Free Agents Still Out There
-
Just a bad idea. Use the stop gap till the young talent is in their last years of their contracts, with no playing experience. Not a good way to develop talent or team. Stopgaps are great for contenders....which we are not.
Rhodes isn't getting better at this point, but gipson, bademosi and slaughter are or will. No reason to waste a year or 2 on a has been.
-
Just a bad idea. Use the stop gap till the young talent is in their last years of their contracts, with no playing experience. Not a good way to develop talent or team. Stopgaps are great for contenders....which we are not.
Rhodes isn't getting better at this point, but gipson, bademosi and slaughter are or will. No reason to waste a year or 2 on a has been.
Rhodes has more interceptions in one game than Gipson and Bademosi have had in their entire career and is just as old as our starting QB. By that reasoning, Weeden is on his way out as well.Just a bad idea. Use the stop gap till the young talent is in their last years of their contracts, with no playing experience. Not a good way to develop talent or team. Stopgaps are great for contenders....which we are not.
Rhodes isn't getting better at this point, but gipson, bademosi and slaughter are or will. No reason to waste a year or 2 on a has been.
Every season everyone says "such and such move is great for a contending team, which we aren't".
How about we make moves that contending teams do make? We've added a plethora of young talent for cheap, but at the end of the day we still have two safeties who have proven nothing and a third who's a rookie coming off a nasty injury.
By all accounts by writers outside of Cleveland, Gipson isn't anything special. I tend to trust the outside perspective a little more than the biased beat reporters everyone else quotes.
Put a legitate starter back there, and if Gipson beats him out it will mean he earned it. If not, we still have a legitimate starter.
I'm sorry, but winning the battle between Slaughter/Bademosi/Gipson isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for the starting job. In that matchup, it's just about being slightly less shitty than the guy behind you.
At the end of the day, it's about fielding the best player at every position. You field the players that give you the best chance to win. It's not about fielding the one with the highest potential. Let him earn his position by besting someone who actually has started a game before.
Also, that "has been" was a top 5 ranked safety. Gipson, on that same list, was ranked in the bottom 5. You keep being a homer, I'll take talented players where I can get them.
-
Wow....you mean the dinosaur has more stats than 2 guys with like 4 career starts? I'm shocked! I'll also assume you don't know the difference between an 8 year vet at 30 and a 2nd year guy at 28.
Blah blah blah bunch a crap blah....
Top 5 ranked safety by some....so it must be true. I'll be the homer who judges by my eyes while you can maintain you're incessant sucking off of whomevers articles and stats fit you're agenda. As it would seem, 32 NFL teams disagree with you thus far, for whatever reason. I'm sure a top 5 safety could find work right?
No? Hmmm.....
Just keep kicking the can down the road. I
-
Wow....you mean the dinosaur has more stats than 2 guys with like 4 career starts? I'm shocked! I'll also assume you don't know the difference between an 8 year vet at 30 and a 2nd year guy at 28.
Blah blah blah bunch a crap blah....
Top 5 ranked safety by some....so it must be true. I'll be the homer who judges by my eyes while you can maintain you're incessant sucking off of whomevers articles and stats fit you're agenda. As it would seem, 32 NFL teams disagree with you thus far, for whatever reason. I'm sure a top 5 safety could find work right?
No? Hmmm.....
Just keep kicking the can down the road. I
That "dinosaur" is one calendar year older than Weeden, the guy you were just saying has 7-8 years left in the league.Wow....you mean the dinosaur has more stats than 2 guys with like 4 career starts? I'm shocked! I'll also assume you don't know the difference between an 8 year vet at 30 and a 2nd year guy at 28.
Blah blah blah bunch a crap blah....
Top 5 ranked safety by some....so it must be true. I'll be the homer who judges by my eyes while you can maintain you're incessant sucking off of whomevers articles and stats fit you're agenda. As it would seem, 32 NFL teams disagree with you thus far, for whatever reason. I'm sure a top 5 safety could find work right?
No? Hmmm.....
Just keep kicking the can down the road. I
Also, I said his stats from one game are pretty much better than Gipson's cumulative career stats. Comprehension isn't your strong suit.
Oh, but Rhodes is ancient because it fits your argument, got it.
I guess those years of throwing 90 MPH fastballs had no effect on Weeden's arm, either. He's coming into the league with the arm of a 19 year old.
