26CornerBlitz Posted August 22, 2016 Posted August 22, 2016 Not me, I'm on record (before all of this) as saying that I think he is the most overrated player on the team. I wouldn't at all be surprised if he lost his number 2 role. With that being said it doesn't change the fact that I think that he is as good (or better) than every RB on the teams that I listed above. Not even the point at this juncture.
Kirby Jackson Posted August 22, 2016 Posted August 22, 2016 I repeat. This is not that hard to comprehend. It must be because it makes no sense to me. It's the free scratch off ticket. If someone offered me one I wouldn't decline. I'd scratch it and either cash it in or throw it away.
26CornerBlitz Posted August 22, 2016 Posted August 22, 2016 It must be because it makes no sense to me. It's the free scratch off ticket. If someone offered me one I wouldn't decline. I'd scratch it and either cash it in or throw it away. Welp. 31 NFL teams are stupid then and you're ahead of the curve.
Kirby Jackson Posted August 22, 2016 Posted August 22, 2016 Not even the point at this juncture. It isn't? I thought that was the entire point? You have bad RBs on team "X" and you can add a guy that has issues (lots of them) but is better than the rest of your guys. It costs you nothing to see if he can turn it around on your watch.
CommonCents Posted August 22, 2016 Posted August 22, 2016 Not me, I'm on record (before all of this) as saying that I think he is the most overrated player on the team. I wouldn't at all be surprised if he lost his number 2 role. With that being said it doesn't change the fact that I think that he is as good (or better) than every RB on the teams that I listed above. Maybe not, but it doesn't change my opinion that there was very little risk for RB needy teams. I see what your saying, my guess is that teams would rather work out some of the RB's who are destined to be cut in the next week or two.
26CornerBlitz Posted August 22, 2016 Posted August 22, 2016 (edited) It isn't? I thought that was the entire point? You have bad RBs on team "X" and you can add a guy that has issues (lots of them) but is better than the rest of your guys. It costs you nothing to see if he can turn it around on your watch. It's your point, but not the perspective of NFL GMs. If it were there would have been claims submitted. Edited August 22, 2016 by 26CornerBlitz
Kirby Jackson Posted August 22, 2016 Posted August 22, 2016 Welp. 31 NFL teams are stupid then and you're ahead of the curve. 32 (the Bills cut him too). That isn't changing my mind that some of those teams listed shouldn't have taken a shot. There is ZERO risk!! If they had to pay him a lot or if he was controversial vet (like a TO) the it may make sense. Just because they all passed doesn't mean that it was a good decision.
NoSaint Posted August 22, 2016 Posted August 22, 2016 Bringing in an unmotivated, undisciplined person into your team environment with a potential for spillover. He wasn't claimed and there's the biggest answer for you. This is not that hard to comprehend. But especially as a waiver claim - who exactly is going to be hit by his spillover in the week and a half til he's suspended. You give the man a workout regimen, and a playbook and say come see me in a month. You really haven't expressed any strong downside. If he shows up and tries to shank someone in the meeting room you send him home... Short of that it's literally just right of first refusal in October.
Kirby Jackson Posted August 22, 2016 Posted August 22, 2016 I see what your saying, my guess is that teams would rather work out some of the RB's who are destined to be cut in the next week or two.I buy that some but if you need a RB are you better off with Karlos or Boom Herron? Again, I think Karlos is (and has been) WAY overrated by Bills fans. It doesn't mean though that he isn't a better option than guys like Herron.
26CornerBlitz Posted August 22, 2016 Posted August 22, 2016 But especially as a waiver claim - who exactly is going to be hit by his spillover in the week and a half til he's suspended. You give the man a workout regimen, and a playbook and say come see me in a month. You really haven't expressed any strong downside. If he shows up and tries to shank someone in the meeting room you send him home... Short of that it's literally just right of first refusal in October. Sure I have, you just don't accept it. It sends the wrong message to guys who have been busting their asses all off season long and into camp to bring some unmotivated, undisciplined guy on your team with a pending drug suspension. Yeah, Great move!
