No_Pressure Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 He was a nice solid backup but I don't see the sense in keeping him when we have Moss and Randle-El on the roster...if we needed him for a 2nd WR I would want to keep him but I think we will be getting our number 2 in the draft or by developing Mix, with Randle-El the #3...in which case it wouldn't make sense to hold on to a guy who could be a solid #2 or #3 in the #4 spot. Keep Thrash for that spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrfriedm Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 I think that it would be a real shame if we let either one of these guys get a way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wyvern Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Not a real big deal if we lose him. He can be replaced. Yeah, let's sign Hackett to replace him. Uhhhh, ...wait a minute... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darc Requiem Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 His eyes creep me out big time... Why would his eyes creep you out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsince72 Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 I think Caldwell is exactly what a team running the WCO needs. A solid backup that can come in and be reliable behind your #1 and #2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muzzah Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 What happened to Keenan McKardell? He got old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tryfuhl Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Imo Nelson in the 3rd Arrington and Monk in the 7th Where would our compensation pick land in the 3rd round? I don't see Nelson going late 3rd round. I say he'll go between late 2nd and mid-3rd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tryfuhl Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 I was hoping that we'd push more to keep him. The guy was reliable, ran good routes, and actually caught the balls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CallMeGreen Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 I like(d) Caldwell, and somehow I was thinking he was older than 28. That's another positive thing to keeping him. The "eyes" don't bother me. Mike Singletary used to have some crazy eyes when he played too and he did OK. No, the eyes just mean he's got vision for the field.:laugh: As for Macklin, not sure he'd be all that missed here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
landry1980 Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Who Cares!!! I Love Micheal Irvin!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyLikeAFox87 Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 We should def try to keep him. Why waste a 3rd round pick on a WR when we have a perfectly respectable and serviceable guy here already who has proved himself in the NFL. He led the patriots in receptions in 2006 and filled in well here last year. He is likely to be better than any WR we can pick up in the mid/later rounds. Not sure why Macklin didn't get a chance - I guess the coaches rated Eubanks and Torrence more than him. In that case, there's no point in keeping him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xero21 Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Doesnt Caldwell have some bum knees ?? I dunno but he has some huge eyes :yikes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted March 22, 2008 Share Posted March 22, 2008 I dont know what some of you are smoking, but drafting 3 WR's to play as rookies behind Moss and Randle El isnt a solution, its a problem. The assumption that we can just draft 2-3 WR's and they will all make the team, AND be the productive #3 WR that we have been missing is a bit of a stretch. Developing young talent is nice, but relying on it in players rookie seasons is just asking for disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REEGSKINS Posted March 22, 2008 Share Posted March 22, 2008 i think he should be the #2 instead of EL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downbeat87 Posted March 22, 2008 Share Posted March 22, 2008 ^ ummm no! if we dont keep him, it leaves another spot for a "big" reciever. the more tall recievers we can get the better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted March 22, 2008 Share Posted March 22, 2008 Caldwell evidently has an arthritic condition his knee that caused the Patriots to release him and keep Jabar Gaffney in 2007. The question is what kind of a deal Caldwell will play for. I would not sign him for more than 1 year. If the Rams are going to offer him a 2-3 year deal, I would let him go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.