Oh sorry, I thought this was going to be a thread about the Indianapolis Colts "tanking" again.
Funny. They had the same agent. :suspect: Lamont Smith played them both to his advantage...:hmm: If players knew what was good for them they wouldn't hire these guys. :greedy: Unfortunately for EG, his agent was more interested in his own interests rather than Eddie's. :sad2:elfinmagic53 said:
I think Eddie was having a bunch of smoke blown up his arse. His agent screwed him.Gunny said:
We dont have any better options at SS so I think we keep Tank. Hes great against the run and hes healthy now. It takes a long time to recover from some of those knee injuries. Hes a perfect fit for our young team. He is still young enough himself but has some years in the league under his belt.
I'm hearing today that Marcus Randall will likely be a starter next season.. so if we sign Tank, look for 2 pretty big safeties out there...
Randall?
do we ask to get beat deep, the guy is one year removed from being a QB isnt he?
do we ask to get beat deep, the guy is one year removed from being a QB isnt he?
Tank gets beat deep, and he's a veteran...
As for Randall, I'm not sure I feel comfortable with him as a starter. But then I haven't seen him in action and the coaches have.
As for Randall, I'm not sure I feel comfortable with him as a starter. But then I haven't seen him in action and the coaches have.
I know Tank gets beat deep, but we replace him with a 1 year Safety?
Sign a Free Agent.
Sign a Free Agent.
I agree. I think the best we can hope for is Randall be ready to back up at SS and be a regular on special teams.Gunny said:
Its possible that Tank won't get beat deep as often next year, being that he would be 1 full year from an ACL.
Starkiller said:
The same coaches that saw T Beckham in practice too.
One poster says Tank is great against the run. Only if he is on the LOS and they don't block him.
Another says he is improving. Fact is he isn't any better now than he was as a rookie.
Tank's situation is nothing like EGs IMO. Tank never was a super star and the club will not and should not cut him any breaks however on the bright side we might get him cheaper than his true value because of the injury and poor year he had. If he comes cheap he is at the least decent depth. Reese knows what his market value is and IMO he shouldn't get a dime more than a little more than the vet minimum. If we do sign him I would give him a small SB and grab him for three years. If we are not comfortable signing him for 3 years at a reasonable CAP number he isn't worth keeping around.
Another says he is improving. Fact is he isn't any better now than he was as a rookie.
Tank's situation is nothing like EGs IMO. Tank never was a super star and the club will not and should not cut him any breaks however on the bright side we might get him cheaper than his true value because of the injury and poor year he had. If he comes cheap he is at the least decent depth. Reese knows what his market value is and IMO he shouldn't get a dime more than a little more than the vet minimum. If we do sign him I would give him a small SB and grab him for three years. If we are not comfortable signing him for 3 years at a reasonable CAP number he isn't worth keeping around.
Yeah, and you'll note he was glued to the bench most of the year...super_titan said:
It seems the main reason for keeping Tank is that hes a vet and we have a young team. The only problem I have with that is that when you have bad vets the younger players dont mature as well as they could with stronger players. How many times did we see tank sidestep a runner and try and tackle with his arms last season rather than hit the guy with his whole body? If we want this team to be aggressive again, it has to come from aggressive vets and Tank is not one of them. Let him go. Id rather have a younger guy with less experience that isn't afraid to lay it on someone than have a safety that takes a hit rather than gives one.
Starkiller said:
Yea but during spring practice and training camp all we heard was how much he had improved and how good he was gonna be that season.
But I guess they didnt have to many other options at the time as well.
2toneblue77 said:
The other problem with vets like Tank is they end up getting the playing time even though they are not getting the job done while a young guy rots on the bench. We could have done as well with Randall and Nickey at the safeties last year.
Soxcat said:
Yeah, poor Rey Hill and Pac Jones just rotted on the bench while T. Beck and Woofolk played up a storn!:sad2:
What, you think Fisher was going to say "Well, he sucks, but he's the best we've got" or something like that?super_titan said:
elfinmagic53 said:
Historically Fisher has been reluctant to bench vets even if they are marginal players. Obviously Pacman is an acception because he was the #6 pick in the draft. He was going to start no matter what. I was a little surprised that Hill got his opportunity early but even then it took a Woolfolk injury to get him into the lineup.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