Kirby Jackson Posted August 22, 2016 Posted August 22, 2016 It's your point, but not the perspective of NFL GMs. If it were there would have been claims submitted. It is certainly my point. I'm struggling with what their risk was? Clearly they have their reasons but it just doesn't make sense to me. But especially as a waiver claim - who exactly is going to be hit by his spillover in the week and a half til he's suspended. You give the man a workout regimen, and a playbook and say come see me in a month. You really haven't expressed any strong downside. If he shows up and tries to shank someone in the meeting room you send him home... Short of that it's literally just right of first refusal in October. That's basically my point. All upside and no downside.
NoSaint Posted August 22, 2016 Posted August 22, 2016 (edited) Sure I have, you just don't accept it. It sends the wrong message to guys who have been busting their asses all off season long and into camp to bring some unmotivated, undisciplined guy on your team with a pending drug suspension. Yeah, Great move! What do you think would be the result of that message though? Simply claiming him would directly effect the performance of players on their 53? It's like being handed a fresh scratch off lotto card and throwing it out because youre afraid of potential gambling addiction at that level Edited August 22, 2016 by NoSaint
YoloinOhio Posted August 22, 2016 Posted August 22, 2016 I would have laid money on Tannenbaum putting in a claim. He must have serious issues beyond what he even know publically.
Kirby Jackson Posted August 22, 2016 Posted August 22, 2016 I would have laid money on Tannenbaum putting in a claim. He must have serious issues beyond what he even know publically.Maybe so, and that would explain it to me. If there is a video out there of him beating a woman or dog or whatever I get it. Even a video of him doing drugs would be enough for me. As it stands now the risk feels small.
26CornerBlitz Posted August 22, 2016 Posted August 22, 2016 What do you think would be the result of that message though? Simply claiming him would directly effect the performance of players on their 53? It's like being handed a fresh scratch off lotto card and throwing it out because youre afraid of potential gambling addiction at that level The message is that you don't have to take your career seriously and you can just show up with no dedication to your profession, but who cares welcome to the family. Nope, not happening! BTW....Terrible analogy!
Jerry Jabber Posted August 22, 2016 Posted August 22, 2016 Rex is the type of guy that gives chances to guys that have been problems on other teams. Incognito's chance with the Bills was seen as his last opportunity in the NFL. Harvin was a problem with Minnesota and Seattle, but Rex gave him a chance in NYJ and in Buffalo. For Rex to give up on Karlos speaks volumes on Karlos' character.
CommonCents Posted August 22, 2016 Posted August 22, 2016 I buy that some but if you need a RB are you better off with Karlos or Boom Herron? Again, I think Karlos is (and has been) WAY overrated by Bills fans. It doesn't mean though that he isn't a better option than guys like Herron. I agree, I'd take a fat Karlos over Herron if his head was screwed on straight (Which apparently it isn't). I think Herron was only brought here to offer some familiarity in the backfield while they got things sorted out. He never had much of a chance to stick even with the Karlos suspension and JWil DWI.
26CornerBlitz Posted August 22, 2016 Posted August 22, 2016 I agree, I'd take a fat Karlos over Herron if his head was screwed on straight (Which apparently it isn't). I think Herron was only brought here to offer some familiarity in the backfield while they got things sorted out. He never had much of a chance to stick even with the Karlos suspension and JWil DWI. There would have been no need to even sign Boom if Karlos had his ship together.
Saxum Posted August 22, 2016 Posted August 22, 2016 I see it not much different than Alan Branch - he got cut being out of shape and facing suspension which used as short term motivation to get back into shape to play but then lost it again. I liked Karlos as an ALTERNATE runner but did not believe he had what he took to be primary back with his running style. If I was a back who worked all of "off season" workouts, training campo and preseason but lost reps and coaches' time I'd be very unhappy, Maybe some Florida State alumni will pay him to attend next Wine and Cheese party selling PSLs but I doubt he is employed by NFL this year.
nucci Posted August 22, 2016 Posted August 22, 2016 It must be because it makes no sense to me. It's the free scratch off ticket. If someone offered me one I wouldn't decline. I'd scratch it and either cash it in or throw it away. Why bring in a headache at this point...There's stuff leaking out about him, his attitude, lack of effort......I'm guessing many GMs don't want to bother with the distraction.
Recommended Posts