TheGoodBits Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 yeah average thats why we were 8-8. but when it comes down to it and we play a punch you in the mouth defense giants, ravens, and pittsburg for our playoff run. We need a specialist back not betts. i love betts and he could be starter for 5-10 teams in the league but him and portis are too similar. We need a huge back like sellers running the ball or a scat back like sproles but dont have the money for him. Just a change of pace back. Our line sucks and im all for drafting a few but with kendall and samuels and sellers you should be able to run left for 2 yards. With Campbell we must be able to run on 3rd and shortsure worked for bucs and ravens. Ugh you missed my point:doh: What I'm saying is that the way to get BETTER THAN AVERAGE is not to go get a 38y/o backup FB. It's by getting a good O-line. Then I guarantee our success on 3rd and short will be much better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SolidSnake84 Posted February 18, 2009 Author Share Posted February 18, 2009 Thanks guys..this is what we needed. Intelligent discussion on a.....DISCUSSION BOARD! Talking about the topic instead of just bashing it. Lorenzo Neal could do alot for us, he really could. Kudos to who ever pointed out how dangerous Sellers and Neal working together would be. I dont know many teams that would want to stare that down. Use him on short yardage...CP is just going to get stuffed. Betts, while better than portis, isn't going to be a short yardage back. Who could one on one stuff Lorenzo neal? I watched a baltimore game and the guy lunged forward with like 3 people tugging on him! Who could do that here besides big Mike?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsforPrez Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Find me one team in the NFL that has TWO FBs on the roster.NNT for SolidSnake. Not condoning this idea at all, but Baltimore last year. I can't find you a team with two right now, but Lorenzo Neal and Le'ron McClain as of a month ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SolidSnake84 Posted February 18, 2009 Author Share Posted February 18, 2009 I didn't name Baltimore because I wasn't 100% sure that McClain was listed as a fullback....but you're right...McClain never even crossed my mind when i was thinking of teams.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jweisk1 Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 might be the worst thread of the year...congrats! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Lloyd Christmas Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 this is ridiculous. why would we need another fullback, especially when ours is the probowler? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 this is ridiculous. why would we need another fullback, especially when ours is the probowler? cause we just DO dernit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarrellsMyHero28 Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Not condoning this idea at all, but Baltimore last year. I can't find you a team with two right now, but Lorenzo Neal and Le'ron McClain as of a month ago. But Le'ron McClain was mostly used as an HB even if he was listed as an FB. Point is, we have limited slots and one of the last places we need depth is at FB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoney26 Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Timmy Smith was a fullback?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillUnknown Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 its threads like this that remind me that vinny is not rock bottom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paintrain Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Sure, bring in help for a Pro Bowler. Moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonOfWashington Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 I don't believe that Mike Sellers needs help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewCliche21 Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 The only thing worse than this idea is the fact that people STILL can't spell. S-E-L-L-E-R-S "Seller" is an actual word. Pluralize it. "Sellar" is NOT a word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DButz65 Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 I'm surprised you'd say that to me. If you were a long time skins fan, you'd remember that the great Joe Gibbs ran a two fullback set with John Riggins and the then-unknown Timmy Smith. Wait...i bet some didn't even realize that John Riggins played Fullback as well... Riggins was listed as a fullback, Timmy Smith was not, and besides he played ONE game really. Yes he had a GREAT game but come on dude, why in the hell would we sign a older FB to help out Sellers who went to the pro bowl? Share what you're smoking haha And we never ran a two fullback set, it was either Joe Washington back there with Riggins in the pro set, or some other running back, not 2 full backs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeftCoast Skinz FAN Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Neal had his number retired last year at Fresno State. I live in Fresno by the way. He is a great FB but there is no need for two good FB on the same roster. Sellers is great; he can catch, run, block and play special teams. We don't need to bring another FB, especially at his age. Although, our FO loves aging football players, so you never know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pyro281 Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 The only way in hell this would even remotely work is if he comes in to replace Todd Yoder, which I don't really see as an upgrade as Neal's age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoyaSkins28 Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 You dont want to carry two FB's especially when one of them is a pro bowler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoleSkin21 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Word is he is heading back to SD. Hester is rumored to move to HB full time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Get Pissed Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 I'm not going to punch someone who is already down as it looks like the OP has been slaughtered. What I will say is I'll give you props for thinking outside of the box, but unfortunately sometimes staying inside the box is the best option. Secondly, I don't want to waste a roster spot on someone who COULD be used in a deceptive trickery formation every other game for one play. Our front office needs to focus all of their energy on FUNDAMENTAL needs with the primary leading candidate as the trenches during this offseason. Other issues need to be addressed as well. Our club needs to get back to acquiring immediate impacting players (via draft maybe 1 or 2 free agency moves- and no they dont have to be house hold names). Our club doesnt need to bother with finding a "cure cancer" but instead snap out of the unorthodox ways we've dealt with free agency in the past and get back to "a+b=c". Its saddens me how backwards our front office is. Damnit its obnoxious as hell. I know I'm preaching to the choir. Urgh!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C26 Run Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Absolutely Not!, Sellers is our warrior of the locker room and our biggest back. We don't need Neal for the NFC Beast. :helmet: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt Rich Fla Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Mike Sellers needs help? Yeah right, he doesn't see enough playing time as it is.:doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunderhill Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 I'm not going to punch someone who is already down as it looks like the OP has been slaughtered. What I will say is I'll give you props for thinking outside of the box, but unfortunately sometimes staying inside the box is the best option.Secondly, I don't want to waste a roster spot on someone who COULD be used in a deceptive trickery formation every other game for one play. Our front office needs to focus all of their energy on FUNDAMENTAL needs with the primary leading candidate as the trenches during this offseason. Other issues need to be addressed as well. Our club needs to get back to acquiring immediate impacting players (via draft maybe 1 or 2 free agency moves- and no they dont have to be house hold names). Our club doesnt need to bother with finding a "cure cancer" but instead snap out of the unorthodox ways we've dealt with free agency in the past and get back to "a+b=c". Its saddens me how backwards our front office is. Damnit its obnoxious as hell. I know I'm preaching to the choir. Urgh!!! Compassion and Intelligence?!?! What is ES's coming too? Good post:applause: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IbleedBnG83 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Title should be "Lorenzo Neal to help out Jason Campbell". With our OL, I would want Neal to block WITH Sellers on passing downs. Sellers can be a threat out of the backfield so that could give us some versatility. But realitically...no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Never4get#21 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Mike Sellers=probowl FB. Just say No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 You can never have too many fullbacks. Unless you have more than 1. In which case, you probably have too many fullbacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.