stolen post from egriz!

CARDIAC_CATS · Post by **CARDIAC_CATS** » Fri Aug 19, 2005 12:54 pm

bearBAC wrote:slick_willy
eGrizzer

Joined: 09 Dec 2002
Posts: 128

Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 6:07 pm Post subject: Griz WRs vs. Cats CBs

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just an interesting observation about the likely starters. Notice a theme here?

Talmage: 6'4"
Bagley: 6'4"
Allen: 6'3"

Fuller: 5'10"
Smith: 5'9"
Hunter: 5'10"

Talmage: 6'4" (SLOW)
Bagley: 6'4" (SLOWER)
Allen: 6'3" (SLOWEST)

Fuller: 5'10" (FAST)
Smith: 5'9" (FASTER)
Hunter: 5'10 (FASTEST)

Where was all that size last year utilized? Your best receiver was speedy quick Jefferson Heidelberger (5'9?). You are going to miss that break neck slot speed he had I guarantee it. It won't stretch our LB's out as much to cover. Say hello to 8-9 in the box.

CelticCat · Post by **CelticCat** » Fri Aug 19, 2005 1:22 pm

Plus you have to have someone to throw them the ball.

Cattrack165 · Post by **Cattrack165** » Fri Aug 19, 2005 2:07 pm

That is pretty funny, you choose the three worst receivers on your team to compare with our proven backs. Your bringing it weak.

mquast53000 · Post by **mquast53000** » Fri Aug 19, 2005 2:24 pm

bearBAC you are an idiot. If you knew ANYTHING about football you would know that DBs are almost always shorter then WRs. To make my point here are the names and heights of the top 4 DBs and WRs in the 2005 NFL draft:

DBs:

Adam Jones 5’9 6th pick overall
Antrel Rolle 6’0 8th pick overall
Carlos Rodgers 6’0 9th pick overall
Fabian Washington 5’10 23rd pick overall

WRs:

Braylon Edwards 6’2 3rd pick overall
Troy Williams 6’2 7th pick overall
Mike Williams 6’5 10th pick overall
Matt Jones 6’6 21st pick overall

Maybe you should talk about something that you have knowledge about, like pocket pool.

jagur1 · Post by **jagur1** » Fri Aug 19, 2005 2:27 pm

And if M knew anything about football he'd know that CBs are getting lit up left and right in the NFL. Talk is it isn't even worth the effort to get a champ bailey becouse it won't make any difference.

mquast53000 · Post by **mquast53000** » Fri Aug 19, 2005 2:28 pm

Now if you wanted a stolen post from egriz that talks some good smack you should have taken this one:

http://www.egriz.com/GrizBoard/viewtopi ... c67688b2a6

mquast53000 · Post by **mquast53000** » Fri Aug 19, 2005 2:34 pm

jagur1 wrote:And if M knew anything about football he'd know that CBs are getting lit up left and right in the NFL. Talk is it isn't even worth the effort to get a champ bailey becouse it won't make any difference.

Jag are you sticking up for your little brother bearBAC?

The NFL's problem is not the height difference between the CBs & WRs, it is the pass interference rule. The NFL wants a lot of scoring so they handcuff the CBs. Nice try though

mquast53000 · Post by **mquast53000** » Fri Aug 19, 2005 2:38 pm

I see that you are changing your argument half way through this thread… I also see that you stole this from egriz too. Do you come up with anything on your own, or is it always plagiarized?

JahGriz · Post by **JahGriz** » Fri Aug 19, 2005 3:14 pm

jagur1 wrote:And if M knew anything about football he'd know that CBs are getting lit up left and right in the NFL. Talk is it isn't even worth the effort to get a champ bailey becouse it won't make any difference.

Height is not the main reason they are getting lit up, IMO, jagur. Look at the rules changes that help offense. They've made it ridiculously hard for DB's. And DB's are getting paid big buck to play now, because it is obvious that great ones are an asset. If they didn't matter, they would get paid like punters again.

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Fri Aug 19, 2005 3:42 pm

Cattrack165 wrote:That is pretty funny, you choose the three worst receivers on your team to compare with our proven backs. Your bringing it weak.

Granted, most of our receiving corps has not seen live action yet, but how do you figure these three are "the worst on our team"? Talmage has always looked good considering he's never been the go-to guy in our offense, and by all accounts, Allen and Bagley have potential. Who on our team do you think is better at WR than these three?

--GL

JahGriz · Post by **JahGriz** » Fri Aug 19, 2005 11:55 pm

Cattrack165 wrote:That is pretty funny, you choose the three worst receivers on your team to compare with our proven backs. Your bringing it weak.

Since when is Smith proven? Talmage is proven, Allen is in basically the same boat as Smith, unproven but holds plenty of potential.
Kind of tough for him to come up with more than one proven WR for the Griz, since that is all we have.
There is a place were hight is an advantage though, in the endzone.

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Sat Aug 20, 2005 12:29 pm

I just think it's funny that bareassed is already worrying about the Cats!

Nick · Post by **Nick** » Mon Aug 22, 2005 1:07 am

CARDIAC_CATS wrote:
bearBAC wrote:slick_willy
eGrizzer

Joined: 09 Dec 2002
Posts: 128

Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 6:07 pm Post subject: Griz WRs vs. Cats CBs

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just an interesting observation about the likely starters. Notice a theme here?

Talmage: 6'4"
Bagley: 6'4"
Allen: 6'3"

Fuller: 5'10"
Smith: 5'9"
Hunter: 5'10"
Talmage: 6'4" (SLOW)
Bagley: 6'4" (SLOWER)
Allen: 6'3" (SLOWEST)

Fuller: 5'10" (FAST)
Smith: 5'9" (FASTER)
Hunter: 5'10 (FASTEST)

Where was all that size last year utilized? Your best receiver was speedy quick Jefferson Heidelberger (5'9?). You are going to miss that break neck slot speed he had I guarantee it. It won't stretch our LB's out as much to cover. Say hello to 8-9 in the box.

Which one of those Cat corners did JH shake off his back into the endzone? Speed doesn't mean much if you can't finish the job.

stolen post from egriz!

Re: stolen post from egriz!

Re: stolen post from egriz!