Keary Colbert Released
by lemonverbena on Nov 11, 2008 1:03 PM PST
56 comments
The Seahawks liked what they saw from Keary Colbert in practice in the days after they acquired him from the Broncos in September. There wasn't much to like from him during games, however, and that's apparently why Seattle released him Tuesday.
Colbert dropped what should have been a routine 19-yard completion on a critical third-and-12 play against the Dolphins in Week 10. The Seahawks expect Deion Branch to return this week. Releasing Colbert appears to be a direct response to his struggles. Seattle remains relatively thin at the position. The depth doesn't improve without Colbert.
So, for an undisclosed late-round pick (Editor: 5th)(was it conditional? Ed: Yes) , we got 7 catches, 52 yards and 1 TD reception. Ew. Can't much blame Ruskell though. With all the injuries he had to pull the trigger on something. Dude looked the part but just couldn't squeeze the rock.
John Morgan (Edit): Is this a waste of resources, yes, but I think something else must be said. Seattle is destined for a top fifteen pick. Unless things change quickly, a top ten. Tim Ruskell will trade down. He's an aggressive GM who makes a lot of moves. He clearly prescribes to a talent acquisition by volume approach and it's one I agree with. Ruskell, Mike Holmgran and staff must have seen something about Colbert that interested them. The pick used to acquire Colbert was a small bet with possibly good returns. Now the team moves on.
I don't like this move, it seems rash, but consider the likelihood of a 5th round wide receiver sticking. Despite his name value, and the abnormal in season nature of the move, the result isn't much more than a fifth round bust. Seattle has made many moves to get this receiving corps. Should Taylor stick and contribute, it will still be one of the least expensive group of wide receivers in the NFL. If Koren can build on his gains, Branch play like we know he can, and Taylor play like a pro, it won't be half bad. This is clearly Ruskell's philosophy on acquiring wide receiver talent, construction through volume and attrition. Now, the question left unaswered: Is it worth a damn?
John Morgan (Edit 2): (a very cogent argument provided by michaelfox99)
The 5th round pick for Colbert is gone. We don’t get the pick back by keeping Keary around. We want to get Branch out on the field so someone has to be cut. Cutting Kent instead of Keary doesn’t miraculously net us a 5th round pick. It’s just like poker, the bets in the previous round are over with. We have to cut the worst player / least upside … and I have no reason to believe that is not what we did.
You have to isolate the 2 moves:
1) trading for Keary
2) cutting himIt is smart management to NOT favor Keary just because we invested a lot in him… You have to evaluate the trade based on the situation at the trade, and this move based on the situation NOW.
Lets face it, Keary is younger than say, Engram, but is already in his fifth season, and hasn’t had a decent year since his rookie season. I would much rather have Kent around than Colbert. I agree with the comment above that we needed an experienced, but not over the hill, player immediately at the time we picked up Colbert, a time when we were still thinking playoffs…
There may also be a clause that we would lose another pick or a higher pick if Keary stayed on the roster past a certain date, or played X number of snaps… I don’t know.
It’s too early to determine whether we should trade down. As pointed out, it isn’t always the best thing to do. We have to consider what our needs are and who is out there as the draft gets closer. As of right now I think a true WR threat is our biggest need. We are too easy to single cover and don’t have RAC threat. Crabtree is unbelievable. What he has done this year despite being the focus of the other teams’ defense every week is simply godlike. He might fall a drop by not having a 4.3-40 come combine time but he is just such a good football player..
A place to bury strangers.
0 recs |
56 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Another reacionary move by TR?
Not sure what to make of this… I’m surprisingly disgruntled by it. Are we to cut John Carlson next week if he drops one?
It is what it is...
by kidder95 on Nov 11, 2008 1:23 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
This is obviously reactionary......
But I’m not sure why that’s a bad thing. TR is reacting to poor play. His problems were not limited to his drops on Sunday. He has done nothing with his opportunity here. I found it laughable that people were considering him a part of the plans for next year.
Might as well find out what we really have (Taylor, Kent, Bump) so we can make some moves in the offseason if needed.
