Ogbah Has Been Traded for S Eric Murray
-
Yes, sometimes these guys just want "My guy". Hopefully these turn out for the best.
I think this is just fan speak...just a simple way for fans to rationalize a move. I'm sure it can't be more complicated than "just my guy", cause that's sound logic, no?
I think this is just fan speak...just a simple way for fans to rationalize a move. I'm sure it can't be more complicated than "just my guy", cause that's sound logic, no?
Well....how many people has Dorsey brought in here that he drafted or that played for him in KC. A ton.
Again...if these guys are an upgrade from what we had here, all fine, well and good.
Let's put it this way....we are about to get another infusion of "Dorsey's guys" (the draft). He has done pretty well thus far...so I guess we need to trust him.
-
gip...youre the king of internet research. how can you be so hyperbolic....of the 18 players (by my count on ESPN transaction log), we've added, 4 of which have previous ties to Dorsey. only for this year...last year was less (could be wrong, going from memory on the ties)
thats a ton?
no its not. its perception...fanspeak. maybe...just maybe...ogbah wasn't cutting it and was let go because he sucks? how is that any less possible than just blindly jettisoning players based on who drafted them? should we send garrett, higgins, kikro, bitonio packing as well? since these players are still here, isn't it reasonable to think that performance trumps who drafted said player?
seriously...this argument is fucking dumb as hell, and lazy, that its a "my guy" decision. if anyone thinks competent GM's do business this way, there's a bridge to nowhere in florida i'd love ya to take a look at.
-
gip...youre the king of internet research. how can you be so hyperbolic....of the 18 players (by my count on ESPN transaction log), we've added, 4 of which have previous ties to Dorsey. only for this year...last year was less (could be wrong, going from memory on the ties)
thats a ton?
no its not. its perception...fanspeak. maybe...just maybe...ogbah wasn't cutting it and was let go because he sucks? how is that any less possible than just blindly jettisoning players based on who drafted them? should we send garrett, higgins, kikro, bitonio packing as well? since these players are still here, isn't it reasonable to think that performance trumps who drafted said player?
seriously...this argument is fucking dumb as hell, and lazy, that its a "my guy" decision. if anyone thinks competent GM's do business this way, there's a bridge to nowhere in florida i'd love ya to take a look at.
gip...youre the king of internet research. how can you be so hyperbolic....of the 18 players (by my count on ESPN transaction log), we've added, 4 of which have previous ties to Dorsey. only for this year...last year was less (could be wrong, going from memory on the ties)
thats a ton?
no its not. its perception...fanspeak. maybe...just maybe...ogbah wasn't cutting it and was let go because he sucks? how is that any less possible than just blindly jettisoning players based on who drafted them? should we send garrett, higgins, kikro, bitonio packing as well? since these players are still here, isn't it reasonable to think that performance trumps who drafted said player?
seriously...this argument is fucking dumb as hell, and lazy, that its a "my guy" decision. if anyone thinks competent GM's do business this way, there's a bridge to nowhere in florida i'd love ya to take a look at.
Haha look at this guy. Saying Higgins with a straight face.
-
Who thought we got Eric berry for ogbah and about pooped
-
Who thought we got Eric berry for ogbah and about pooped
Who thought we got Eric berry for ogbah and about pooped
Are you Mary Kay Cabot ?
-
Who thought we got Eric berry for ogbah and about pooped
Are you Mary Kay Cabot ?
Are you Mary Kay Cabot ?
Not so much not to discount the fact that I’d clean her backside out via tounge
-
gip...youre the king of internet research. how can you be so hyperbolic....of the 18 players (by my count on ESPN transaction log), we've added, 4 of which have previous ties to Dorsey. only for this year...last year was less (could be wrong, going from memory on the ties)
thats a ton?
no its not. its perception...fanspeak. maybe...just maybe...ogbah wasn't cutting it and was let go because he sucks? how is that any less possible than just blindly jettisoning players based on who drafted them? should we send garrett, higgins, kikro, bitonio packing as well? since these players are still here, isn't it reasonable to think that performance trumps who drafted said player?
seriously...this argument is fucking dumb as hell, and lazy, that its a "my guy" decision. if anyone thinks competent GM's do business this way, there's a bridge to nowhere in florida i'd love ya to take a look at.
gip...youre the king of internet research. how can you be so hyperbolic...
