Mark The Homer Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 ...Another personnel executive, who broke down film of Torrence recently, praised his smarts, instincts and coverage skills, but noted his lack of size and propensity for tackling issues as reasons why the Redskins might be willing to part with him. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/08/AR2008110801971.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morneblade Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 ...Another personnel executive, who broke down film of Torrence recently, praised his smarts, instincts and coverage skills, but noted his lack of size and propensity for tackling issues as reasons why the Redskins might be willing to part with him.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/08/AR2008110801971.html Well, at least he could cover according to the personnel exe. something Tryon hasnt shown he could do. Hall isnt much of a tackler either, not that I'm comparing them. Tryon doesnt seem to have any upside to him, I'm really suprised he wasnt the guy that was cut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voice_of_Reason Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 Well, at least he could cover according to the personnel exe. something Tryon hasnt shown he could do. Hall isnt much of a tackler either, not that I'm comparing them. Tryon doesnt seem to have any upside to him, I'm really suprised he wasnt the guy that was cut. I am very soon going to give up on the Tryon justification. HE'S NOT GOING TO PLAY. HE HAS A 4 YEAR CONTRACT. HE'S SOMEBODY THEY WANT TO DEVELOP. Torrence had none of those things. Hall > Torrence. Tryon wasn't in the discussion. I really don't understand why this is so hard to wrap your head around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turbodiesel#44 Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 I am very soon going to give up on the Tryon justification. HE'S NOT GOING TO PLAY. HE HAS A 4 YEAR CONTRACT. HE'S SOMEBODY THEY WANT TO DEVELOP.Torrence had none of those things. Hall > Torrence. Tryon wasn't in the discussion. I really don't understand why this is so hard to wrap your head around. Torrence had the ability to at least see the field in the NFL. You keep holding onto that ENRON stock and hope something develops. Even if it prevents you from taking a shot on more promising options. How you can exclude any player from consideration of moves at his position on a 53 man roster is extremely shortsighted. You have to have an overall strategy. Let's get Taylor Jacobs back and spend a few more years developing him...You either show something worth developing or you don't. And it has to be on the field, because that's where the game is played. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.