From Zero to Zero
by John Morgan on Nov 30, 2010 10:30 AM PST
Email
PrintI would love, love, love for Cameron Morrah to get some more looks on offense. If this past season has taught me anything, it's that skill position players Tim Ruskell selected in the seventh round are by rule awesome.
Morrah returns the ball 30 yards to put Seattle in KC territory.
1-10-KC 48 (11:25) 24-M.Lynch right guard to KC 44 for 4 yards (59-J.Belcher, 91-T.Hali).
Chiefs send Javier Arenas on a corner blitz. Seattle runs up the gut. This should work.
Chris Spencer is matched against Wallace Gilberry. Yes. He controls him, moving him first right and then containing him left when Marshawn Lynch cuts towards the left "A" gap. There's push and lead blockers, but Stacy Andrews, Chester Pitts and Sean Locklear convene in the second level and ignore Jovan Belcher. Belcher gets the tackle.
Maybe that's a missed assignment. Maybe Lynch is supposed to be quicker. Maybe Belcher is supposed to be irrelevant.
2-6-KC 44 (10:54) (Shotgun) 8-M.Hasselbeck pass short left to 87-B.Obomanu to KC 39 for 5 yards (21-J.Arenas).
Seahawks spread four wide, empty backfield. Chiefs respond with a 2-4 and rush six.
Matt looks left, looks left, looks left. Obomanu runs a short out pattern and looks for the ball. It's there. He receives and reaches forward for what looks like the first. The officials mark it just short.
3-1-KC 39 (10:26) 24-M.Lynch left guard to KC 39 for no gain (56-D.Johnson). Official measurement.
Lynch has this:
and ends here:
after some to and fro.
It's short of the first.
To be continued.
82 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
o-line
We spent weeks anxiously waiting for Russell Okung to be back and healthy. With Okung back, it seems Hasselbeck is upright a lot more often and I don’t fear for his life. However, the running game is still awful.
Also, when I saw the 3rd-and-1 play as pictured above, I thought the officials gave Lynch an awful spot (maybe by half a yard) and should have moved the sticks, though one more first down doesn’t make the run game much less crappy.
Sports and Bremertonians. Because we can.
I was thinking the exact same thing.
Marshawn had the first down. He did. If the refs would of marked it correctly then we wouldn’t of called that face-palm play. That play did affect our outcome a bit. I agree the first down wouldn’t of made our run game any better, but it still was a first. There isn’t any love for Marshawn from the refs. I’ve seen numerous touchdowns and plays that have been called short. Argh.
by PhoneHomeET29 on Nov 30, 2010 11:53 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
While I've increasingly become more critical and more disappointed in Lynch's running with each week,
and this week followed suit, I do feel with a consistently good line he could, probably would, adjust his running accordingly. Probably been years where he’s felt he has to earn every inch while fighting through contact, and the blockers and gaps are relevant, only like how the best battle plan is relevant only until the first arrow is shot.
I don’t see good cuts coming from him. To the extent that I wonder if he has pro level ability in cutting right now. I wonder if the inside zone game would be lost even with a good ZBS run blocking line, with him carrying the ball. But there’s a lot he could still do even if that was true, with a change in decision making, behind a good line.
yardfight
One thing that seems apparent to me is that defenders (more often than they should) seem to contact Lynch two or three yards behind the line of scrimmage and he has to fight and scrap just to get back to the line of scrimmage. If that point of contact could just be pushed forward a yard or two (way easier said than done, of course), it could make a big difference.
Sports and Bremertonians. Because we can.
Then there are the times he's running in the open field
when he runs right at the solo defender, who takes him down with ease.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 30, 2010 11:45 AM PST up reply actions
Open field?
I don’t remember much of that either.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 30, 2010 1:38 PM PST up reply actions
Neither do I.
I’ve seen him bounce a lot of defenders when not getting gang tackled.
"Pass rushers enter the world of Okung but never leave." - JM
http://seahawksblog.wordpress.com
I think we all see that.
What I also see is poor running when that doesn’t happen, or actions that exacerbate the poor blocking.
