|
|
Post by monty on Jul 10, 2010 9:33:06 GMT -8
Cell phone video of screen in my mancave. What an athletic run - dude needs to be able to get into the patterns on a regular basis; how do you defend him, too athletic for most linebackers two big for a safety |
|
|
|
Post by aztecalumn on Jul 10, 2010 9:33:53 GMT -8
So Nicholas is going to beat him out for playing time this year when he couldn't do it last year? Not gonna happen. I didn't say he would, but he will get some time yah he will get SOME time, but demarco, vincent and sandifer will get most of the time, with osmond, doug and ruffin splitting some SMALL minutes |
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jul 10, 2010 9:35:41 GMT -8
I didn't say he would, but he will get some time yah he will get SOME time, but demarco, vincent and sandifer will get most of the time, with osmond, doug and ruffin splitting some SMALL minutes what about King? Is he going to RS, maybe move to D at some point, special teams only? |
|
|
|
Post by k5james on Jul 10, 2010 9:40:15 GMT -8
yah he will get SOME time, but demarco, vincent and sandifer will get most of the time, with osmond, doug and ruffin splitting some SMALL minutes what about King? Is he going to RS, maybe move to D at some point, special teams only? I was wondering the same thing after he didn't show up on the 2 Deep after spring camp... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2010 12:07:31 GMT -8
Cell phone video of screen in my mancave. Very cool. BTW, this is no knock on Umuolo, but when your DBs are less athletic than your opponents' TE, you know your secondary really sucks. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2010 12:12:50 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by k5james on Jul 10, 2010 14:38:05 GMT -8
Crap, you're right. Failing eyes already at 31.  |
|
|
|
Post by ron on Jul 10, 2010 14:47:45 GMT -8
Maybe he doesn't show the aggressiveness required to play D? |
|
|
|
Post by goaztecs on Jul 10, 2010 14:55:31 GMT -8
Yes good point. These guys are going to be able to get open with Brown and Sampson out there. If our O line can hold up the offense should have a big year.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2010 15:53:06 GMT -8
Maybe he doesn't show the aggressiveness required to play D? I just know what I saw last year. That is that although he seemed to have a good football IQ as they call it, looking at him through binoculars standing next to Walter Kazee, he seemed to be the identical height and although King is listed on the roster as 5-10, Kazee is listed as an inch shorter than that. Maybe Kazee is actually 5-10, but I highly doubt it. And 5-9 is awfully short for a wideout in today's game. I mean, Sandifer looks kinda short out there and he's listed as six feet even. Maybe King isn't aggressive enough to play on the other side of the ball. However, I just think he could ultimately be of more value in a position where he won't have one-on-one coverage responsibility so his height won't matter too much versus at receiver where except in little underneath passes it will. Do you disagree? |
|
|
|
Post by k5james on Jul 10, 2010 17:13:12 GMT -8
Maybe he doesn't show the aggressiveness required to play D? I just know what I saw last year. That is that although he seemed to have a good football IQ as they call it, looking at him through binoculars standing next to Walter Kazee, he seemed to be the identical height and although King is listed on the roster as 5-10, Kazee is listed as an inch shorter than that. Maybe Kazee is actually 5-10, but I highly doubt it. And 5-9 is awfully short for a wideout in today's game. I mean, Sandifer looks kinda short out there and he's listed as six feet even. Maybe King isn't aggressive enough to play on the other side of the ball. However, I just think he could ultimately be of more value in a position where he won't have one-on-one coverage responsibility so his height won't matter too much versus at receiver where except in little underneath passes it will. Do you disagree? Wes Welker seems to manage OK. Yes, taller is ideal but there's still a place for smaller quicker WR's, especially in the slot. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecalumn on Jul 10, 2010 17:22:30 GMT -8
I just know what I saw last year. That is that although he seemed to have a good football IQ as they call it, looking at him through binoculars standing next to Walter Kazee, he seemed to be the identical height and although King is listed on the roster as 5-10, Kazee is listed as an inch shorter than that. Maybe Kazee is actually 5-10, but I highly doubt it. And 5-9 is awfully short for a wideout in today's game. I mean, Sandifer looks kinda short out there and he's listed as six feet even. Maybe King isn't aggressive enough to play on the other side of the ball. However, I just think he could ultimately be of more value in a position where he won't have one-on-one coverage responsibility so his height won't matter too much versus at receiver where except in little underneath passes it will. Do you disagree? Wes Welker seems to manage OK. Yes, taller is ideal but there's still a place for smaller quicker WR's, especially in the slot. i totally agree. height doesnt matter. its just an excuse. you make with what you are given. you dont tap out because you are smaller or slower or less as athletic as your competition |
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jul 10, 2010 17:27:05 GMT -8
Regardless, might he best gain by redshirting this year - a year to develop and provide needed depth or a chance to play big time losing 2 WRs, or a year to transition to d.
|
|
|
|
Post by ron on Jul 10, 2010 18:25:33 GMT -8
Maybe he doesn't show the aggressiveness required to play D? I just know what I saw last year. That is that although he seemed to have a good football IQ as they call it, looking at him through binoculars standing next to Walter Kazee, he seemed to be the identical height and although King is listed on the roster as 5-10, Kazee is listed as an inch shorter than that. Maybe Kazee is actually 5-10, but I highly doubt it. And 5-9 is awfully short for a wideout in today's game. I mean, Sandifer looks kinda short out there and he's listed as six feet even. Maybe King isn't aggressive enough to play on the other side of the ball. However, I just think he could ultimately be of more value in a position where he won't have one-on-one coverage responsibility so his height won't matter too much versus at receiver where except in little underneath passes it will. Do you disagree? I just don't know. It takes a completely different attitude to play D and I don't know the kid. I think you're right about his skill set, but his mental game I have no insight into. |
|
|
|
Post by gettough on Jul 10, 2010 18:34:21 GMT -8
Wes Welker seems to manage OK. Yes, taller is ideal but there's still a place for smaller quicker WR's, especially in the slot. i totally agree. height doesnt matter. its just an excuse. you make with what you are given. you dont tap out because you are smaller or slower or less as athletic as your competition Shorter guys and slower guys have to prove they can play. Taller and faster guys have to prove they can't. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2010 22:13:23 GMT -8
i totally agree. height doesnt matter. its just an excuse. you make with what you are given. you dont tap out because you are smaller or slower or less as athletic as your competition Shorter guys and slower guys have to prove they can play. Taller and faster guys have to prove they can't. Very well put. |
|
