Ray Brown Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 If he remains injured (Knees) all season...Yes a bustIf he is healthy then I dont think we can call him a bust until game 2,3,4 of next year. I dont think a player has to show starpower their rookie season...Unless maybe a top ten pick. how could you call him a bust if he sits out the rest of the year? Because he didn't go to the probowl? Why not wait till he actually gets healthy and showcases what he can do before you and all of your expertise declare him a bust. We didn't draft him for just one season, but for the future. Why is that so hard to understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alleycat Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 how could you call him a bust if he sits out the rest of the year? Because he didn't go to the probowl? Why not wait till he actually gets healthy and showcases what he can do before you and all of your expertise declare him a bust. We didn't draft him for just one season, but for the future. Why is that so hard to understand? Well...Ignoring your crappy attitude and childlike tone... If you spend a second round pick on a guy with knee problems who misses the entire first season with knee problems and who the coach has said has had some attitude issues,coming to camp out of shape along with picking up the system slowly...It is reasonable to use the word BUST. I also said..I give him this whole year plus part of next to prove he isn't a BUST. I also didn't define a BUST as "anything less than pro-bowl" a second round pick should contribute by year 2. I am the expert who says that. As far as expertise...Pert sure this is a board for opinions and Skins talk...I have checked the rules and being an expert isn't required to share opinions. If your opinion is that he can sit an entire year with a lingering injury that he had during college along with the other issues (The expert who mentioned the issues was JZ) then just say so. I happen to think he will play some this year and be a contributor next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrinknKoolAid Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 It's funny. This guy asked a simple question, and this thread probably should have ended after the first page. Then why are you still posting nonsense responses? Learn how to spell too please. :logo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRobi21 Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 Then why are you still posting nonsense responses? Learn how to spell too please.:logo: Says the guy who thinks we should've taken Jackson. Just stop posting dude. And please inform me what I spelled wrong in my post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downbeat87 Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 i cant believe people with brain cells that like the redskins would want to draft another wr under 6 feet after going SOOOO long last year without a td from a wr. i mean really?!?!? are you serious?!?!?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icbmayday Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 I hope he can get healthy and contribute, hes that leap ball receiver that we need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrinknKoolAid Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 I'm wiling to put any amount of $ down that Kelly isn't on the team next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrinknKoolAid Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 People please... How can you even compare Jackson with someone who can't even practice without his knee blowing up like a balloon? Almost every one of you would trade Kelly right now for Jackson and you know it. One of them is scoring touchdowns while the other is still trying to make the team. I hope he gets put on IR so we can finally move on. :logo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downbeat87 Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 i would not take d. jackson, because moss is better. and ill take that bet about kelly. except make it a sig bet, because $ <- doesnt mean **** in the internet chat rooms compared to having to see your sig next year. (shake)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrinknKoolAid Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 i cant believe people with brain cells that like the redskins would want to draft another wr under 6 feet after going SOOOO long last year without a td from a wr.i mean really?!?!? are you serious?!?!?!? So what 6ft + receiver has made contributions this year to score touchdowns?!? And how many WR touchdowns do we have this year compared to last? Height is overrated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Brown Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 I'm wiling to put any amount of $ down that Kelly isn't on the team next year. People please...How can you even compare Jackson with someone who can't even practice without his knee blowing up like a balloon? Almost every one of you would trade Kelly right now for Jackson and you know it. One of them is scoring touchdowns while the other is still trying to make the team. I hope he gets put on IR so we can finally move on. :logo: ill bet you $10,000 he is on this team next year. i for one would trade for jackson right now. we know what he is, a 5'10 180 pound reciever, something we already have and something we don't need. i don't give a damn what he's doing right now. he has 1 receiving TD. we drafted thomas and kelly for the future, would it have been nice if they helped now? of course, but thats not the reality at the moment. does it mean he won't help later on this year, no. you're ready to give up on someone after 7 weeks when they haven't even played? i can't understand that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrinknKoolAid Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 ill bet you $10,000 he is on this team next year. i for one would trade for jackson right now. we know what he is, a 5'10 180 pound reciever, something we already have and something we don't need. i don't give a damn what he's doing right now. he has 1 receiving TD. we drafted thomas and kelly for the future, would it have been nice if they helped now? of course, but thats not the reality at the moment. does it mean he won't help later on this year, no. you're ready to give up on someone after 7 weeks when they haven't even played? i can't understand that. So if we drafted Jackson it wouldn't be for the future? Your logic is flawed. You don't make any sense anyway you just agreed you would trade for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Brown Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 So if we drafted Jackson it wouldn't be for the future? Your logic is flawed. You don't make any sense anyway you just agreed you would trade for him. i meant wouldn't trade for him. use context