bartshan-83 Posted October 31, 2004 Share Posted October 31, 2004 Uh....why not? Nate isn't doin sh*t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquixers Posted October 31, 2004 Share Posted October 31, 2004 WHOLE different ballgame. You are guaranteed blockers on a kickoff return. On a punt return you have 3-4 gunners running straight at you to knock your head off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsGuyInMalta Posted October 31, 2004 Share Posted October 31, 2004 I remember there was a reason that they gave in Training Camp why McGee wasnt on punt returns...wish I could remember what it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartshan-83 Posted October 31, 2004 Author Share Posted October 31, 2004 WHOLE different ballgame. You are guaranteed blockers on a kickoff return. On a punt return you have 3-4 gunners running straight at you to knock your head off. 93053[/snapback] Yeah no sh*t. But the man has a knack for kicks, why not at least try him out as a PR? You think he will be worse than anyone else on the team? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquixers Posted October 31, 2004 Share Posted October 31, 2004 Yeah no sh*t. But the man has a knack for kicks, why not at least try him out as a PR? You think he will be worse than anyone else on the team? 93059[/snapback] Yes. Clements has shown in the past that he can return punts. He has scored a TD on a punt return before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartshan-83 Posted October 31, 2004 Author Share Posted October 31, 2004 Yes. Clements has shown in the past that he can return punts. He has scored a TD on a punt return before. 93062[/snapback] Yeah 4 years ago. His 6 yd avg isn't scaring too many teams right now. But oh well, just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquixers Posted October 31, 2004 Share Posted October 31, 2004 4 years ago? Dont you mean last year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartshan-83 Posted October 31, 2004 Author Share Posted October 31, 2004 4 years ago? Dont you mean last year? 93068[/snapback] The TD? No, I mean 4 years ago, his rookie year. He didn't return any punts for TDs last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquixers Posted October 31, 2004 Share Posted October 31, 2004 In fact , last year he averaged 10 yards a punt return. Thats pretty good. Not to mention his 21 yard per average kick return in 2001. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartshan-83 Posted October 31, 2004 Author Share Posted October 31, 2004 In fact , last year he averaged 10 yards a punt return. Thats pretty good. Not to mention his 21 yard per average kick return in 2001. 93078[/snapback] Hey bro I'm not debating that he was good in the past. But it seems that around here its what did you do for me lately. Just thought it might be a good idea to give a try to the guy who is hot right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquixers Posted October 31, 2004 Share Posted October 31, 2004 ... and Im trying to tell you that , we dont want our up and rising star to get killed on punt returns. Also - speaking of "what have you done for me lately" - should we give Evans , Moulds spot because Moulds isnt catching 10 receptions a game??? And THE WIND is hurting Clements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartshan-83 Posted October 31, 2004 Author Share Posted October 31, 2004 ... and Im trying to tell you that , we dont want our up and rising star to get killed on punt returns. Also - speaking of "what have you done for me lately" - should we give Evans , Moulds spot because Moulds isnt catching 10 receptions a game??? And THE WIND is hurting Clements. 93082[/snapback] For a guy who just said "its all good, you are entitled to your opinion" you sure don't seem to want to give me that. It was a suggestion. An opinion. I've tried to back off twice and leave it at that. I THINK Clements is not very effective this year (low average) I also THINK that he can be a liability on PRs (fumbles). I also THINK that if you the guy you put on PRs is gonna get killed, then it shouldn't be our best CB. Finally, I THINK McGee could add a spark. nice chattin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted October 31, 2004 Share Posted October 31, 2004 For a guy who just said "its all good, you are entitled to your opinion" you sure don't seem to want to give me that. It was a suggestion. An opinion. I've tried to back off twice and leave it at that. You should see him on PPP.... I THINK Clements is not very effective this year (low average) I also THINK that he can be a liability on PRs (fumbles). I also THINK that if you the guy you put on PRs is gonna get killed, then it shouldn't be our best CB. Finally, I THINK McGee could add a spark. 93097[/snapback] It's a difficult situation. You don't really want to put a starter in a situation like we lost Burris on in Indy all those years ago. He was NEVER the same after it. So I understand the point about not wanting Clements out there as a tackling target. Case in point, AP was reporting that Reed went out w/ a knee injury after a PR two minutes in. Putting McGee on punts would put a backup in (if Vincent were playing) who has shown a LOT on the KR. But it isn't an exact corollary b/c of blocking schemes, etc. Is it right, is it wrong, who knows, but the coaches haven't put him in the spot so you have to accept that they know something we don't. Then again, this is the braintrust that is sticking w/ Drew.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted October 31, 2004 Share Posted October 31, 2004 And now we know why Clements is out there on PR. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartshan-83 Posted October 31, 2004 Author Share Posted October 31, 2004 And now we know why Clements is out there on PR. CW 93147[/snapback] B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted October 31, 2004 Share Posted October 31, 2004 B) 93150[/snapback] Another reason to keep Nate as PR... (don't worry about it, I was starting to wonder about the same thing until the last two returns ) CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJ (not THAT RJ) Posted October 31, 2004 Share Posted October 31, 2004 Another reason to keep Nate as PR... (don't worry about it, I was starting to wonder about the same thing until the last two returns ) CW 93175[/snapback] Is this proof that Nate reads the Wall while on the sidelines? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts