Alaska Darin Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Given teams' infallibility when it comes to drafting players, it's a wonder ANY drafted players fail, or any undrafted players succeed. At least, so sayeth the braying ass. Please LD, come back when you a) have dropped ball stats for Nance from college and/or b) can give me a prediction on draftees from this year so I can see just how much of a (idioti) savant you are and/or c) can lend me your crystal ball so I can see in the future that Nance will do nothing in the NFL. Until then, you are a legend in your mind ONLY. 708716[/snapback] Dude, all he wants is attention. Stop giving it to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaDairis Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Yeah, sure, moderator... You must be a PARROTING MORON too, given where you have sided here... As for this lie... "can give me a prediction on draftees from this year" that answer was given here three days ago... http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=47381&st=80 "As for this year, Whitner is a good SS prospect but not a TOP 10 caliber one. Ko Simpson is just about as good a FS prospect as Whitner is a SS. McCargo was a huge reach and not a First Round caliber talent, but I already posted that, and your BEAKED BIRDBRAIN "disproved" that by parroting mock drafts. Youboty is not an elite "Clements" caliber corner prospect. Third Round was about right if not too high. Kyle Williams is not far behind McCargo in talent and was a good pick in round 5. Brad Butler isn't going to cut it at OT in the NFL - not a good enough athlete. Keith Ellison is not an NFL caliber OLB prospect and should have gone undrafted. Ellison is slow and not a quality tackler - misses tackles too often. Pennington is just a huge guy with some athleticism but very green with poor technique and isn't quick off the snap. Merz is not bad for Round 7 but has injury issues and is not an elite athlete" But, heck, if one of your favorite fellow PARROTING MORONS is lying his little BEAKED BIRDBRAIN off here, you cheer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaDairis Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Given teams' infallibility when it comes to drafting players, it's a wonder ANY drafted players fail, or any undrafted players succeed. At least, so sayeth the braying ass. Please LD, come back when you a) have dropped ball stats for Nance from college and/or b) can give me a prediction on draftees from this year so I can see just how much of a (idioti) savant you are and/or c) can lend me your crystal ball so I can see in the future that Nance will do nothing in the NFL. Until then, you are a legend in your mind ONLY. 708716[/snapback] Errors in the Draft tend to err on the side of size. Mike Williams is a great example. The NFL has plenty of folks searching for size. The NFL can find size. Size is not exactly hard to find. Size at the Senior Bowl gets all the attention it needs, unless there are character issues, as with Anttaj Hawthorne last year. There is a difference between a four year star MAC player with size going to the Senior Bowl and going undrafted, and a kid like Gates who did not play college football and did not attend any of the all star bowls like the Senior Bowl, but your feathered birdbrain doesn't seem to be able to figure that out. As for your obsession with parroting some drop stats, your hypocrisy on that issue is off the scale, as the search I did for drop stats, producted an NFL leaderboard with Ernest Wilford on top by a tall=good margin. True to form, you and your fellow featherhead attempt to excuse Wilford's drop talent, because Wilford has that other amazing characteristic that your birdbrains are impressed with - height. Hence, if you do not accept Wilford's drop talent as evidence of anything but Wilford's greatness, why would anyone expect your beakedness to do anything different with Nance. YOU BIRDBRAINS cannot explain why Nance was an undrafted Senior Bowl participant. YOU BIRDBRAINS refuse to even consider that my explanation might explain why Nance was indeed a Senior Bowl undrafted. YOU BIRDBRAINS insist that, no matter what, any tall=good WR must be some amazing talent, because PARROTS like you always think your parroting is correct, because you did the parroting. You want a drop stat for Nance after refusing to accept one documenting what a disasterous pair of bricks Ernest Wilford has for hands... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Its great to hear that Martin Nance is catching everything in sight at mini-camp, but the #1 question for Martin Nance seems to have rarely been covered - Can He Play Special Teams? Here's the thing for the Bills at WR: 1) Lee Evans - not going anywhere 2) Peerless Price - received a $2 million signing bonus, would be an awful lot to make for just appearing at training camp 3) Josh Reed - (see note on Peerless Price) 4) Roscoe Parrish - hard to see us cutting a 2nd round pick of a WR in his second year, even if he was picked by the old regime After those four WR's, we have the following guys competing for 1 roster spot, maybe a second WR spot if we keep a 6th WR who is inactive on game days. A) Sam Aiken - By all accounts an important special teams player for us B) Jonathan Smith - An intriguing punt returner - but he probably has to beat out Parrish to stick as a returned, or beat Aiken as Special Teams cover man C) Andre Davis - Signed with the Bills cheap, and probably thought he had a chance to start. Then the Bills threw $2 million at Price and Reed. Tough break. Hard to see any scenario where he sticks without convincing the Bills to swallow that $2 million check to either Price or Reed. D) George Wilson - The last undrafted free agent to catch everything in sight for us at camp. E) Martin Nance So, barring the Bills handing a two million dollar check to either Peerless Price or Josh Reed for being camp fodder for us, Martin Nance has a tall order ahead of him. Barring injury, pretty much the only way he is going to be active on game days is to become a better special teams player than Sam Aiken. Failing that, Nance will have to beat out Smith, Davis, Wilson, and the next best player at other positions to stick as a 6th WR who will be mostly inactive on gamedays. The most likely situation still seems to be the practice squad - if he isn't picked up by someone else. JDG 708184[/snapback] a little late to the thread,.....but my guess is with a guy like Nance, if the Bills are impressed with his potential yet see that he is still too raw, they will find a way to tweak his hamstring and put him on IR so he is protected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerJ Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Nance stays because he fits a specific purpose on this team.....red zone offense (for now) I think not only does he stay but so does Andre Davis......he is a speed vet receiver who is also a very good special teams player....which is why Sam Aiken is gone..... Evans Peerless Reed Parrish Nance Davis 708277[/snapback] That's what I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Ah, the 6'4" runs a 4.5 40 = football skills theory... Add in a few receiving stats from the MAC and get a bust ready for him in Canton... Well, to answer your question, Nance is hardly agile enough to return kicks. The guy takes a while to get to top speed, but once he gets speed, has real trouble turning. Hence, his ability to be a gunner is negligible, not to metnion helping out on kickoff coverage. Blocking kicks - perhaps, although he would have competition from some of the better leapers on the roster. While I don't know too much about Aiken and some of the others, I hardly see where Nance would add anything vs. George Wilson, who is a good gunner. Wilson was highly productive in the SEC. Wilson adjusts to the ball. Wilson is a good blocker. Oh, I know!!!! Nance is THREE INCHES TALLER!!! And TALL=GOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! h+w+b+40 = football skils the best WR in the NFL is Tyrone Calico, especially right after Fisher benched him as a rookie for dropping one out of every three right to him and before he tore both knees. the best OL in the NFL is the Bengals Stacy Andrews, who holds the record for h+w+b+40 even though he is yet to play a down in the NFL... 708557[/snapback] Okie Dokie. Size, speed and stength don't matter in the NFL. Brilliant analysis. What a bunch of fools those coaches and scouts are for spending all that time, effort and money measuring and timing these guys. Are you arguing that Nance doesn't have "football skills"? I guess all that time as a starting WR for a major college program and his presence on an actual NFL roster is a mirage. The post I was responding to indicated, wrongfully I thought, that in my argument to give Nance a fair shot, I was implying that just "anyone" could learn special teams. My citing the info on Nance was done simply to point out that Nance isn't just "anyone". He is a solid athlete who had a good career in college. The fact that he wasn't drafted doesn't exactly equate to him having no "football skills". The Bills didn't sign him to clean the locker room, they signed him to play football so at some level he certainly has "football skills". I asked what Aiken did on special teams that was so special that Nance couldn't be taught and your response was "..to answer your question, Nance is hardly agile enough to return kicks." Aiken has, to my knowledge, never returned a kick. So I don't know why you made that comparison. Is it really so terrible to propose that Nance be given a fair shot to make the roster that it deserves your snarling responses? Lots of us have disagreed on Nance's potential in this thread without it getting ugly. Respectful