To even mention John Carlson in this post is a little mellow dramatic and reactionary.
I can understand frustration with the trade to bring him here…… but the cut was going to happen sooner than later with his best move being a disappearing act in games where we needed somebody to step up.
If nothing else it may allow Taylor to step up or make it easy to cut bait with him too.
I'd like to kick Josh Brown in the privates!
by The Manchild on Nov 11, 2008 2:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think reactionary by nature is bad
though the term derives from ultra-conservative beliefs that oppose change, so the usage is a little ironic.
The problem as I see it is if the team had so little faith in Colbert to drop him after half a season, why make that move to begin with? But upon further consideration, I think this is Ruskell’s MO: Build a wide receiver corps through volume and attrition. I can’t say I’m yet sold on it. I am very happy to see Courtney Taylor get another chance to play.
by John Morgan on Nov 11, 2008 2:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The trade alone.
At the time of the trade, knowing little of Colbert, I didn’t think it was that bad. He had shown the ability to contribute in the past. Most importantly, at that time, nobody saw a 2-7 season coming. A fifth round pick for a stop-gap WR isn’t a horrible move for a team with an aging LT and QB that is trying to contend.
It’s not like other teams didn’t know we were hurting for WR’s and that very likely is what led TR to trade a 5th round pick (ultimately a lot for what Colbert ended up bringing to the table) for a scrap heap WR.
Did Colbert get a fair shot (with Frye and Seneca for most of his games)? No.
Does that mean we should keep sending him out there if we really need to take a good hard look at what is on the practice squad? I don’t think so.
I'd like to kick Josh Brown in the privates!
by The Manchild on Nov 11, 2008 2:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Great comment on Carlson
It is an unfair comparison.
I wonder, if there had not been an escalator in the trade, if infact, this move takes place.
Colbert has proven, as John noted Sunday evening, to get open. With that said, I am all in for Taylor to show something. He is what this team needs: big, quick, and the look of beastly. If he becomes as such, we can focus on SS and OT.
It is what it is...
by kidder95 on Nov 11, 2008 2:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't read the links on this story at all.
If it’s true that allowing Colbert to continue to play would have resulted in us giving a higher pick then I think this move was 100% necessary.
With us being 4 games out (no team has EVER come back from that to win a division) this move might have been looking forward to next year. It may not have mattered how he played last Sunday.
Just one more case of a fan (me) drawing conculsions without all the info. It just so happens that this time it’s the cherry on top and not the point at which I look like an idiot. Finally something for me to cheer about this year.
I'd like to kick Josh Brown in the privates!
by The Manchild on Nov 11, 2008 2:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Colbert did nothing for us and nothing for Denver....
I don’t understand why everybody thinks this is Reacionary? We picked him up out of desperation when we had a shot at a season and let him go to get some young guys some time when we don’t have a shot anymore. Makes perfect sense….let him go before we have to pay the Contract price the Denver gave him any longer. And losing a fifth round pick is much better than the forth round pick we would have lost if we kept him. He isn’t worth anything. It was a conditional contract, get out before the conditions don’t favor us anymore.
WTF? Are you guys serious?
by collyb on Nov 11, 2008 8:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe sending a message: drops not tolerated
unless you’re Carlson or K-Rob.
Eric Williams says they’re “likely” to bring back Courtney Taylor, but that would seem to be kind of a redundant trade-off. Bring back Bumpus.
by lemonverbena on Nov 11, 2008 1:31 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
This move would make a ton of sense
on a team with no questions at receiver for next year. Colbert’s lack of top end speed but ability to get open made him a good choice to replace Engram. I get the feeling, however, that Engram could require the services of a walker and still find gaps over the middle.
I will accept any draft combination of Crabtree, Andre Smith, Stafford, and Mays. Hear that Ruskell? Time to start spreading vicious rumors about all 4 so they fall.
by abender20 on Nov 11, 2008 1:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I hope Ruskell trades down A LOT.
Which would you rather have, a top 10 picks, or 2 mid to late 2nd rounders and a 3rd rounder?
This is even more true when you have Ruskell picking (though we have no idea what his top 10 picks are like, but considering how he has had some pretty good 2nd and 3rd rounders, (Tatupu, Hill, Wilson, Carlson, NOT David Greene!).
by LantermanC on Nov 11, 2008 2:04 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I'm sure every team other than the Raiders would agree with that sentiment.
No one, except the aforementioned Raiders, really wants to pay for a top 10 pick. And for the ones that might make a trade for it: How many of them have two 2nd rounders to begin with? Giving up all of your first day picks for a giant salary? Sounds like a Ditka-Ricky Williams scenario. Very unlikely.
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Nov 11, 2008 2:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, the two 2nd rounders and a third rounder is just hypothetical
I’m sure a few teams have 2nd rounders. You see trades like this all the time though, like Cleveland giving up a future first rounder and a early 2nd rounder to move up 10 or so picks for Brady Quinn.
by LantermanC on Nov 11, 2008 2:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Copycat league.
After Matt Ryan and Joe Thomas, teams will be looking for the next superstar quarterback and left tackle. I think Seattle can trade down. The way I hear it, it’s not so much teams can’t trade down, it’s that they want too much/get infatuated with that elite talent. There might not be huge difference between most early first round picks and late round picks, but there’s some players that spring to mind that are fantastic talents that pretty much never fall: Walter Jones, Orlando Pace, Julius Peppers, Joe Thomas, Calvin Johnson, Peyton Manning, LaDainian Tomlinson, Laron Landry, Champ Bailey, Deion Sanders…kind of just streaming players here. Point is, trading down is often a good idea. It’s not always. Great teams frequently have a superstar player at their core. The easiest, surest way to acquire one is through the very early rounds of the draft.
by John Morgan on Nov 11, 2008 2:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Kind of random, but kind of not since it relates to the draft and our next opponent.
Steve Breaston, great value at the 5th round obviously, but would he do well on another team?
by LantermanC on Nov 11, 2008 2:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
In fact, look at the teams that drafted in the top ten this year
1 Jake Long T Michigan Miami Dolphins
2 Chris Long DE Virginia St. Louis Rams
3 Matt Ryan QB Boston College Atlanta Falcons
4 Darren McFadden RB Arkansas Oakland Raiders
5 Glenn Dorsey DT Louisiana State Kansas City Chiefs
6 Vernon Gholston DE Ohio State New York Jets
7 Sedrick Ellis DT USC New Orleans Saints
8 Derrick Harvey DE Florida Jacksonville Jaguars
9 Keith Rivers OLB USC Cincinnati Bengals
10 Jerod Mayo OLB Tennessee New England Patriots
This was the year of the anti-bust. How many of those players are making huge contributions and how many of those team have made huge leaps? I think Seattle’s pick will be very tempting, especially with a possible uncapped year in 2010.
by John Morgan on Nov 11, 2008 2:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The guy who looked like he couldn't be a bust
might be the biggest bust (thus far). I know McFadden will be good, but he sure isn’t doing anything right now. Gholston will probably be the biggest bust. Anyone know how 8,9, and 10 are doing?
by LantermanC on Nov 11, 2008 2:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Harvey isn't doing much either, but iot doesn't
mean him and Gholston are busts. Give them some time.
by redwolf75 on Nov 11, 2008 3:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I know, I'm just predicting.
I wasn’t high on Gholston during the draft, so I’m a bit biased.
Also, I was referring to McFadden for the first sentence, just to clear any confusion.
by LantermanC on Nov 11, 2008 3:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Harvey is doing ok, but he held out forever trying to get a big contract. He didn’t even play in preseason. Rivers is out for the season with a broken jaw, and Mayo is playing fairly well.
Dick Dastardly and Muttley with sick laughter
by Wayward Llama on Nov 11, 2008 4:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Mayo is doing very well for the Pats
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Nov 12, 2008 5:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, he was an animal last night
Dick Dastardly and Muttley with sick laughter
by Wayward Llama on Nov 14, 2008 12:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
this pisses me off
Totally reactionary, unless someone in the coaching staff knows a whole lot more than I do.