clues Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phatboy41 Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 People here defending Malcolm Kelly are taking this way too serious. Facts are facts, we spend a high draft pick on this kid and expected a lot from him. So far he has not contributed at all. Yes, I know, it's not his fault that he has knee problems, but also, how can you defend someone who hasn't contributed at all? Now, I'm not saying he is the worst player in the world, but I am saying so far he hasn't shown me anything, and for a highly regarded rookie, that says a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrinknKoolAid Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 and by the way Zorn IS about to give up on him...he's getting ready to put our TOP WR DRAFT PICK who hasn't contributed SH*# on IR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Brown Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 and by the way Zorn IS about to give up on him...he's getting ready to put our TOP WR DRAFT PICK who hasn't contributed SH*# on IR. he wasn't our "TOP WR DRAFT PICK". get your facts straight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cherick Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 Ok, I need help understanding terminology here please. To me, a BUST would be someone who HAS PLAYED at the very least, an entire season and has done nothing at all to help the team or in a WR case, he's been dropping passes, or running bad routes, etc. making a lot more bad plays than good ones. Someone who has been injured or has not played in a full game, much less in a full season, to me is not a bust. How can we say he is worthless or a waste of a pick if we haven't seen him play yet??? I'm serious, I don't understand what a bust is now, someone enlighten me please. Have I misunderstood what the definition of a rookie football player being a bust is?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrinknKoolAid Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 he wasn't our "TOP WR DRAFT PICK". get your facts straight Oh your right, must have forgot the WR who actually PLAYS. Oh wait, does he really count if he has 6 total yards and listed as #112 on WR rankings in the NFL. Because if you add the penalties he has cost the team that pushes him into a negative number. LoL. Let's be honest. We are almost halfway through the season. The offensive draft picks are absolutely horrible so far. I was simply saying that a WR like Jackson who can make plays and contribute immediately is much better than a player who comes to camp unprepared (physically) and from what I've heard from Zorn just can't mentally get into the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrinknKoolAid Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 Ok, I need help understanding terminology here please.To me, a BUST would be someone who HAS PLAYED at the very least, an entire season and has done nothing at all to help the team or in a WR case, he's been dropping passes, or running bad routes, etc. making a lot more bad plays than good ones. Someone who has been injured or has not played in a full game, much less in a full season, to me is not a bust. How can we say he is worthless or a waste of a pick if we haven't seen him play yet??? I'm serious, I don't understand what a bust is now, someone enlighten me please. Have I misunderstood what the definition of a rookie football player being a bust is?? Does it really matter how you term it? A BUST is a BUST. It doesn't matter how it pops. If you draft someone knowing they have knee issues and the guy never takes the field..well..that may not be a player BUST but it sure is a VINNY and FRONT OFFICE bust. Don't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cherick Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 Hmm....... to me an injured rookie means you are having bad luck with that draft pick, and if he's healthy but behind in learning the plays due to his injuries, I considered that a result or consequence of his injuries as well, so still bad luck. since you don't control getting injured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrinknKoolAid Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 Hmm....... to me an injured rookie means you are having bad luck with that draft pick, and if he's healthy but behind in learning the plays due to his injuries, I considered that a result or consequence of his injuries as well, so still bad luck. since you don't control getting injured. Well were weren't defining an "injured rookie." We were defining a BUST. Next Post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turbodiesel#44 Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 Hmm....... to me an injured rookie means you are having bad luck with that draft pick, and if he's healthy but behind in learning the plays due to his injuries, I considered that a result or consequence of his injuries as well, so still bad luck. since you don't control getting injured. It would be bad luck if he wasn't already injured when we picked him. Nice theory though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cherick Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 Well were weren't defining an "injured rookie." We were defining a BUST. Next Post. LMAO! Are you serious? gimme some of what u're smokin'! The "BUST" you are referring to, has been an "injured rookie", causing a lot of people like you to call him a "BUST" because of that. Can I have serious answers please?, I seriously would love to know if I am wrong in what I think is the definition of a rookie being a bust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alleycat Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 LMAO! Are you serious? gimme some of what u're smokin'! The "BUST" you are referring to, has been an "injured rookie", causing a lot of people like you to call him a "BUST" because of that. Can I have serious answers please?, I seriously would love to know if I am wrong in what I think is the definition of a rookie being a bust. I guess you might be on to something...sorta.. I guess you would not be a BUST if a team drafted you after knowing your knees are bad and then...It turned out...YOUR KNEES ARE BAD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cherick Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 I guess you might be on to something...sorta..I guess you would not be a BUST if a team drafted you after knowing your knees are bad and then...It turned out...YOUR KNEES ARE BAD. But we are still talking about injuries, and that's where I'm confused. The way I see it, for me to call a rookie a BUST, it would have to be based on POOR PERFORMANCE on a full season of games played, and not at all based on injuries, much less lack of playing time. But again I want to know if I'm wrong in what I call a rookie bust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.