Swift Sylvan Posted October 16, 2006 Posted October 16, 2006 I don't blame this loss on Nate nor do I think he is "sucky" I'm simply stating he isn't winning any games for us so why should we pay him 8 mil. Thats alot of money for someone who is simply "not losing the game for us" Why don't we give Lindell 5 mil a year since he didn't lose the game for us either 805935[/snapback] We both know you're exagerating a point and I agree with you, but typically CB's aren't really supposed to win games for us. Does that mean I think Clements is worth his paycheck, no not really, let's bring in a bonafide O-Line/D-Line person with the money instead. However, everyone was jumping to claim Nate was our biggest problem, but frankly that is untrue, he probably played as well, if not slightly better than most of our D, not that that is saying much.
generaLee83 Posted October 16, 2006 Posted October 16, 2006 Dont worry dude. You and others will get your wish when he is signed by another team for 8 million .... 804681[/snapback] Okay Daq, I'm not going to criticise your defense of Clements, he didn't look bad today by any means. Please explain why he wasn't covering Roy Williams, I know it's not his choice of who he covers, why would the coaches stick McGee, who is having a less than stellar year on Williams?
rolly Posted October 16, 2006 Author Posted October 16, 2006 Think about this though. A lot of these CB's INT's are coming off of easy tips that they catch. Their not all great INT's. Their just lucky. Chris McAlister only has 3 INT's in his last 21 games. Shawn Springs use to be considered one of the best CB's in the game and he has 1 INT in the past 15 games. Patrick Surtain only has 1 INT in his last 49 games Samari Rolle only has 3 INT in his last 32 games Why didnt we make a play for Ty Law in the off-season? Heck why did the Jets let him go? He had 10 INT's last year and 2 INT's in 5 games this year .. 805913[/snapback] Surtain: 4 int last 19 games McAlister: 3 int last 19 games rolle: 2 int last 21 games springs: 6 int last 30 games Check your sources.
daquixers_is_back Posted October 16, 2006 Posted October 16, 2006 I don't blame this loss on Nate nor do I think he is "sucky" I'm simply stating he isn't winning any games for us so why should we pay him 8 mil. Thats alot of money for someone who is simply "not losing the game for us" Why don't we give Lindell 5 mil a year since he didn't lose the game for us either 805935[/snapback] How many CB's win a game?? Give me a break ... once in a great while and it usually comes off of a tipped ball. Most of the time they may seal a game ... but they dont usually win a game. Okay Daq, I'm not going to criticise your defense of Clements, he didn't look bad today by any means. Please explain why he wasn't covering Roy Williams, I know it's not his choice of who he covers, why would the coaches stick McGee, who is having a less than stellar year on Williams? 805940[/snapback] Look at page 2 or 3 .... CB's cover sides ... thats football in most schemes. Even in Madden (the football game). Its pretty rare that a CB has an assignment to cover a specific receiver ... they usually cover sides. Thus why he was covering Williams on about 5-6 plays and not the rest.
daquixers_is_back Posted October 16, 2006 Posted October 16, 2006 Surtain: 4 int last 19 games McAlister: 3 int last 19 games rolle: 2 int last 21 games springs: 6 int last 30 games Check your sources. 805947[/snapback] Well yeah when you change the amount of games then your going to get different results!!!
rolly Posted October 16, 2006 Author Posted October 16, 2006 Well yeah when you change the amount of games then your going to get different results!!! 805952[/snapback] According to your post, surtain had 1 pick in 49 games. I found that he had 4 in the last 19. Drastic difference. If you're going to bring stats into it, make sure they're right is all.
daquixers_is_back Posted October 16, 2006 Posted October 16, 2006 According to your post, surtain had 1 pick in 49 games. I found that he had 4 in the last 19. Drastic difference. If you're going to bring stats into it, make sure they're right is all. 805955[/snapback] That was the only one I messed up on (misread column) ... all the rest you changed the ammount of games to influence your results.
Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted October 16, 2006 Posted October 16, 2006 How come our 8 million dollar man isn't covering Roy Williams?? Someone, please just try to defend his worth on this team. 804664[/snapback] Is he worth the money? hmmm...
daquixers_is_back Posted October 16, 2006 Posted October 16, 2006 We don't need him anymore. I REALLY hope he's gone next year. 805967[/snapback] Way to elaborate.
Swift Sylvan Posted October 16, 2006 Posted October 16, 2006 We don't need him anymore. I REALLY hope he's gone next year. 805967[/snapback] Dude we need anyone who is pulling their weight at this moment. It's not Clements fault that Jauron n' bunch decided to put McGee on their #1. Nate pulled his weight today.
Dr. Trooth Posted October 16, 2006 Posted October 16, 2006 Dude we need anyone who is pulling their weight at this moment. It's not Clements fault that Jauron n' bunch decided to put McGee on their #1. Nate pulled his weight today. I think there's a subtle message hidden within. If "Juaron n bunch" chose to put McGee on the Lions #1, and not Clements on their #1, what does that say about the 8 Million dollar man? Perhaps they don't trust him?
Recommended Posts