Atlanta Skins Fan Posted April 29, 2002 Share Posted April 29, 2002 I know the team has more pressing needs than RB, but it's worth considering: should the team sign Jamal Anderson if they can get him for the minimum after June 1? Atlanta now has three RBs that could probably start in the NFL. Jamal is coming off his second knee surgery and has a large contract, so it's a pretty good bet he will be cut by the Falcons. When healthy, Anderson is a devastating runner, and could fill in for Stephen Davis should Davis be injured or leave after next year. He's got the experience to step in immediately, unlike Betts. I wouldn't offer Anderson anything other than the minimum, which probably won't get him (considering he'd play behind Davis and might get better offers). I also would hate to hang the future of the club on Anderson. But he makes a very capable backup to Davis, and a giant negotiating chip in discussions about extending Davis's contract. Probably won't happen -- but worth considering. Geoff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowboykilla Posted April 29, 2002 Share Posted April 29, 2002 I'd be in favor of having him on the roster. However, ONLY for the minimum, which, I dont see happening personally. "Go to Washington for the minimum, or elsewhere for more?" I think Philly would be silly not to make a push at him. Right now, they have no RB between the tackles. I know, I know, the turf. But hey, he's a big RB. I'm guessing his knees would be jelly before the season's out though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atlanta Skins Fan Posted April 29, 2002 Author Share Posted April 29, 2002 Originally posted by cowboykilla I think Philly would be silly not to make a push at him. Right now, they have no RB between the tackles. I know, I know, the turf. But hey, he's a big RB. If Jamal has even one neuron between his ears, he's not signing with another turf team. Turf has blown out his knees twice now. Geoff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted April 29, 2002 Share Posted April 29, 2002 No thanks. He hasnt been effective since the last millineum when south park was real funny and did a spoof about his team. Thats why we have Betts and Rock Cartwright. There is no need to go after brokn down RBs with a Westy like history of injuries when we addressed that area with youth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowboykilla Posted April 29, 2002 Share Posted April 29, 2002 Yeah, youze right. I'd say try to talk him into going to the Eagles. Let his shoes stay on that turf for an extra nano second, and watch his A/MCL's tear like my girlfriends....well, nevermind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TennesseeCarl Posted April 29, 2002 Share Posted April 29, 2002 It wouldn't hurt to posture a bit about being interested to see if we can get the Eagles to pony up a little more $. No sense letting them get a guy who, if healthy, could carry them on the cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsThug Posted April 29, 2002 Share Posted April 29, 2002 Jamal, in his prime, would have been a great Redskins-style RB. Sad to say, I don't think he has come back from his knee injury yet, and I wonder if he ever will. Let's see what the rookie can do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inmate running the asylum Posted April 29, 2002 Share Posted April 29, 2002 The problem is Jamal tore up both knees. One is bad enough. We dont need him here now. Ki-Jana only got 63 carries last year as a backup as it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeSkin Posted April 29, 2002 Share Posted April 29, 2002 There are rare cases where a player can still be extremely effective after two huge knee injuries, namely Terry Allen. But let him go to the Eagles. I can just picture him stepping onto the turf for the first time and immediately falling over, clutching both knees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted April 30, 2002 Share Posted April 30, 2002 In addition to the turf problem, I'm not sure they want him in Philly because of his questionable receiving skills. That's death in a WCO which requires that skill. Levens, Carter and Watters can all do that. Then again, beggars can't be choosers. As for us, I'd rather spend our limited cap dollars on a DT and a OG before we try for depth somewhere where we have an entrenched starter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romo Posted April 30, 2002 Share Posted April 30, 2002 While it would be nice to have a veteran back up the likes of Jamal, at the minimum ofcourse, I would worry as to what happens next year and the future? We drafted Betts with the hope he will be a good back up this year and maybe be ready to take over in case of Davis getting injured or leaving. If we dont at least give Betts a shot and develop someone young then we would have no one when both David and Jamal are gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted April 30, 2002 Share Posted April 30, 2002 I think Anderson is less an option than others who may be there. I hate to see Carter go, especially to the Eagles if that happens, but, I just don't know that I'm crazy about Anderson backing up Davis in THIS offense. Hell, we already have some fair question as to whether Davis is a perfect fit and Davis is more straight ahead than the dancer Anderson can be. If you get a proven guy like Anderson as a backup, it's a good move for any team, but, I think he'll go somewhere he's got a chance to start and where he might be a more seamless fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdanrun Posted April 30, 2002 Share Posted April 30, 2002 Gotta wonder why Atlanta even drafted duckett in the first place. Hate to see any former Redskin get off on us. But can't wait to see how Betts and especially the Rock performs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.