Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

First of all, I don't think it's true. Second, Turley is a nut. We don't need a friggin nut on the team.

  • Replies 44
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
First of all, I don't think it's true. Second, Turley is a nut. We don't need a friggin nut on the team.

347986[/snapback]

 

Truer words have never been spoken. But hey, we have bluefire here to tell us what to think, so we'll be OK.

 

:doh:

Posted
Wow really?  Whered you see that?

 

If this is true I retract my previous statement.  :doh:

347165[/snapback]

 

Quote from John Clayton article:

That supposed second wave of free agency barely will create a puddle this year. Chiefs wide receiver Johnnie Morton, 49ers tackle Scott Gragg, Rams tackle Kyle Turley, Titans safety Lance Schulters, Seahawks safety Bobby Taylor and Raiders quarterback Rich Gannon are the only certain names. But Gannon is going to retire, and Turley weighed only 240 pounds a couple of months ago and was talking about switching to defensive end. It's hardly a list that will generate much excitement.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/stor...john&id=2068165

 

So are we gonna bring him in at DE?

Posted

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/st...B1?OpenDocument

 

 

After the back problems limited his weight-room work, he plunged to 235. :doh: He's at 260 now, which he acknowledged isn't enough for an NFL offensive lineman. So, he's open to a position switch - perhaps to defensive end or tight end.

 

"If I played offensive line, I might be putting myself in a compromising position, being at 265 or 270 pounds," said Turley, who has been rehabbing since early January at the Athletes Performance Institute in Tempe, Ariz.

 

"I'm not demanding that I play another position. I'm just trying to say, 'Hey, let's look at it from a realistic standpoint.' Otherwise, it might take another year possibly to continue putting the weight on."

×
×
  • Create New...