What I’m saying now is, I’m realizing maybe the poor blocking, from Buffalo and Seattle, has let to some bad habits for an otherwise capable runner. That even though I see failed runs that directly stem from what Lynch does, and, at the very least, less directly from the blocking — that is to say, if the runner did something different in the exact same play with the exact same blocking and defensive penetration, like, say, Maurice Morris, there would be a more positive result than what comes from Lynch — I now feel I might be too hard on him in terms of doubting his capabilities. That it might be — to cite John’s comment below that struck me as funny — force of habit.
by jacobstevens on Nov 30, 2010 1:02 PM PST up reply actions
It is tough for any RB to run consistently and productively behind our line
Just look at the picture — there are three Chiefs already in the backfield at the point he has the ball. That is going to be fairly tough for most running backs. When Seattle was at full strength defensively, we were holding RBs like Gore down to minuscule production as well, and Gore is a ProBowler.
It all starts in the trenches. Our O-line has been garbage in terms of run-blocking for years now.
There's one defender on the ground and one defender completely out of position
and a cut back lane three yards wide.
by John Morgan on Nov 30, 2010 12:08 PM PST up reply actions
Perhaps.
I don’t have the benefit of replay, but it looks to me that the penetration of… uh, some red blob on his stomach… has caused Lynch to break stride about half a second after he’s got the ball. There’s a safety with a clear shot at him and presumably more momentum. He looks dead-to-rights in the backfield to me, unless he can somehow break the tackle without having any momentum himself.
But this one example nonetheless (where he did get the first down, really) doesn’t nullify the several times I’ve seen him run into his own guys.
I don't have the replay any more either on my Tivo
…but from the still photo, it look like Lynch is doing a jump stop (and losing any forward momentum), and is turning toward the hole on his left, and that there is a guy in front on the ground trying to trip him, a guy flying in from Lynch’s left, and a safety (or someone), equidistant from the hole (on about the 36 or 37) that will be meeting him in the cut back lane.
Not saying there isn’t opportunity to make a guy or two miss, but I just don’t think it is ideal to have so many guys in the backfield on a short yardage play.
Great metaphor, but funny in this day and age.
First arrow gonna be pretty irrelevant against current military technology (Red Dawn Wolverines excepted).
I remember the old George Carlin line, “Yeah, we’ll bomb ‘em back to the stone age. That’ll set ’em back about two weeks…”
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 30, 2010 1:38 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, not a modern warfare reflection.
I’ve seen it elsewhere, but first came across it in Robert Jordan’s Wheel of Time series. He used it a lot, and I loved it.
Also, I have wondered the extent to which it still applies or doesn’t apply, in modern warfare, and I really can’t tell. In some ways I think, planning and thoroughly considered estimations and tactical adjustments and dynamic communication has to enable results being far more consistently closer to estimations than back in the day. And then I also think, it’s not really about the technology, but just the recognition that all sorts of unaccounted factors or unexpected results can render extremely good plans obsolete very quickly.
But I don’t know.
by jacobstevens on Nov 30, 2010 2:18 PM PST up reply actions
Have you heard of the drone planes doing bombing runs in Afghanistan while controlled by pilots at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada?
Imagine this conversation a “pilot” could have with his Dad in South Dakota…
Well, son, how was your day?
Pretty good dad. I got 15 confirmed kills with a bomb run in the mountains of Afghanistan, then after I got off work I won 200 dollars at the Craps table at the Bellagio. What did you do, did you get the lawn mowed for mom?
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 30, 2010 2:38 PM PST up reply actions
I only read the first paragraph, but I think this will give you a flavor for what's going on...
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/02/24/20100224dronecrew0224.html
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 30, 2010 3:44 PM PST up reply actions
sadly, I'm betting it's not quite working that well.
This whole idea that you can win a war against guys in caves without getting down and dirty in the landscape boggles me. Didn’t anyone learn anything from Vietnam?
Or the last invasion of Afghanistan?
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 30, 2010 5:04 PM PST up reply actions
It actually reminds me of something much more problematic.
