REALCHRISM
Super Forum Fanatic
- Joined
- Sep 6, 1997
- Messages
- 9,298
- Reaction score
- 12
- Age
- 46
Offline
First, there is a similar thread already discussing this topic. Secondly, you cannot release players that are already free agents (i.e. Devery Henderson, Fred Thomas, Terrence Copper, Jay Bellamy, etc). Alfred Fincher is no longer on the team and it's been that way for a while. Last time I heard, he was being tried out by the New York Jets. I think some of us really fail to pay attention with what's going on with our team from a personnel standpoint. By the way, you CANNOT go cutting everyone if you plan to have a team to compete this upcoming season. For instance, Shanle might not be the greatest WLB or starter material. But why cut him? He could be a solid backup and a guy with starting experience who could play for you in a pinch. If you cut every single player you do not like, we would not have much of a team left. It's not like you can go out and sign 7 linebackers to replace all the linebackers you do not like on the team.
Also, as much as some of you loathe Josh Bullocks, the team is not going to cut him. The only way I can see Josh Bullocks not making it to training camp is if he is part of some trade, which I doubt (or if something tragic was to occur, which I hope does not). Other than that, he'll be around. Does that mean he'll start? Not necessarily, although there are those individuals out there who continue to suggest that Bullocks is still thought highly of. I'll say this: when Bullocks first came out of Nebraska, I was very high on him. He had tremendous coverage and playmaking skills. Bill Callahan had changed his role the last year Bullocks was there and his production went down from a season in which he had caught 9 interceptions. I was hoping we would draft him especially after I watched him perform in the combine; he looked so smooth out there. But I did not think we would draft him because we had just signed a safety through free agency. Bullocks showed some promise as a rookie. The last two seasons, he's been maligned. But I do not know that it is his fault. We do not review tape or know the exact assigments to know who screwed up on a play. I do know that when we were looking to turn it around during the middle of the season and won 4 straight games, Bullocks was playing very well. At the same time, I also know that Kaevishorn did an excellent job of replacing Bullocks for the weeks Bullocks was injured or so it appeared just from watching the game (from an armchair QB perspective). The reason I believe that it is difficult to criticize Bullocks too much is that he plays a position where it is hard to tell what his assignment is on a given play. Some of you might think this is BS and that's cool. Trust me, I get upset with Bullocks at times because I know the potential he possesses. But I remember late in the season, there was a Rams game that Deion Sanders, Marshall Faulk and Rich Eisen were announcing. And on one particular play, Deion and Rich criticized Bulger for an interception and the TE for not making the play on the ball or something like that. Marshall, having played for the Rams and knowing the play called, corrected them and said that it was the WR Bennett's fault. Marshall said that Bennett did not run the route correctly and did nothing to help his QB out. To every man, Deion and Rich included, you would have thought that it was Bulger's fault and a miscue by the TE. In reality, it was a miscue by a guy who would never get criticized for making the mistake because he was the last person to make it across the field. This is why I think we have to be careful in our criticisms of Bullocks. OF COURSE, WE ALL CAN MAKE A CLAIM TO KNOW FOOTBALL AND CAN BE CRITICAL OF THE OBVIOUS. But unless we know the exact defense called or where a defender is suppose to be, then I think it is hard to say whether or not Bullocks is always the culprit. It is less difficult when you have a player like Jason David being torched time and time again, particularly if the defense looks to be in man. Now, there are times when we can suspect that David was suppose to get help over the top from the safety but we have seen David get beat enough in obvious man-to-man situations to know that we need an upgrade at the CB position. I only mention the David example for those of you who might try to be slick and come back suggesting that I am basically saying that no one should be criticized. I am not. I am not even saying that Bullocks cannot be. But I am saying that we have to be careful and make sure we place those criticisms in the right context.
Finally, I believe that if Deuce does not restructure, he will be let go. Of course, that's not earth-shattering news. I think everyone sort of expects that to occur.
Also, as much as some of you loathe Josh Bullocks, the team is not going to cut him. The only way I can see Josh Bullocks not making it to training camp is if he is part of some trade, which I doubt (or if something tragic was to occur, which I hope does not). Other than that, he'll be around. Does that mean he'll start? Not necessarily, although there are those individuals out there who continue to suggest that Bullocks is still thought highly of. I'll say this: when Bullocks first came out of Nebraska, I was very high on him. He had tremendous coverage and playmaking skills. Bill Callahan had changed his role the last year Bullocks was there and his production went down from a season in which he had caught 9 interceptions. I was hoping we would draft him especially after I watched him perform in the combine; he looked so smooth out there. But I did not think we would draft him because we had just signed a safety through free agency. Bullocks showed some promise as a rookie. The last two seasons, he's been maligned. But I do not know that it is his fault. We do not review tape or know the exact assigments to know who screwed up on a play. I do know that when we were looking to turn it around during the middle of the season and won 4 straight games, Bullocks was playing very well. At the same time, I also know that Kaevishorn did an excellent job of replacing Bullocks for the weeks Bullocks was injured or so it appeared just from watching the game (from an armchair QB perspective). The reason I believe that it is difficult to criticize Bullocks too much is that he plays a position where it is hard to tell what his assignment is on a given play. Some of you might think this is BS and that's cool. Trust me, I get upset with Bullocks at times because I know the potential he possesses. But I remember late in the season, there was a Rams game that Deion Sanders, Marshall Faulk and Rich Eisen were announcing. And on one particular play, Deion and Rich criticized Bulger for an interception and the TE for not making the play on the ball or something like that. Marshall, having played for the Rams and knowing the play called, corrected them and said that it was the WR Bennett's fault. Marshall said that Bennett did not run the route correctly and did nothing to help his QB out. To every man, Deion and Rich included, you would have thought that it was Bulger's fault and a miscue by the TE. In reality, it was a miscue by a guy who would never get criticized for making the mistake because he was the last person to make it across the field. This is why I think we have to be careful in our criticisms of Bullocks. OF COURSE, WE ALL CAN MAKE A CLAIM TO KNOW FOOTBALL AND CAN BE CRITICAL OF THE OBVIOUS. But unless we know the exact defense called or where a defender is suppose to be, then I think it is hard to say whether or not Bullocks is always the culprit. It is less difficult when you have a player like Jason David being torched time and time again, particularly if the defense looks to be in man. Now, there are times when we can suspect that David was suppose to get help over the top from the safety but we have seen David get beat enough in obvious man-to-man situations to know that we need an upgrade at the CB position. I only mention the David example for those of you who might try to be slick and come back suggesting that I am basically saying that no one should be criticized. I am not. I am not even saying that Bullocks cannot be. But I am saying that we have to be careful and make sure we place those criticisms in the right context.
Finally, I believe that if Deuce does not restructure, he will be let go. Of course, that's not earth-shattering news. I think everyone sort of expects that to occur.
Last edited:
