RDSKNfaithfull Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Surprised nobody has brought him up :laugh: He is better than Taylor Jacobs and would deserves a look at #2 or 3 if he gets healthy :doh: :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H-O-G Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 He was GREAT in college...but once you go to the bengals your officially a bust... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OVCChairman Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 He was GREAT in college...but once you go to the bengals your officially a bust... i dont know about you but Cincy has some darn good recievers.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Yeah - he has the Bengals disease. Damaged goods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlito Sway Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 He was GREAT in college...but once you go to the bengals your officially a bust... If you remember the 2000 draft, that's why he started crying when we picked LaVar at #3 . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsco1112 Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 How about the top 4 players that year which were considered way better than everyone else. Courtney Brown, Lavar and Samuels and Warrick. Now warrick and Brown are outright bust. But it isn't like Lavar and Samuels are all pro. They both could be though. Shows how much the draft is a crap shoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bricucci Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Umm he can't crack the top 4 in Seattle. They even used a back qb @ wr today before using him. Unless it were at a league minimum I would say pass! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bricucci Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 How about the top 4 players that year which were considered way better than everyone else. Courtney Brown, Lavar and Samuels and Warrick. Now warrick and Brown are outright bust. But it isn't like Lavar and Samuels are all pro. They both could be though. Shows how much the draft is a crap shoot. I wouldn't call Brown a bust. Warrick however is a bigtime bust! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 oh, lordy no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDSKNfaithfull Posted January 23, 2006 Author Share Posted January 23, 2006 :laugh: :laugh: He is a lot better than Jacobs or Farris at the right price at least let him compete in camp :laugh: He is a poor mans Coles and could be productive in this league Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDSKNfaithfull Posted January 23, 2006 Author Share Posted January 23, 2006 I wouldn't call Brown a bust. Warrick however is a bigtime bust! You wouldn"t????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H-O-G Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 How about the top 4 players that year which were considered way better than everyone else. Courtney Brown, Lavar and Samuels and Warrick. Now warrick and Brown are outright bust. But it isn't like Lavar and Samuels are all pro. They both could be though. Shows how much the draft is a crap shoot. Chris Samuels and Lavar Arrington have a combined 7 pro bowl appearences Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bostic Hog Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Warrick can't get on the field in Seattle, why would we want him? He is a bigtime BUST !! HTTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 He is a poor mans Coles and could be productive in this league only simular to Coles in a me first attitude after 5-6 years he is yet to be productive, he's a waste Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Warrick can't get on the field in Seattle, why would we want him? He is a bigtime BUST !!HTTR even when Jackson & Engram were out, he didn't play Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECU-ALUM Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 I would call and see if Ricky Sanders could still play before I call this guy. No way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bricucci Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 even when Jackson & Engram were out, he didn't play I think hes behind the back QB on their Wr depth chart. I think I would rather have Ferris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDSKNfaithfull Posted January 23, 2006 Author Share Posted January 23, 2006 only simular to Coles in a me first attitudeafter 5-6 years he is yet to be productive, he's a waste Who cares what he was (bust) he is now a good athlete who is better than what we have that could come cheap with a chip on his shoulder and somthing to prove. I don't think Taylor Jacobs has had a year with more than 800yards? I don't think Taylor can return punts and I would hate to have to start the likes of Farris or Brown at reciver due to injury next year:puke: Warrick > Jacobs Warrick > Farris Warrick > Brown Patten and Trash for that matter would be pushed by Warrick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiveStrongSkins Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Warrick can be a good wideout in the right place. He has great ability and would be a great move for depth. He would be dirt cheap. I dont care what anyone says, Warrick as the 3rd or 4th wideout would be dangerous. Saunders uses 4 and 5 receiver sets at times as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rvan1 Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 why do we want another #3 receiver when we still dont have a #2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiveStrongSkins Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 why do we want another #3 receiver when we still dont have a #2? To push guys like Jacobs, Farris, and Brown completely out of the receiver rotation. If Warrick were to be obtained, i would expect the core would look something like this. 1.Moss 2.Free agent 3.Patten 4. Warrick 5.Thrash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDSKNfaithfull Posted January 23, 2006 Author Share Posted January 23, 2006 why do we want another #3 receiver when we still dont have a #2? Because he is cheap and this thing called the Salary Cap exist:doh: This isn't fantasy football :doh: If healthy he is a good guy for depth but who cares about depth right? :doh: We have Farris and Brown two guys who have not even had a 100yd season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fpickering Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 I would say no to Warrick since he has not done anything in the NFL. I am all for signing two UFA WRs but Warrick would not be one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rvan1 Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 To push guys like Jacobs, Farris, and Brown completely out of the receiver rotation. If Warrick were to be obtained, i would expect the core would look something like this.1.Moss 2.Free agent 3.Patten 4. Warrick 5.Thrash i dont think we could afford a receiver corp with those names in it. we need to just get a #2 receiver who is solid with good hands and toughness, and then use jacobs/thrash/patten in the third role. dont forget we paid patten some good $ in the offseason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDSKNfaithfull Posted January 23, 2006 Author Share Posted January 23, 2006 i dont think we could afford a receiver corp with those names in it. we need to just get a #2 receiver who is solid with good hands and toughness, and then use jacobs/thrash/patten in the third role. dont forget we paid patten some good $ in the offseason. How much do you think Warrick would cost? So you are thinking we will have to go with the likes of Farris again next year? Warrick should be cheap his recent lack of success is a good thing. A year with 819yds and playing special teams isn't exactly doing nothing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.