I remember an episode of the original Star Trek from when I was a kid, when people got executed almost as if by lottery, through a computer wargame.
It was because the two warring civilizations decided war was just too barbaric, so they went to that system instead, and considered it still warring. Kind of disgusting, and it bothers me that the further away from the enemy you are, the less likely you are to see the humanity in the other side— the less likely to want the war to stop.
If we get to the point where we are in Ender’s Game, and dudes living in Vegas are “fighting a war” between “real games” of Call of Duty, what is the probability for ever having peace? I don’t know, but I think about that stuff and it bothers me…
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 30, 2010 6:08 PM PST up reply actions
That was a great ST episode.
Kirk and others destroyed the system, forcing the two warring sides to face real war, and they ended up declaring peace.
Lots of folks say if we re-instituted the draft, the current wars would end in a big hurry. But we digress. Let’s get back to second-guessing the scheme, the FO, and the players!
Agreed all around.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 1, 2010 8:44 AM PST up reply actions
Holes
I don’t know the stats, but anecdotally it has seemed that Forsett has been much more successful on his carries. Maybe that is because he has tended to be in on more passing downs, and therefore the defense did not expect a run. Even so, Justin seems to hit the hole much, much faster than Lynch does. Actually, I have a hard time recollecting a hole that Lynch has hit a hole at all. Might be because there are no holes on his carries. Or might be because he takes too long to get to them and they disappear. There’s just a noticeably different speed to Forsett’s carries, and it seems to work better.
Some of this might be playcalling and personnel packages. Is it a good idea to have Lynch in for fairly obvious running downs? Does his mere presence alert the defense that a run is likely? Would it be more productive to mix Forsett in earlier, rather than reserving most of his carries to the second half? Between his lack of success running his relatively poor receiving, and his fumble issues, I do not see the justification for continuing to give him the bulk of the carries.
I agree with this.
While Forsett has the ability to hit the hole faster and thus negate penetration, he seems to benefit from running mostly on passing downs and out of spread formations. When Lynch is in there we’ve got two TE’s or some other nonsense and opposing defenses are like “OK, jam their WR’s at the LOS and put the SS in the box… done”.
And when Lynch is in, there's no FB.
I think it’s imperative to improve the O-line so we can replace one of the blocking TE’s with a real FB.
If a FB is not part of the O-Coordinator’s future plans, then Lynch is looking like a complete waste of talent.
MRob is our FB
He’s currently injured but may return for the next game.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 30, 2010 4:43 PM PST up reply actions
I should say
I don’t see a justification for continuing to give Lynch the bulk of the carries other than the fact that Lynch was a major acquisition by Carroll/Schneider, which is a poor justification.
IT does seem that JForce is more effective in our scheme
It is hard to say how much the down/distance situations contribute. I wish he was getting more carries as well, although I am happy to have Lynch over Jones.
Waiting for the Chiefs second drive breakdown...
There’s a Jamaal Charles 27 yard run that has me seething from a personnel standpoint.
Not to be an impatient jerk though
My intention is to say I am looking forward to the breakdown of that particular play.
Wait, we punted?
Or do you just not want to acknowledge the terrible “go for broke” play on an inches-to-go situation Bates ran AGAIN?
I suffer from IBS, otherwise known as "Influx of Billick Syndrome".
Well I better write that sentence better
Made it seem passive aggressive.
I thought we went for it on 4th and 1, or do you not want to go over another “go for broke” Bates play when we needed inches to go?
For the record, I like Bates, but holy crap he must think he still has Cutler and Marshall.
I suffer from IBS, otherwise known as "Influx of Billick Syndrome".
by SSreporters on Nov 30, 2010 12:25 PM PST up reply actions
I feel like that play was Matt's fault
Although it was the first read, I’m pretty sure Matt was supposed to move on if it wasn’t widethefuck open.
by DrunkAmerican on Nov 30, 2010 2:30 PM PST up reply actions
Whether Matt failed to execute,
we have to run there. I understand; there’s been criticism of not running in power situations a lot, and we run so poorly I wonder what people are asking for. I understand and don’t blame Bates & Carroll for somewhat forsaking the run right now, even in power situations.