I can be that because it is fun to be so.
.of the 18 players (by my count on ESPN transaction log), we've added, 4 of which have previous ties to Dorsey. only for this year...last year was less (could be wrong, going from memory on the ties)
thats a ton?
Maybe. What is their combined weight? At least a half a ton.
no its not. its perception...fanspeak. maybe...just maybe...ogbah wasn't cutting it and was let go because he sucks? how is that any less possible than just blindly jettisoning players based on who drafted them? should we send garrett, higgins, kikro, bitonio packing as well? since these players are still here, isn't it reasonable to think that performance trumps who drafted said player?
seriously...this argument is fucking dumb as hell, and lazy, that its a "my guy" decision. if anyone thinks competent GM's do business this way, there's a bridge to nowhere in florida i'd love ya to take a look at.
Yes, it is all hyperbolic/fanspeak etc. Welcome to fucking America and the world of NFL fans. You want rationality, call an accountant. And I have seen that bridge in Florida. (and you are welcome for the Jamie Lee boob shot)
-
Not so much not to discount the fact that I’d clean her backside out via tounge
All u chief..
-
-
Yeah this guys just trolling now. Well played kid.
Yeah this guys just trolling now. Well played kid.
I’d eat her but Ill save it for someone else
-
Not so much not to discount the fact that I’d clean her backside out via tounge
If your name is Jimmy Garrapolo, she would let you with no hesitation.
-
-
So we traded a backup DE for a special teams ace. I can live with that.
-
So we traded a backup DE for a special teams ace. I can live with that.
So we traded a backup DE for a special teams ace. I can live with that.
We signed 2 special teams aces ...... Adarius Taylor is one too
-
Murray is a big upgrade on Kindred and had comparable stats to Peppers hitting the gaps and better in pass coverage.....
Dorsey has not let us down yet
Murray is a big upgrade on Kindred and had comparable stats to Peppers hitting the gaps and better in pass coverage.....
Source?
Zombo said:
Wilks likes two "coverage safeties" not a traditional SS like Kindred. Dorsey says "I happen to know an up and coming one, let me see if I can get him for this spare part we're not going to use."
I think it is more about getting the coaches what they need with someone he is familiar with than proving himself right.
That I can see... just finished a post in the Kindred thread about Kindred being more in the classic SS mold with Murray a better coverage guy.
But I went on there to ask, "where is our 'tonesetter' in our back 7?"
Kindred had a shot at filling that role... Murray has none IMO.
And if that role is not important to Wilks, then I don't know what kind of D we are going to be fielding.
-
So we traded a backup DE for a special teams ace. I can live with that.
So we traded a backup DE for a special teams ace. I can live with that.
Shhhh... you'll disappoint the peanut gallery cheering the addition of this final piece...
While Murray has mostly struggled along with the Chiefs’ defense over the past two years, allowing a 103.6 passer rating into his coverage and committing nine penalties, he’s likely to offer value as a reserve if he doesn’t end up starting.
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
Murray is a big upgrade on Kindred and had comparable stats to Peppers hitting the gaps and better in pass coverage.....
Source?
Zombo said:
Wilks likes two "coverage safeties" not a traditional SS like Kindred. Dorsey says "I happen to know an up and coming one, let me see if I can get him for this spare part we're not going to use."
I think it is more about getting the coaches what they need with someone he is familiar with than proving himself right.
That I can see... just finished a post in the Kindred thread about Kindred being more in the classic SS mold with Murray a better coverage guy.
But I went on there to ask, "where is our 'tonesetter' in our back 7?"
Kindred had a shot at filling that role... Murray has none IMO.
And if that role is not important to Wilks, then I don't know what kind of D we are going to be fielding.
Source?
That I can see... just finished a post in the Kindred thread about Kindred being more in the classic SS mold with Murray a better coverage guy.
But I went on there to ask, "where is our 'tonesetter' in our back 7?"
Kindred had a shot at filling that role... Murray has none IMO.
And if that role is not important to Wilks, then I don't know what kind of D we are going to be fielding.
I think they are relying on that front 4 to be the tonesetters for the D. Sure it would be nice to find one in the back 7, but if you give QBs 2 seconds and under to find receivers, that sets up the rest of the D players for a lot of mistakes by opposing QBs. Then the cream rises to the top among those 7. It will be fun to see how this develops over time. Also fun to see who gets picked up from now till the end of the draft to go in that group.
-
Source?
That I can see... just finished a post in the Kindred thread about Kindred being more in the classic SS mold with Murray a better coverage guy.
But I went on there to ask, "where is our 'tonesetter' in our back 7?"
Kindred had a shot at filling that role... Murray has none IMO.
And if that role is not important to Wilks, then I don't know what kind of D we are going to be fielding.
I think they are relying on that front 4 to be the tonesetters for the D. Sure it would be nice to find one in the back 7, but if you give QBs 2 seconds and under to find receivers, that sets up the rest of the D players for a lot of mistakes by opposing QBs. Then the cream rises to the top among those 7. It will be fun to see how this develops over time. Also fun to see who gets picked up from now till the end of the draft to go in that group.
I think they are relying on that front 4 to be the tonesetters for the D. Sure it would be nice to find one in the back 7, but if you give QBs 2 seconds and under to find receivers, that sets up the rest of the D players for a lot of mistakes by opposing QBs. Then the cream rises to the top among those 7. It will be fun to see how this develops over time. Also fun to see who gets picked up from now till the end of the draft to go in that group.
Every great D I can think of always had at least one of the back 7 that could rock whomever had the rock. Many had more than one... a couple had three. Four? Maybe one...
Impact sets tone...
-
Murray is a big upgrade on Kindred and had comparable stats to Peppers hitting the gaps and better in pass coverage.....
Source?
Zombo said:
Wilks likes two "coverage safeties" not a traditional SS like Kindred. Dorsey says "I happen to know an up and coming one, let me see if I can get him for this spare part we're not going to use."
I think it is more about getting the coaches what they need with someone he is familiar with than proving himself right.
That I can see... just finished a post in the Kindred thread about Kindred being more in the classic SS mold with Murray a better coverage guy.
But I went on there to ask, "where is our 'tonesetter' in our back 7?"
Kindred had a shot at filling that role... Murray has none IMO.
And if that role is not important to Wilks, then I don't know what kind of D we are going to be fielding.
Source?
That I can see... just finished a post in the Kindred thread about Kindred being more in the classic SS mold with Murray a better coverage guy.
But I went on there to ask, "where is our 'tonesetter' in our back 7?"
Kindred had a shot at filling that role... Murray has none IMO.
And if that role is not important to Wilks, then I don't know what kind of D we are going to be fielding.
I don't think we are done at Safety yet. And I don't know about "tonesetter", but Randall is the leader and quarterback of the secondary.
Zombo
-
I think they are relying on that front 4 to be the tonesetters for the D. Sure it would be nice to find one in the back 7, but if you give QBs 2 seconds and under to find receivers, that sets up the rest of the D players for a lot of mistakes by opposing QBs. Then the cream rises to the top among those 7. It will be fun to see how this develops over time. Also fun to see who gets picked up from now till the end of the draft to go in that group.
Every great D I can think of always had at least one of the back 7 that could rock whomever had the rock. Many had more than one... a couple had three. Four? Maybe one...
Impact sets tone...
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login