fact I though he was the ONLY intriguing prospect. I doubt any of the QB's drafted this last draft end up making it long term (including he who I will not name, as ESPN cannot stop naming him). I guess I would give Bridgewater a shot at being a league average starter for a few years and an outside shot at being a long term backup in the league, and that's about it.
None of the QB's from this last draft look good to me at all, except Carr.
NorthHawk wrote:There were a lot of players that would normally play that didn't and I wonder if that meant some loss of leadership and focus.
They played for the most part like they hadn't scouted the Raiders and were just mailing it in.
It's also possible that players were being used in situations to see what they can do rather than to optimize the outcome of the game.
That's why it's so hard to fully evaluate players in preseason and why some players that are cut are surprises to us. We don't see how they perform in practice.
HumanCockroach wrote:NorthHawk wrote:There were a lot of players that would normally play that didn't and I wonder if that meant some loss of leadership and focus.
They played for the most part like they hadn't scouted the Raiders and were just mailing it in.
It's also possible that players were being used in situations to see what they can do rather than to optimize the outcome of the game.
That's why it's so hard to fully evaluate players in preseason and why some players that are cut are surprises to us. We don't see how they perform in practice.
Huh? Starters seldom play in the 4th game, at all, much less extended periods of time, honestly I was shocked that Seattle left Okung and Britt in as long as they did, ultimately, it isn't up to a player whether they play or not, so not sure how you can jump to a "loss of leadership" reason for why they didn't, unless of course you are critisizing Carroll and the majority of coaches that have coached this game in the last twenty or so years??????
NorthHawk wrote:HumanCockroach wrote:NorthHawk wrote:There were a lot of players that would normally play that didn't and I wonder if that meant some loss of leadership and focus.
They played for the most part like they hadn't scouted the Raiders and were just mailing it in.
It's also possible that players were being used in situations to see what they can do rather than to optimize the outcome of the game.
That's why it's so hard to fully evaluate players in preseason and why some players that are cut are surprises to us. We don't see how they perform in practice.
Huh? Starters seldom play in the 4th game, at all, much less extended periods of time, honestly I was shocked that Seattle left Okung and Britt in as long as they did, ultimately, it isn't up to a player whether they play or not, so not sure how you can jump to a "loss of leadership" reason for why they didn't, unless of course you are critisizing Carroll and the majority of coaches that have coached this game in the last twenty or so years??????
A lot of players didn't even make the trip and not because of injury.
That sends a subtle message, like it or not.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests