RuntheDamnBall Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 He was drafted as Kronkie wanted to make a statement. Yes, he did well in the SEC, but he's undersized, had a bad combine, slow for a DE, and I could care less if he or anyone else is gay. It's none of my business which is my position about anyone I meet. If he's a better player that what is on our roster, then pick him up. I don't see him as better than our current roster. He sure schooled a certain QB in Cleveland that half this board believes in.
Best Player Available Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 He sure schooled a certain QB in Cleveland that half this board believes in. well the definition of "schooled" certainly has changed. he got a sack against the scrubs o line in Cleveland of Johnny F.That is schooled?
RuntheDamnBall Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 well the definition of "schooled" certainly has changed. he got a sack against the scrubs o line in Cleveland of Johnny F. That is schooled? Wait, sacks can be attributed to poor line play? Besides which, Johnny Swan's prized asset is supposed to be his escapeability and improvisational play. Just saying, Sam got him twice in the game.
YoloinOhio Posted August 31, 2014 Author Posted August 31, 2014 Lawson - no question. Agreed, but there is no reason to believe he is better than the depth we have already. he played really well in the PS
Bills Fan of St Augustine Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 No, unless he can throw a football or play guard! Well stated! The simple answer is no.
PromoTheRobot Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 His sexual orientation means nothing. Can be play ball is what matters.
Hapless Bills Fan Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 He would work here. I'd like him here as a project and maybe just PS player. NY might be his best fit, Carolina could use someone to bring some heat, Atlanta needs speed and Indy would suit his strengths. The Browns have Pettine so that might work, too. But, honestly there is only one reason we know about him and one reason we have seen any of his highlights this preseason. That saddens me. Just let him be a football player. Actually, in St Louis where the Rams preseason gets more depth of coverage the skinny has been that he's pretty good, they felt he was "on the bubble" and had a decent shot at the roster. So I think he probably didn't have as strong on ST's as someone who stuck, and he's got a good shot to catch on somewhere.
YoloinOhio Posted August 31, 2014 Author Posted August 31, 2014 @SI_PeterKing: Michael Sam still unsigned to any practice squad. It's getting late early.
26CornerBlitz Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 @DraftDiamonds Bills center says ESPN is the reason Michael Sam is not on a team - http://nfldraftdiamonds.com/bills-center-says-espn-is-the-reason-michael-sam-is-not-on-a-team/ … pic.twitter.com/bSRgNCOQ0P
YoloinOhio Posted September 1, 2014 Author Posted September 1, 2014 (edited) @DraftDiamonds Bills center says ESPN is the reason Michael Sam is not on a team - http://nfldraftdiamonds.com/bills-center-says-espn-is-the-reason-michael-sam-is-not-on-a-team/ … pic.twitter.com/bSRgNCOQ0P ha! I just saw that. But I was also watching NFLN and they said he isn't a good practice player (though he showed up in the ps games) and he doesn't play ST. If he doesn't practice well he prob won't be on a practice squad. That said there are teams like Dallas desperate for def playmakers on the 53. Thought he'd get a look that way. Edited September 1, 2014 by YoloinOhio
26CornerBlitz Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 @MikeSilver No Michael Sam on Rams' practice squad. Jeff Fisher remains a fan but needs practice help at other positions due to injury concerns. @AlbertBreer Michael Sam won't be signed to the Rams practice squad, per source. St. Louis using those spots to back up areas without depth.
Rob's House Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 His sexual orientation means nothing. Can be play ball is what matters. His sexual orientation is the reason he's the only non-QB on the front page with a "should we get him" thread.
PromoTheRobot Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 (edited) His sexual orientation is the reason he's the only non-QB on the front page with a "should we get him" thread. It's more that he's a well known name than him being gay. Edited September 1, 2014 by PromoTheRobot
HamSandwhich Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 It's more that he's a well known name than him being gay. Why is he such a well known name though?
joemac Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 The headline over at profootball talk is the Eric Wood, blames his not being picked up on the side show ESPN is making out of his being gay. I feel bad for the kid because of that, because who he goes to bed with is just not that interesting. Whether he can play football is still undecided and he should get a shot some place. However, I think Wood is right here, the side show is a distraction no one wants.
FistingBot Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 The questions is: if he was just another player whom we knew nothing much about, would the reigning SEC defensive player of the year (who had 3 preseason sacks) not be on someone's practice squad? I suspect that "coming out" may have cost this kid a shot at the NFL.
PromoTheRobot Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 (edited) Why is he such a well known name though? It doesn't matter. He's famous so people instantly say we should sign him. Like Tim Tebow. Edited September 1, 2014 by PromoTheRobot
benderbender Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 It doesn't matter. He's famous so people instantly say we should sign him. Like Tim Tebow. Because LB isn't a position we don't have depth in. Just like we're good at QB, right?
Recommended Posts