Colbert was obviously getting open, and showed the ability to get deep. We throw a 5th round pick for the guy, and then expect him to produce with Seneca Wallace at the helm?
Stupid. Ruskell, you’re making yourself look like a moron.
by djafrot on Nov 11, 2008 2:37 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
If playing him more might have costed us a 4th rounder instead
I’d say, I’m fine with the move. We’re not going anywhere, and Engram and Branch (I hope) are finally healthy.
by LantermanC on Nov 11, 2008 2:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Couldn't Disagree more....
You guys are nuts….Read my post before but not reactionary at all…how long do you want to keep him before you realize he can’t catch…thats what he is paid to do, does no good to get open if you cant catch….actually thats probably why he is open because other recognize that.
Get out of the conditional trade before it costs us…he isn’t worth it so give him back.
by collyb on Nov 11, 2008 8:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
uh... if he can't catch... why is he still in the league after five years
and why in God’s name did we give up a fifth (fourth, if he worked out) for him?
I fully understand why we’d dump a player that sucked… but for the FO to look at five years of game footage, decide a player’s good enough to bring in, then cut said player because they “suddenly” realize he sucks, that doesn’t seem right at all.
I’m a huge Ruskell supporter, but this was a mess.
by djafrot on Nov 11, 2008 11:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
IMO they thought he'd be an immediate contributor, not a project
Billy McMullen with slightly better physical skills. And I’m suspecting they probably didn’t plan on keeping him around past this year regardless of how he performed (not at the salary he was scheduled to make).
He was a last ditch effort to provide Holmgren with a WR who could at least execute the system correctly and hopefully keep the passing game treading water until Branch & Engram could return. And they were willing to overpay because they thought the season could still be saved.
But it didn’t work out as planned. Now that Engram & K-Rob and hopefully Branch are back, the one thing Colbert was needed for (experience) is covered again. So cut your losses,move on, and use the rest of the year to figure out if any of the younger WRs are worth keeping in ’09 and beyond.
by jteckmann on Nov 12, 2008 1:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Picks.
The 5th round pick for Colbert is gone. We don’t get the pick back by keeping Keary around. We want to get Branch out on the field so someone has to be cut. Cutting Kent instead of Keary doesn’t miraculously net us a 5th round pick. It’s just like poker, the bets in the previous round are over with. We have to cut the worst player / least upside … and I have no reason to believe that is not what we did.
You have to isolate the 2 moves:
1) trading for Keary
2) cutting him
It is smart management to NOT favor Keary just because we invested a lot in him… You have to evaluate the trade based on the situation at the trade, and this move based on the situation NOW.
Lets face it, Keary is younger than say, Engram, but is already in his fifth season, and hasn’t had a decent year since his rookie season. I would much rather have Kent around than Colbert. I agree with the comment above that we needed an experienced, but not over the hill, player immediately at the time we picked up Colbert, a time when we were still thinking playoffs…
There may also be a clause that we would lose another pick or a higher pick if Keary stayed on the roster past a certain date, or played X number of snaps… I don’t know.
It’s too early to determine whether we should trade down. As pointed out, it isn’t always the best thing to do. We have to consider what our needs are and who is out there as the draft gets closer. As of right now I think a true WR threat is our biggest need. We are too easy to single cover and don’t have RAC threat. Crabtree is unbelievable. What he has done this year despite being the focus of the other teams’ defense every week is simply godlike. He might fall a drop by not having a 4.3-40 come combine time but he is just such a good football player..
by michaelfox99 on Nov 11, 2008 2:53 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
This is a great point.
Colbert likely represents the least upside and greatest downside (that is, giving up an even more valuable pick) among Seattle’s wide receivers.
by John Morgan on Nov 11, 2008 2:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Very good post.
I initially did not like this move at all, but this has changed my mind.
by redwolf75 on Nov 11, 2008 3:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I've stolen your response.
So there.
by John Morgan on Nov 11, 2008 3:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Kent over Colbert?
Really?
I think that Colbert has the tools to become our next Engram, given a) experience in our system and b) a QB that can actually get him the ball.
Kent hasn’t done squat yet. We have a lot of developmental WR’s… is he better than Taylor, or Obu, or even Bumpus?
I dunno… I just think that if he was worth investing a 5th in, they must have thought he was capable of being here a while.
by djafrot on Nov 11, 2008 3:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Good point on isolating the two moves
and, if the pick was at all conditional on the factors you mention, then maybe this was exactly the time to cut him. The conditions could have been that he last X number of games on the roster.
One point of clarification, though: they didn’t need to cut anyone to get Branch on the field. Branch is on the 53-man.
by lemonverbena on Nov 11, 2008 3:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
point well taken.
Thats true. I am over Colbert though. FO has him at 39% catch rate.. Ouch. (I know that isn’t all drops) He didn’t do anything to show he is even better than Taylor now, and he certainly has a lot less potential.. My guess is he didn’t wow much in practice either. Add in the fact he is expensive (Taylor is cheap) and we are avoiding any escalators in the trade agreement… All the same arguments apply to Bumpus too.
We look to have found a cheap little diamond in the rough with Robinson and I am happy about that. He is catching 57% of balls thrown his way which is solid given the circumstances. He has always had the skill and talent so if he is sincere about going straight then we saved ourselves an early round pick right there.
by michaelfox99 on Nov 11, 2008 4:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't know Colbert was expensive
what are his cap numbers?
by djafrot on Nov 11, 2008 11:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
His '08 salary was just $600K
However, it jumped to $2M in ’09 & ’10.
So I suspect that they probably only considered him a 1-yr rental from the beginning.
Denver took his whole bonus hit when they traded him ($2.5M) … so that’s why he likely cost a 5th rounder. Had to do something to make Denver eat that money. They essentially purchased a 5th round pick for $2.5M.
by jteckmann on Nov 12, 2008 1:22 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm still stunned over how fast I went from being high on Colbert
to feeling completely and utterly indifferent about him.
by BrianL on Nov 11, 2008 3:16 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Coming out of college,
I assumed Colbert would be what Steve Smith (NYG) looks to become. The steady less sexy option to a star in college (Mike Williams for Colbert, Jarrett for Smith), both guys were consistently good at uncovering and giving their QB someone to aim at. I am surprised that Colbert didn’t turn out to be more than he has, although it’s funny that both Colbert and Smith have had more success than their superstar counterparts (although Colbert’s success would only really be measured in longevity).
I will accept any draft combination of Crabtree, Andre Smith, Stafford, and Mays. Hear that Ruskell? Time to start spreading vicious rumors about all 4 so they fall.
by abender20 on Nov 11, 2008 3:35 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I'm still amazed Mike Williams didn't pan out
That guy was an uncoverable beast at SC.
by lemonverbena on Nov 11, 2008 3:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Same here
Big, strong, absurd hops and catching ability. Now slow and fat.
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Nov 12, 2008 5:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
"construction through volume and attrition"
Are there examples of this being a successful model for a WR corps?
by Nate Dogg on Nov 11, 2008 4:08 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Its hard to say...
Because we aren’t talking about spreading the ball around, like the pats were (pre-Moss). doing. We are talking about building the corps by drafting a lot of guys with potential in late rounds, years before they are actually needed to take a snap. I for one haven’t paid attention to how any GM’s built their receiving crops with attention paid to how many guys were brought in that didn’t end up playing.
Guys like Payne and Kent were not intended to play this year. We lost so many guys they just ended up on the field. Even after Engram went down (we knew Branch was out) it was supposed to be Obomanu, Burleson, Taylor, and then gradually Engram and Branch back in. Taylor was the only guy who really failed to meed expectations (as we never really had much expectation for others) and
We need to (and will) bring Taylor back up, as he still has some nice potential. I would like to see Kent and Taylor given a lot of reps now that we are out of the playoffs. I don’t see much purpose in having Engram play at this point. We need to see what Branch can do too.
I think Ruskell will determine what (if anything) needs to be done to our WR corps after the season is over. There are still a lot of questions that we now can address (instead of focusing solely on winning) Can Kent or Taylor play with the big boys? Can Branch bounce back? Is Koren for real? The answers to these questions, along with the return of Obomanu and Burleson will be important in determining if (and how high) we should take a WR.
by michaelfox99 on Nov 11, 2008 4:39 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Kent has no receptions this season, which is telling, as he'd been lined out wide for a
good amount of snaps.
The man just can’t get open and catch the ball at this stage.
Here’s to hoping he’ll improve over the offseason, training camp,and next preseason. I really want kent to succeed and have a future with this team.
by redwolf75 on Nov 11, 2008 7:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know how everyone can see Taylor having an upside
He’s shown absolutely nothing so far.
Dick Dastardly and Muttley with sick laughter
by Wayward Llama on Nov 11, 2008 4:45 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I said to "cut Colbert" during Sunday's game thread.
I though I might be overreacting, but I certainly felt strongly that way at the time. Not just the one play, but his culmination of stone-handed plays to that point.
by Misfit74 on Nov 11, 2008 5:51 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
re: Crabtree
Crabtree is unbelievable. What he has done this year despite being the focus of the other teams’ defense every week is simply godlike. He might fall a drop by not having a 4.3-40 come combine time but he is just such a good football player..
I think they said similar things about Larry Fitzgerald before he was drafted. That’s a good thing.
by Misfit74 on Nov 11, 2008 6:56 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I love how everyone is suddenly talking about Taylor again
even though a few weeks ago everbody was like “cut the bum, he can’t catch”.
My, we are a fickle bunch!
by djafrot on Nov 11, 2008 11:48 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
He is still on the hot-seat..
Now that we are out of the playoffs though, it makes sense to give him a look. He did play poorly earlier on, so if he can’t hack it in a second extended tryout, let him go.
by michaelfox99 on Nov 12, 2008 4:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think this is a great time for Taylor to prove his....
lack of worth.
I hope I’m wrong but he seems like he talks like a wolf and plays like a sheep. I would actually rather have OBU running his college shaped routes out there than watch Taylor not finish his year.
Maybe he can still improve dramatically before next year, but I think a lot of you are discounting the fact that Taylor and to a lesser extent Colbert were in prime positions to make some noise this year. Not that conditions were ideal for them ,but the fact that they had a shot at all and didn’t even remotely capitalize on it says something.
I'd like to kick Josh Brown in the privates!
by The Manchild on Nov 12, 2008 11:07 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
that should read "not finish his NEXT year"
I'd like to kick Josh Brown in the privates!
by The Manchild on Nov 12, 2008 11:08 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What was he supposed to say?
You’re hitting on him because he sounded confident?
Was Taylor really supposed to produce as a 6th round pick playing some of his first regular season snaps against 1st string corners?
by redwolf75 on Nov 12, 2008 11:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Th fact that he is a 6th rounder actually supports my case IMO.
All I’m saying is that this is an opportunity for us to find out what he has. Assuming we get Engram back there will be 4 WR’s next year (Bobby, Branch, Koren, and Nate). Given what happened this year with injuries it scares me to think that Taylor might be a guy we have to count on at some point next season. I would rather we have someone else……not that I have an idea of who that person is at this point.
Forgive me for being a little annoyed by a guy who has done nothing, talking like he is a “Big Time” playmaker. I’m not saying that I wish he was something other than confident but I can recall two occasions when he was interviewed on KJR and sounded a little bit big for his britches at this point.
He proved nothing and made it to the practice squad. That is telling to me.
Side note- his college numbers were rather pedestrian. I realize it was against tough comp.
I'd like to kick Josh Brown in the privates!
by The Manchild on Nov 13, 2008 12:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't buy that argument at all.
He just sounded confident on those interviews — not overly so.
And what was he supposed to say? "Don’t expect much from me because I’m essentially a rookie starting against 1st string corners.’?
It’s not like he predicted himself to be a star or carry the team. He said what he’s SUPPOSED to say.
by redwolf75 on Nov 13, 2008 10:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