But at least a little bit, you need to run. There have already been too many passes in power situations, it’s reaching the point of being detrimental to yourself by allowing defenses to not “play honest” and account for the run. The players need some success to build off of. That doesn’t make poor players good players, but it makes a difference if these players are going to be part of a good run game that you build in the future. Even for this postseason push.
by jacobstevens on Nov 30, 2010 2:37 PM PST up reply actions
I would prefer a run to a long, low percentage pass play
But for most runs I saw, there were defensive guys in the backfield all day. Perhaps a higher percentage short pass was in order, or counter, or naked bootleg, or something involving misdirection and guile. Lining up, manning up and enforcing our will on the other guys sure hasn’t worked, and I wouldn’t bet on it’s success with our line.
BTW, somewhere Chuck Knox is weeping
We are dead-last in the NFL in short-yardage conversion rate:
http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/28420/need-a-yard-call-rams-not-seahwaks
No Ground Chuck to be had here. This is not the offensive line you are looking for.
I agree but that's subjective
The playcall resulted in Matt throwing to a covered first read and leaving John Carlson relatively open underneath.
by DrunkAmerican on Nov 30, 2010 9:40 PM PST up reply actions
Definitely subjective. Just my opinion.
by jacobstevens on Dec 1, 2010 10:56 AM PST up reply actions
I feel that there's an argument to be made for passing there though
Even though the defense may be aware of the small task of stuffing a run, it still has to be prepared to do, so that’s something.
Also, if your line just isn’t generating any push, it’s hard to call a run in that situation. I agree with the playcall, but not with how Matt chose to execute it.
by DrunkAmerican on Dec 1, 2010 5:38 PM PST up reply actions
Generally speaking outside of context, I completely agree.
It’s probably not clear in my post above, or in a handful of other recent ones where I talked about this, but I completely see sound reasoning for passing in most power situations. I don’t think that is a problem.
I think going to that well so many times in the recent games, throwing in power situations, 3rd & 4th and 2 or less, raises the question of when will you go back to try and run in a power situation again?
Against pass defense personnel and formation, and when your running game is hurting so bad for any success at all, I thought it should have been a run. I know it’s subjective, but weighing all things in the situation, I really don’t think it’s close, I think you have to run.
I don’t think it’s a big deal. I don’t think it’s a problem that Bates & Carroll thought otherwise. It’s just what I think. And I know that success won’t fix the running game. But success can help at least enough in that you have capital, so to speak, to spend on it, that the defense accounts for now. Next to nothing, I don’t mean to suggest it’s significant. Just pointing it out.
That is very funny in such a sad way.
Kind of how I assume not only completion, but a 1st down, whenever the opposing QB gets the ball out of his hands.
by jacobstevens on Nov 30, 2010 12:57 PM PST up reply actions
Incredibly hi-res video screenshots.
Love those. Almost better than watching the game like I did from section 312…even with binoculars.
...
I'm all for Morrah getting more looks
but I hope I never see Morrah run a go route down the sideline again. I know we’re banged up at WR, but jesus….
I completely agree, but this post made me laugh. You conveyed exactly how I felt on that play.
Thanks for providing some smiles for what has been a tough wade through most of Seattle Seahawk talk the last few days.
by Joshua Kasparek on Nov 30, 2010 3:25 PM PST up reply actions
If you can match him against a short corner, or a slow LB, I've got no problem with it.
He darned near came down with the ball for a huge gain. It’s common for NFL teams to split their receiving TE’s out wide to mess up the defensive coverage.
BMW makes those type of catches look easier than they are.
I don’t like the idea of Morrah running a go-route against a CB. I’d rather see him sit down in the middle of the field and use his big frame as a shield.
And if we’re so hard pressed for a mismatch on the outside, I’d rather see Forsett or Leon Washington run a wheel route.
It's more of a fade.
He’s taller, so he can easily out-jump the CB. The point is not to beat the defender deep.
Pete said in his monday interview that Chris Spencer missed the Cadence and Snapped the ball before anyone expected.
Of course, we all know Chris just gets a bad rap. It’s not like lapses in concentration is a hallmark of his career or anything.
by Joshua Kasparek on Nov 30, 2010 10:09 PM PST reply actions
OK but to what extent is the Field Gulls community going to defend him?
He was unfairly called out, by coaches and by fans, for a few years. I completely empathize (and participated) in rallying around him. I see what he does well, and I see what kind of consistency he brings.
I’ve soured on him. I still like him a lot. I still kind of dream of re-signing him, and the next 5 years he’s consistent and good and a fifth of the time, so dominant he gets the reputation of being among the best ever. I know that is still possible with Spencer.
But from my view he’s an integral part of why we can’t run. I see him contribute as a problem very frequently. He has spells where he does nothing wrong. But the mistakes are too frequent. Too frequent.
It seems that hints of criticism of Chris Spencer yield some kind of defense from someone, or multiple people, here at FG. So I don’t care to try and convince anyone of my view. I just want to know. Statements like these don’t leave me understanding fully what your position is.
How do people currently feel about Spencer? Not relative to what you perceive the consensus fan temperature on him is. Just straight up, how do people feel?
by jacobstevens on Dec 1, 2010 11:02 AM PST up reply actions
I don't know how I feel about Spencer
but I do know that we’ve allowed way too many unblocked A-gap blitzers and the interior OL isn’t pass blocking like it should.
Also, I agree that you can’t say anything even remotely negative about Spencer without someone jumping to his aid or providing excuses for his play. The same can’t be said for the OGs and Locklear.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 1, 2010 11:25 AM PST up reply actions
I am more abivalent about him all the time, however as he isn't the worst member of the line, and still seems to have some potential to get better, he'd be the last non-Okung I'd look to upgrade.
It isn’t that I think he’s great, I just think with all the holes we have, his is a position to upgrade once the other holes are filled. Hopefully in the meanwhile, he improves enough to be his own upgrade.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 1, 2010 11:27 AM PST up reply actions
Apparently, today, I am, for lack of a more coherent thought, in love with commas.
/Shatner’d.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 1, 2010 11:28 AM PST up reply actions
Considering how much good he does do, and his potential, I'd say that upgrading would have to wait.
Why upgrade someone that’s playing fairly well while surrounded by scrubs? I’d rather replace the guards and give Spencer some time.
This team has enough obvious needs without worrying so much about patching the “what if’s”.
That's exactly where I am
It is hard for a fan to know how many mistakes on the line are caused by Spencer (e.g. snap count, missed assignment, missed-calls), but aside from Okung, Spencer seems to be our best young talent on the line — in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
We have sooooo many other holes to think about first, from what I can see.
From what I understand, Spencer has the tools to be good or great, what we don’t know about is his progress mentally, and he is fairly young. That is a whole lot better than where we are with most other positions.
To be fair to Spencer in all that I've critcized him for. He has played much more consistent this year.
The thing that has always irked me and driven me crazy is false starts and missed snap counts which happen at really really key moments. Is that fixable? I don’t know, he’s still having them 4 years into being a starter. It’s enough to cut your cheeks digging your nails into your face.
by Joshua Kasparek on Dec 1, 2010 1:02 PM PST up reply actions
Is there a way to find out how many times a player has been penalized?
I don’t remember Spencer’s number being called very often this year.
Me either.
Because if this discussion was a year ago, I’d probably be more critical of Spencer. I’m just not noticing him, and that’s probably good.
Then again, it could be that Locklear is beating him to the punch.
Ref: Hmm… that #65 seems to be holding… I’ll throw the flag… oh wait, look at #75! He’s wearing the other team’s DE’s jersey! Much better candidate. HOLDING, #75 OFFENSE!
he did false start against San Diego. He also spent several running plays on his butt
The first four games he was up and down like a dingy in hurricane waters but after about week 6 that seemed to stop and he’s done a nice job in pass protection
by Joshua Kasparek on Dec 1, 2010 2:49 PM PST up reply actions
Have the A gap blitzes really been an issue this year?
They’ve certainly been a problem in the past, but the only one I can remember this season was against Oakland when Lynch blew his block.
The A gap blitz complaint has always confused me a little. I don’t watch enough centers consistently to say which of them handle an A gap blitz better than the others, but the blitz itself works well across the league. Pittsburgh’s defense is pretty much predicated on A gap blitzs.
There was a stretch of at least 3 games were A-gap blitzers were totally unblocked
for at least 1 play per game, allowing a rusher to run full-speed directly at the QB. This is completely, utterly and totally unacceptable for any OL.
Whether or not they were Spencer’s direct responsibility (ie whether he should have been the one to block the blitzer), it is likely Spencer’s responsibility to make blocking assignments at the line.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 1, 2010 2:05 PM PST up reply actions
It is somewhat hard to point a finger,
but it seems conceivable to me that one of the guards may have blown an assignment. I don’t remember the specific plays in question, so…
It also feels to me like it hasn't been as bad as in the past.
It’s also worth noting that to a large extent Hasselbeck is part of the problem with how effective those had been.
I wouldn't have made the comment if only the subject line was posted.
But the rest of the comment is pretty clearly continuing the “Spencer doesn’t have the mental make up to be a center” argument, and that argument is stupid.
That argument was stupid, I agree.
Now, I don’t know. It’s foolish and lousy to suggest he is stupid. Then and now.
Mental lapses have been present, they’ve not been noticeably improving much. It’s valid to call that out. It’s clear a key factor in these issues is mental. Doesn’t mean he’s stupid, but there’s been quite a grace period and without improvement I wonder whether he’s got the mental fortitude to provide great consistency.
I know for a fact I don’t have it. So this isn’t just calling him stupid. I just know it’s a requirement of the job. Not everyone has it for this job. So far he’s not living up to the job requirement.
Chris Spencer is one of very few players, and the only non-quarterback, that I can think of that has been accused of not having the mental fortitude to play his position.
Sean Locklear blows, and no one questions that he has the mental fortitude (read: intelligence) to play tackle. Shawn Andrews gets penalized constantly, and no one questions his mental fortitude. Kelly Jennings never plays the ball, and no one questions his mental fortitude. Leroy Hill blew coverage constantly, and no one questioned his mental fortitude.
I could go on and on, but the point is that every other player is criticized for their weaknesses while Spencer’s weaknesses are just filed under a lack of mental fortitude. That bothers me.
by Nate Dogg on Dec 1, 2010 4:47 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Yeah, I think thats dumb
Its one thing to say the guy mistakes or isn’t performing well or hasn’t “got it” yet. Its another thing entirely to say the guy sucks because he’s too stupid to play the position. That just doesn’t make any sense to me.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 1, 2010 4:52 PM PST up reply actions
I don't know if Krazyleggs has said that in the past but otherwise no one is saying that here
and specifically, explicitly, saying otherwise.
Very well said.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 1, 2010 6:39 PM PST up reply actions
It's fine that it bothers you but you should separate what bothers you
and what you really think about a situation.
I don’t think you are accusing me of holding a double standard here, but just pointing out one that you see. I understand where you’re coming from, except that some failure in execution is basically physical, and sometimes you can observe that. To suck is one thing. To be the center and make mistakes with the snap count is another.
It has occurred to me that Jennings might simply not have the awareness that other CBs have, while at the same time physically reacting so dynamically. So a mental problem may contribute to all kind of players’ lack of success or effectiveness.
This is a weird road to go down, I also prefer to take discretion and not question mental abilities. But strictly speaking about what may factor, mental aspects may factor, and that includes some of these guys.
If you’d like to question whether he’s had mental lapses, then it might be good to explicitly do so to dismiss the claims that he’s had them, rather than suggest that it’s not legitimate if other players aren’t also questioned.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Field Gulls
Related FanShots on Field Gulls
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Donald Driver compared winning ‘Dancing With The Stars’ to winning Super Bowl
- Report: Most NFL players would have no problem with an openly gay teammate
- Donald Driver wins ‘Dancing With the Stars’
- Student has diploma withheld after Tebowing at graduation
- NFL to mandate knee and thigh pads for players
