xanathos19 Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Obviously, everyone knows by now that Darnerian was inactive yesterday. But does anyone know why he didn't dress? I don't believe that Thrash and especially JAcobs have passed him on the depth chart. Maybe behavioral related? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Originally posted by xanathos19 Obviously, everyone knows by now that Darnerian was inactive yesterday. But does anyone know why he didn't dress? I don't believe that Thrash and especially JAcobs have passed him on the depth chart. Maybe behavioral related? Nope all reports have been Thrash & Jacobs have moved up the depth charts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 It's because he's No. 5 on the depth chart. Pretty simple really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 wasn't this supposed to be the year he passed gardner? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xanathos19 Posted September 13, 2004 Author Share Posted September 13, 2004 Taylor Jacobs? I can understand Thrash to a point (veteran guy who's proven, speed, etc.) But Jacobs? We're all still waiting for Taylor to show us something. Is there any account of McCants and Gibbs having a bad rapport with each other? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlobberKnockinFootball Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Could it be that Thrash and Jacobs just simply outperformed McCants? I mean, I don't think there is any bad will towards McCants. This whole camp has been open tryouts for almost all of the positions. Maybe he was just beat out?? It happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Originally posted by xanathos19 Taylor Jacobs? I can understand Thrash to a point (veteran guy who's proven, speed, etc.) But Jacobs? We're all still waiting for Taylor to show us something. Is there any account of McCants and Gibbs having a bad rapport with each other? McCants is more a receiver that is limited in what routes he can run and handle. He's basically a copy for Gardner, only without Gardner's versatility. Jacobs can run more routes and be used to back Coles. And, Jacobs performed better than McCants through mini-camps and apparently late training camp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntotoro Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 The ironic part was Darnerian was telling the Junkies last week there would be a few surprised in-store for Sunday. Was one of those that he wouldn't be suiting up? Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saqs Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Thrash is also a heck of run blocker. He was a huge factor in CPs TD run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xanathos19 Posted September 13, 2004 Author Share Posted September 13, 2004 I agree with all those points. I guess it just caught me by surprise to see Jacobs ahead of him. Hey, as long as Thrash and Jacobs produce and do their thing, I'm not going to complain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Jones Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Thrash is also a heck of run blocker. He was a huge factor in CPs TD run. I think this is a big reason why Thrash is number three and seeing playing time. I didn't observe McCants' downfield blocking in the preseason, but an indication of why he is number 5 could be his blocking skills. Gardner is also not a bad downfield blocker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mufumonk Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 He's trade bait, and we're trying to prevent him from getting hurt before we can move him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrfriedm Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Originally posted by Art McCants is more a receiver that is limited in what routes he can run and handle. He's basically a copy for Gardner, only without Gardner's versatility. Jacobs can run more routes and be used to back Coles. And, Jacobs performed better than McCants through mini-camps and apparently late training camp. Thanks, for taking the words right out of my mouth. Jacobs is going to be the real deal for us in the future, mark my words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsLegacy44 Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Hmmm....we could probably send him off for a 3rd or 4th round pick next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GEB Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Originally posted by Mufumonk He's trade bait, and we're trying to prevent him from getting hurt before we can move him. I dunno....we just signed him to that contract before free agency. That being said, however, nothing would suprise if it did happen! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nace14 Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 i've said it multiple times, but i do not understand what the infatuation with dmac is. i like the guy, i think he's a hard worker and he does what he can to help the team all the time, but so does thrash and so does jacobs. difference being that thrash is a hell of a special teamer and blocker and jacobs is just more talented. dmac is a limited package receiver. i'm pretty sure that he'll be getting some time, but he is just not as good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afparent Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Does anyone know how many we can dress for a game? Usually inactives are people that are hurt. McCants made the 53. Actually Jacobs and Thrash play special teams so that is a huge factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrfriedm Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Originally posted by SkinsLegacy44 Hmmm....we could probably send him off for a 3rd or 4th round pick next year. Come on people. We're not going to trade him. Just because he was inactive for game doesn't mean anything. He just wasn't in the game plan for this game. Trust me we will see a lot of McCants in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kappaluvacee Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 OK, I'm biased because I know DMAC, but the truth of the matter about his inactivity is because he is currently listed as the #5 WR. It has nothing to do with his route running ability or blocking. DMAC is the second best blocker among the WR's behind Thrash. Coles does well for his size, but all things considered, Thrash is the best blocking WR on the team followed by DMAC, then Coles. Gardner had a good game yesterday, but you all know he doesn't block well at all, hence Spurrier benching him because of it two seasons ago. DMAC was beaten outright for the #3 WR spot by Thrash. Jacobs is listed at the number 4 because he is a prototype of Coles. If Coles goes down you know thrash will move to his spot and DMAC will bump up making him #3 (second behind Gardner). Thrash is versatile because he can be the number one or two, thus you must regard him in that respect. The packages for this game were not packages that were going to feature three WR's too often, thus Joe made one guy the odd man out. That was DMAC. All this talk about not being good enough to make the active list is off base. Do search your memory banks of the preseason games for the WR in the number one spot among the second unit. That person was DMAC. Under normal circumstances that would make him the #3 WR. Knowing Thrash's versatility, that makes DMAC the #4 wide out. Far too often people look at a depth chart and think they are looking at where a player actually stands on a team. Have we forgotten the fact that Gibbs also likes to keep his game plans and strategic moves secret? You know going into every game who the #1 & #2 guys are, but it complicates the other teams game planning when they plan for a certain player being in certain packages at the #3 & #4 spots and on game day that's not the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denverdan Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Originally posted by Saqs Thrash is also a heck of run blocker. He was a huge factor in CPs TD run. plus two tackles on special teams and I think I saw him lay out a LB on a punt return (does anyone else know what I'm talking about?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afparent Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Originally posted by kappaluvacee OK, I'm biased because I know DMAC, but the truth of the matter about his inactivity is because he is currently listed as the #5 WR. It has nothing to do with his route running ability or blocking. DMAC is the second best blocker among the WR's behind Thrash. Coles does well for his size, but all things considered, Thrash is the best blocking WR on the team followed by DMAC, then Coles. Gardner had a good game yesterday, but you all know he doesn't block well at all, hence Spurrier benching him because of it two seasons ago. DMAC was beaten outright for the #3 WR spot by Thrash. Jacobs is listed at the number 4 because he is a prototype of Coles. If Coles goes down you know thrash will move to his spot and DMAC will bump up making him #3 (second behind Gardner). Thrash is versatile because he can be the number one or two, thus you must regard him in that respect. The packages for this game were not packages that were going to feature three WR's too often, thus Joe made one guy the odd man out. That was DMAC. All this talk about not being good enough to make the active list is off base. Do search your memory banks of the preseason games for the WR in the number one spot among the second unit. That person was DMAC. Under normal circumstances that would make him the #3 WR. Knowing Thrash's versatility, that makes DMAC the #4 wide out. Far too often people look at a depth chart and think they are looking at where a player actually stands on a team. Have we forgotten the fact that Gibbs also likes to keep his game plans and strategic moves secret? You know going into every game who the #1 & #2 guys are, but it complicates the other teams game planning when they plan for a certain player being in certain packages at the #3 & #4 spots and on game day that's not the case. Did he really date Vivica Fox? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Synergist Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Originally posted by afparent Did he really date Vivica Fox? Yup, Then she dumped him for .50 cent .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kappaluvacee Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Originally posted by afparent Did he really date Vivica Fox? Yeah, but it was long before the media found out about it. He told me at homecoming '03 (DSU), that they were broken up shortly after the ESPY Awards. The Jet Magazine article came out nearly 3 weeks following that. He also told me that they remain friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Originally posted by Mufumonk He's trade bait, and we're trying to prevent him from getting hurt before we can move him. Uh, no. No way we're gonna absorb that entire $2m SB cap hit this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BD Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16989-2004Sep12.html According to the Post, both McCants and Rock were inactive. I don't think that has anything to do with ability, just where they fit in the gameplan. BD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.