disagreement among fans. Happens all the time, give it a try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Errors in the Draft tend to err on the side of size. Mike Williams is a great example. The NFL has plenty of folks searching for size. The NFL can find size. Size is not exactly hard to find. Size at the Senior Bowl gets all the attention it needs, unless there are character issues, as with Anttaj Hawthorne last year. There is a difference between a four year star MAC player with size going to the Senior Bowl and going undrafted, and a kid like Gates who did not play college football and did not attend any of the all star bowls like the Senior Bowl, but your feathered birdbrain doesn't seem to be able to figure that out. As for your obsession with parroting some drop stats, your hypocrisy on that issue is off the scale, as the search I did for drop stats, producted an NFL leaderboard with Ernest Wilford on top by a tall=good margin. True to form, you and your fellow featherhead attempt to excuse Wilford's drop talent, because Wilford has that other amazing characteristic that your birdbrains are impressed with - height. Hence, if you do not accept Wilford's drop talent as evidence of anything but Wilford's greatness, why would anyone expect your beakedness to do anything different with Nance. YOU BIRDBRAINS cannot explain why Nance was an undrafted Senior Bowl participant. YOU BIRDBRAINS refuse to even consider that my explanation might explain why Nance was indeed a Senior Bowl undrafted. YOU BIRDBRAINS insist that, no matter what, any tall=good WR must be some amazing talent, because PARROTS like you always think your parroting is correct, because you did the parroting. You want a drop stat for Nance after refusing to accept one documenting what a disasterous pair of bricks Ernest Wilford has for hands... 708755[/snapback] Why don't you explain why the Bills signed him if he is so bad, so lacking in any football skills whatsoever? Lots of very good football players go undrafted and I hope that is the case with Nance. By the same token, the fact that he wasn't drafted is some indication that he doesn't have the right stuff at this point to challenge for a roster spot. Size doesn't automatically mean he will be great and no one here as argued that absurd point which you keep trying to tag on them. Pointing out that he has size and that such size can be a good thing for a WR to have is simply recognizing the obvious. It is not tantamount to a declaration that his size alone makes him a pro bowler. It is why scouts pay a lot of attention to size along with many, many other factors. The point being made here is simply that Nance be given a fair shot at making the roster and that the early indications are that he is playing very well in the OTA's. Why does that make us all birdbrains so deserving of your obnoxious scorn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaDairis Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 LaDairis' FEATHERHEAD Lesson #18 "Okie Dokie. Size, speed and stength don't matter in the NFL. Brilliant analysis" h+w+b+40 does not matter at WR if the WR doesn't adjust to the ball, doesn't separate, and doesn't have good hands... Reggie Williams of the Jags was a classic h+w+b+40 WR who cannot separate in the NFL. The NFL, specifically the Jags, clearly did a great job scouting him. "Are you arguing that Nance doesn't have "football skills"?" LOL!!!! Since you define size as a "football skill" I laugh at the question. What I'm saying is what I said the very first innocent post I made on this subject, a post that was viciously attecked by the two featherheads above. What I said was that Nance drops balls, Nance does not adjust to the ball, Nance does not separate, and hence Nance deserved to be an undrafted despite his h+w+b+40 and his MAC stats. Now, since you clearly do not understand that, I cannot help you until you get a basic Football 101 level education... "The post I was responding to indicated, wrongfully I thought, that in my argument to give Nance a fair shot, I was implying that just "anyone" could learn special teams. My citing the info on Nance was done simply to point out that Nance isn't just "anyone". He is a solid athlete who had a good career in college" Once again, the substance of my post responding to that was clear and sailed right over your head - WOOSH. I said that Nance takes time to accelerate to top speed and doesn't change directions well. What does that mean? WOOSH!!! It means he won't cut it as a gunner - WOOSH! It means he would be ineffective as a KR - WOOSH! What is your response to that - parroting h+w+b+40 and college stats, because that is all your BEAKED BIRDBRAIN is capable of understanding. How about YOU TELLING US what Special Team job Nance can do? That's right, your "answer" will be that Nance is tall and was a great MAC player... "Is it really so terrible to propose that Nance be given a fair shot to make the roster that it deserves your snarling responses?" Not at all. I really look forward to it. I have hope that some of you will actually learn somethng in the process. What has been "terrible" here is that I started with one simple kind response pointing out why I thought Nance went undrafted, and I was viciously and repeatedly attecked for having my own view on the subject. Indeed, nobody has presented the slightest evidence that my views on the subject are anything but dead on. Rather, there has been a hysteria that h+w+b+40 plus stat parroting plus guru parroting equals The NFL and LaDairis must be totally wrong and Nance really did deserve to be drafted... Add in a comparison of Gates, who never played college ball, and a lie about whether or not I called the Bills 06 Draft here, and one has to wonder if humanity is not in real trouble... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 The 'ignore user' function. It's what's for dinner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaDairis Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 "Lots of very good football players go undrafted" That's true. However, very few of them were four year ALL Conference players who were at the Senior Bowl, and that is the point. The NFL can miss someone like Gates who did not play any college ball. To claim the NFL missed out on Nance is pathetic given the facts. "Pointing out that he has size and that such size can be a good thing for a WR to have is simply recognizing the obvious" Santana Moss and Derrick Mason are listening... "It is why scouts pay a lot of attention to size " Which explains why none of the 32 NFL teams attending the Senior Bowl spent a pick on Nance... right? LOL!! "The point being made here is simply that Nance be given a fair shot at making the roster and that the early indications are that he is playing very well in the OTA's. Why does that make us all birdbrains so deserving of your obnoxious scorn?" That is a laughably dishonest way to spin how this debate has unfolded. The "scorn" I received has been because none of you featherheads has had the slightest answer to my points, but rather a non-stop parrot&lie&insult fest since. Let's try again... I said the kid drops balls, doesn't separate, and doesn't adjust to the ball. Those are my observations, as are the points about acceleration and turning in regards to ST play. Why is that wrong? If your answer is h+w+b+40=football skills and MAC stat parroting, I rest my case... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Sorry LD, I missed your predictions on the Bills' draft the first time. Duly noted and we'll revisit them later-on. As for Wilford, I never mentioned anything about him. All I asked for was dropped ball stats on Nance, in the thread about how Nance could be another Wilford. And in his college career, Wilford caught slightly over 2.5 passes a game, which suggest he drops balls. Nance caught well over 6 passes a game in his senior season, less than a year removed from ACL surgery. And I cannot explain why Nance went undrafted. Neither can most people. Again YOUR critique of Nance flies in the face of virtually EVERY profile of him. And just because he went undrafted, that doesn't mean he won't succeed or that he deserved to go undrafted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 reading LD's posts makes me hate it when middle school lets out for the summer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaDairis Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 "And in his college career, Wilford caught slightly over 2.5 passes a game, which suggest he drops balls." It might also suggest that Wilford played on VaTech, which tended to run the ball with Kevin Jones and others. You may find in stats that Miami OH threw the ball more often than VaTech did... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 LaDairis' FEATHERHEAD Lesson #18h+w+b+40 does not matter at WR if the WR doesn't adjust to the ball, doesn't separate, and doesn't have good hands... Reggie Williams of the Jags was a classic h+w+b+40 WR who cannot separate in the NFL. The NFL, specifically the Jags, clearly did a great job scouting him. Yes, there are receivers whose size didn't help them because they had bad hands. No kidding. Really? Thanks because none of us would have known that without the benefit of your insight. All those of us who see potential in Nance have done is cite his size as a plus for him, we haven't made it the end all and be all of what it is to be a good WR. I'll ask it again, is it your position that because size wasn't much help to some WR's that size therefore doesn't matter at all? Since you are so fond of citing a few players and then drawing a sweeping conclusion, lets look at a few tall WR's: Chad Johnson 6-1 Larry Fitzgerald 6-3 Anquan Boldin 6-1 Plaxico Burress 6-5 Eddie Kennison 6-1 Antonio Gates 6-5 Jimmy Smith 6-1 Antonio Bryant 6-2 Randy Moss 6-4 Houshmandzazdeh 6-1 Jerry Porter 6-2 Those guys were all in the top 25 in rec. yards last year. Only 6 of the top 25 were under 6' tall. Ceratinly, these guys have other skills but in addition to those, they are tall and use it to their advantage. Despite what you girlfriend, or boyfriend for that matter, keeps telling you, size does matter. Since you define size as a "football skill" I laugh at the question. No, that is not what I said. In fact, I never mentioned his size in connection with his football skills at all. Instead, I cited his play for 4 years on a major college football team and the fact that he is now on an NFL roster getting paid to play professional football. Hardly the resume of someone with no "football skill" as you claim. What I'm saying is what I said the very first innocent post I made on this subject, a post that was viciously attecked by the two featherheads above. If so, then go ahead and be a jackass in responding to them. That doesn't explain you taking the same attitude and bluster in response to my posts which didn't attack you in anyway. What I said was that Nance drops balls, Nance does not adjust to the ball, Nance does not separate, and hence Nance deserved to be an undrafted despite his h+w+b+40 and his MAC stats. All valid points, pity you can't make them without adding childish insults such as this: Now, since you clearly do not understand that, I cannot help you until you get a basic Football 101 level education... By the way, you do know that he pulled his hamstring during his pro day workout, don't you? Could that explain why he didn't get drafted? Nahhhh. "The post I was responding to indicated, wrongfully I thought, that in my argument to give Nance a fair shot, I was implying that just "anyone" could learn special teams. My citing the info on Nance was done simply to point out that Nance isn't just "anyone". He is a solid athlete who had a good career in college" Once again, the substance of my post responding to that was clear and sailed right over your head - WOOSH. I said that Nance takes time to accelerate to top speed and doesn't change directions well. What does that mean? WOOSH!!! It means he won't cut it as a gunner - WOOSH! It means he would be ineffective as a KR - WOOSH! What is your response to that - parroting h+w+b+40 and college stats, because that is all your BEAKED BIRDBRAIN is capable of understanding. That discussion was specifically about Aiken vs. Nance on special teams. You replied that Nance can't return kicks. Well, neither does Aiken, didn't you know that? If you did, why did you bring up kick returning in answering the question of what Aiken can do on ST that Nance can't? Maybe you're not quite as informed as your arrogance and insulting manner would imply. Nance returning kicks was never part of the discussion until you brought it in. I'm not going to explain Nance being a gunner or return man since I never proposed that he could play either position. His contribution on special teams would be similar to Aiken's, open field blocking. How about YOU TELLING US what Special Team job Nance can do? That's right, your "answer" will be that Nance is tall and was a great MAC player... I see no reason why Nance couldn't be a valuable contributor on special teams, especially open field blocking. "Is it really so terrible to propose that Nance be given a fair shot to make the roster that it deserves your snarling responses?" Not at all. I really look forward to it. I have hope that some of you will actually learn somethng in the process. What has been "terrible" here is that I started with one simple kind response pointing out why I thought Nance went undrafted, and I was viciously and repeatedly attecked for having my own view on the subject. Indeed, nobody has presented the slightest evidence that my views on the subject are anything but dead on. Rather, there has been a hysteria that h+w+b+40 plus stat parroting plus guru parroting equals The NFL and LaDairis must be totally wrong and Nance really did deserve to be drafted... Add in a comparison of Gates, who never played college ball, and a lie about whether or not I called the Bills 06 Draft here, and one has to wonder if humanity is not in real trouble... I didn't respond to your "...simple kind response..." with an attack of any kind. Your response to my post however was all condescension and sarcasm. Coming all the way back to my original point, Nance is an interesting prospect given his college career, his size, speed and intangibles that, despite his status as a UDFA, deserves a fair shot at a roster spot no matter who is ahead of him. This team finished 5-11, I don't think there are many people on that roster whose position is unassailable. 708779[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaDairis Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 "I see no reason why Nance couldn't be a valuable contributor on special teams, especially open field blocking" You mean like an up man on the KR? Nance would be superior in that roll to a backup FB, TE or LB? LOL!! Does his height help him be an open field blocker?? Have you ever seen him block?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaDairis Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 "Chad Johnson 6-1 Larry Fitzgerald 6-3 Anquan Boldin 6-1 Plaxico Burress 6-5 Eddie Kennison 6-1 Antonio Gates 6-5 Jimmy Smith 6-1 Antonio Bryant 6-2 Randy Moss 6-4 Houshmandzazdeh 6-1 Jerry Porter 6-2" Only four of those you listed are 6'3" or taller, and Gates is a TE. 6'1" is George Wilson's height. And the whole point of pimping Nance over Wilson is to get those precious extra three inches that make all the difference in the universe to you. Stretching the definition of a "tall WR" down to 6'1" is stoopin quite low. WRs have other things besides h+w+b+40 that determines their success, but those things, such as turning ability, separation, adjustment to the ball, hands etc. - whew, those get zero value from you. Try a few of these on for "size" Fred Gibson Reggie Williams JJ Stokes Bryant Johnson ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Coming all the way back to my original point, Nance is an interesting prospect given his college career, his size, speed and intangibles that, despite his status as a UDFA, deserves a fair shot at a roster spot no matter who is ahead of him. This team finished 5-11, I don't think there are many people on that roster whose position is unassailable. 708779[/snapback] 708808[/snapback] He certainly deserves a good look, not a kangaroo court. Late round or UDFA receivers do blossom. I'm not going to search hither and yon, but locally, 7th rounders Houshmandezeh and Kevin Walter (great ST'er - got a 6M FA contract from HOU) have been nice finds. I don't think there is much of a difference between a 7th pick and a UFDA - a little luck, a player who ends up on the right club for his kind of talent, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5 Wide Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Drafting is an inexact science...take a guy like Willie Parker. Backup running back from NC. His college coaches didn't even think enough of him to start at his program. 3 years later, the undrafted FA pickup is the starting tailback for the Superbowl champs. Who should be fired over missing that guy? No one, sometimes a light goes on, people mature at different rates, sometimes it takes just the right coach to finally unsheath the talent to match the physical ability. Not being drafted, wearing his pants too low, only a 4.5, whatever who cares, last time I checked the only reason we're talking about this guy is that he is showing something in an NFL CAMP, against NFL TALENT. LaDaris, come on man, deep inside the immaturity displayed in your posts is a fair amount of a rational thought pattern, even if it comes out as a crusade. Tip for life, having an idea is the first part of the equation, being able to successfully transfer that idea for debate is the other half. Being condescending and omnipotent in your theories lessens the credibility of what you have to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaDairis Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 "take a guy like Willie Parker. Backup running back from NC. His college coaches didn't even think enough of him to start at his program" That is precisely who the NFL tends to miss in the Draft, not the four year starter ALL MAC kid at the Senior Bowl... ... and also perhaps sheds some light on the credibility of the "coach knows best" theory as well... "last time I checked the only reason we're talking about this guy is that he is showing something in an NFL CAMP, against NFL TALENT" No, we started talking about Nance initially because someone suggested he could be our "Ernest Wilford," which led another question: Do we want an Ernest Wilford, given that the Pats shut out Wilford in his last game, not to mention the fact that Wilford led the NFL in drops by a wide margin? As for camp reports, we have heard them before. George Wilson, for example. Now, George is a fine football player, but he is limited. He is not overly fast and does not have great hands. My initial post in this topic asked the question: What does Nance have over Wilson? Clearly, the only answer given so far is height, and I laugh at that... Hands: Wilson Wheels: Wilson Blocking: close to even, as Wilson is a fine blocker Separation and route running: Wilson Height: Nance Ability to effectively play STs: Wilson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Fellas.... I know we are into the boring time of the offseason....but why do you all have to insult each other while debating this issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts