tulaneqb7 Posted December 30, 2002 Share Posted December 30, 2002 why? he has been nothing but terrible this year.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted December 30, 2002 Share Posted December 30, 2002 I was scratching my head over that one earlier in the day Flemister has capabilities as a receiver but he is very inconsistent and seems to be a moody ballplayer that takes plays off at times. Spurrier had to sign off on this one, may be he has plans for #89? :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorEastNCFan Posted December 30, 2002 Share Posted December 30, 2002 The last two years I thought Flemy had alot of potential, but this year he seems to have caught a case of stone hands. Maybe he'll come around, with the exception of Royals (and who knows how good he is) Flemy is about all we have. I miss ole James Jenkins, he wasn't much of a reciever, but he was dependable as a blocker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cskin Posted December 30, 2002 Share Posted December 30, 2002 This could be part of the plan to retain young guys with potential that need to be "coached up". Flemister certainly showed talent in year one and two, yet he has been a disappointment this year. His mental lapses and dropsies could be the result of thinking to much and not just playing. Another year in the offense and coaching by the staff and he could be a solid TE for us. Plus, it's not like his signing was totally out of line. I'll take a young kid with potential and a fair contract over a bloated contract of an aging vet anyday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted December 30, 2002 Share Posted December 30, 2002 the contract was vet min and a marginal signing bonus. This means we can concentrate on other things. It's not like we're expecting him to start next year. -DB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted December 30, 2002 Share Posted December 30, 2002 well, that's good.....we aren't planning on starting him in 2003 the only problem is he already has started half the games for us this season :laugh: and if not Flemister starting in 2003, then who from the cast of characters, considering we aren't going to spend money on the position in free agency? Royal who missed the entire season? Rasby who at 32 is a good blocker but has hands of stone? Stephens, the guy who can't learn how to line up as a member of the punt team? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted December 30, 2002 Share Posted December 30, 2002 As of this moment, Royal is our starting TE. Flemister is our backup. He's an acceptable backup. Royal and Flemister works for me. I can think of ten other positions I feel need more consideration than 2nd string TE. That's a good thing. -DB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.