Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I propose a question to those with panties in a bunch: Who?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by GBRulz
    Originally posted by HarveyWallbangers
    Technically, he said since 2004. Still misleading numbers. He had the first serious injury of his career and missed most of the 2005 season, so the numbers are going to be skewed.

    You are correct, he did say 2004. I missed that. it's misleading when people leave out half the facts to try and make a point though.
    In my defense, its equally misleading to judge his recent injuries by going back to 2001 when he was 24 years old. Of course as an aging workhorse back he is going to break down more over time.

    I don't think it was unreasonable to state the last three years as a time frame.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Joemailman
      The contract he got from St. Louis was far less than Daniel Graham got, so it obviously is a concern. Not getting Griffith was the only non-signing that really disappoimted me.
      Didn't seem to stop several teams from going after Ahman--including the Packers.
      "There's a lot of interest in the draft. It's great. But quite frankly, most of the people that are commenting on it don't know anything about what they are talking about."--Ted Thompson

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by HarveyWallbangers
        Originally posted by Joemailman
        The contract he got from St. Louis was far less than Daniel Graham got, so it obviously is a concern. Not getting Griffith was the only non-signing that really disappoimted me.
        Didn't seem to stop several teams from going after Ahman--including the Packers.
        jeez, everybody around here is a moralist.

        anyone ever hear of the rule of thumb???
        Busting drunk drivers in Antarctica since 2006

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by falco
          Originally posted by HarveyWallbangers
          Originally posted by Joemailman
          The contract he got from St. Louis was far less than Daniel Graham got, so it obviously is a concern. Not getting Griffith was the only non-signing that really disappoimted me.
          Didn't seem to stop several teams from going after Ahman--including the Packers.
          jeez, everybody around here is a moralist.

          anyone ever hear of the rule of thumb???
          Don't remember means it didn't happen?

          Don't get caught?

          Comment


          • #50
            Code:
            Feminists often make that claim that the "rule of thumb" used to mean that it was legal to beat your wife with a rod, so long as that rod were no thicker than the husband's thumb. Thus, one constantly runs into assertions like this:
            
                someone might want to be careful using "rule of thumb" in a sarcastic way. my criminal law teacher at UCLA noted that rule of thumb started in England for punishing wives who cheated on their husbands. the rule was that the rod used to beat them could not be thicker than one's thumb(!).
            Busting drunk drivers in Antarctica since 2006

            Comment


            • #51
              I was disappointed that we didn't resign Green, both as a fan, and from the standpoint that the remaining group of running backs seems to be pretty thin. But Green's price seemed to be staggeringly high (and I suspect that Ahman had his heart set on testing free agency). I don't fault TT for failing to match Houston's offer.

              I was puzzled that Griffith was not signed, given his fit in the ZBS and because of the mid-range deal he ultimately agreed to. But then I remembered that the best fullback in the draft often goes on the second day. And a fullback suited for the ZBS can probably be found even lower in the draft, since it appears you don't need a true "pounder" fullback, but rather a "tweener"---a bigger and slower halfback. Perhaps even a guy like Noah Herron, if his blocking is up to par.

              All things considered, I expect TT will draft well, and will pick up a veteran back on the cheap who can be the thunder to Morency's lightning. Beyond that, who knows?

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by GBRulz
                Originally posted by falco
                he hasn't been the same since he got injured in 2004...just a little bit fragile...never knowing what his injury status will be week to week.

                not taking anything away from him at all; just saying, he hasn't been dependable the last 3 years.
                He got injured in 2005 actually. I think he came back pretty damn good for what could easily have been a career ending injury. Especially running behind a young OL.

                I know we all have certain things we feel strong about. Losing Green was the sore subject with me I guess you could say! 8)
                Yes.

                If you check Ahman's numbers in 2004 and compared them to last season.Despite coming off serious injury and the inexperienced OL he did comparitively well in 2006.

                Based on this and his age (30 years) compared, to say Corey Dillon at 32 years, Ahman appears to have had more to give us.He wanted to remain in Green Bay and he knew his own value.

                Obviously that value wasn't the same as TT assessed for him.

                The real thorn for Ted Thompson retaining Ahman. The length of contract that he got.

                Ted Thompson likes one year contracts for Vet's.
                ** Since 2006 3 X Pro Pickem' Champion; 4 X Runner-Up and 3 X 3rd place.
                ** To download Jesus Loves Me ring tones, you'll need a cell phone mame
                ** If God doesn't fish, play poker or pull for " the Packers ", exactly what does HE do with his buds?
                ** Rather than love, money or fame - give me TRUTH: Henry D. Thoreau

                Comment

                Working...
                X