You keep sucking Gipson's balls with your eyeball judgment while I'll stick to statistical information and rankings by those who know more than you.
You don't even know the age of your starting QB and you expect me to trust your eyeball judgment or guy feeling? Keep dreaming, pal.
-
I'd like to see us add a safety of some sort, even though there isn't an appealing one on that list.
We should pull the trigger on one of the experienced ones just for depth.
Adding a guy like Kerry Rhodes would not be a detriment to the development of our younger players nor would it make our starting roster weaker.
Face it: the trio of Gipson/Bademosi/Slaughter isn't going to be tearing up the league this year. They have the potential to be good players, I will admit it. But this year is a learning year for all involved, plus one is returning from major surgery.
Rhodes is an older vet who still has played at a competitive level. ProFootballFocus has him rated as high as 4th in production for the previous season. He is a solid defender in both the run game as well as the pass and he is a vet of Horton's system.
He can come in and become the starter from day 1 and mentor these younger players on what it takes to be a safety in this system. With the way Horton utilizes different personnel groupings, there could be times when Gipson plays nearly 50% of the snaps.
Adding a guy like Kerry Rhodes would not be a detriment to the development of our younger players nor would it make our starting roster weaker.
Face it: the trio of Gipson/Bademosi/Slaughter isn't going to be tearing up the league this year. They have the potential to be good players, I will admit it. But this year is a learning year for all involved, plus one is returning from major surgery.
Rhodes is an older vet who still has played at a competitive level. ProFootballFocus has him rated as high as 4th in production for the previous season. He is a solid defender in both the run game as well as the pass and he is a vet of Horton's system.
He can come in and become the starter from day 1 and mentor these younger players on what it takes to be a safety in this system. With the way Horton utilizes different personnel groupings, there could be times when Gipson plays nearly 50% of the snaps.
I'm not against adding Rhodes at all.
-
The reason we go back and forth on this is that neither is such a bad idea, it's just a matter of personnel philosophy.
1. You have three young, inexperienced candidates for FS and you like them all quite a bit, see definite potential for one or more to be a long-term starter or rotation player. They're under contract. They're here. You want the winner of the competition to play football on Sundays, not watch.
2. This team is a lot better than some people realize, or at least could be. The coaching adds, the pass rushers, the accumulation of high-end young talent... we could figure out very soon that this team is more of a contender than we thought. As in, right after we beat an equally interesting Miami team.
If that's true, and if Kerry Rhodes is 100% and ready to play at a high level for a couple years, one of those three young guys is shit out of luck and we're playing for right now.
AND: Rhodes is gay? I'd never read that. Not that I give a shit.
-
The reason we go back and forth on this is that neither is such a bad idea, it's just a matter of personnel philosophy.
1. You have three young, inexperienced candidates for FS and you like them all quite a bit, see definite potential for one or more to be a long-term starter or rotation player. They're under contract. They're here. You want the winner of the competition to play football on Sundays, not watch.
2. This team is a lot better than some people realize, or at least could be. The coaching adds, the pass rushers, the accumulation of high-end young talent... we could figure out very soon that this team is more of a contender than we thought. As in, right after we beat an equally interesting Miami team.
If that's true, and if Kerry Rhodes is 100% and ready to play at a high level for a couple years, one of those three young guys is shit out of luck and we're playing for right now.
AND: Rhodes is gay? I'd never read that. Not that I give a shit.
The reason we go back and forth on this is that neither is such a bad idea, it's just a matter of personnel philosophy.
1. You have three young, inexperienced candidates for FS and you like them all quite a bit, see definite potential for one or more to be a long-term starter or rotation player. They're under contract. They're here. You want the winner of the competition to play football on Sundays, not watch.
2. This team is a lot better than some people realize, or at least could be. The coaching adds, the pass rushers, the accumulation of high-end young talent... we could figure out very soon that this team is more of a contender than we thought. As in, right after we beat an equally interesting Miami team.
If that's true, and if Kerry Rhodes is 100% and ready to play at a high level for a couple years, one of those three young guys is shit out of luck and we're playing for right now.
AND: Rhodes is gay? I'd never read that. Not that I give a shit.
There's a controversy about it. His alleged former boyfriend keeps releasing pictures of the two together in different places...including bed.
I just think that Rhodes at 100% for the next couple seasons is a better safety than anything we have on the roster.
People say that only contenders make moves like this. I submit that they are only contenders because they make moves like this.
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride -
Really hope the possible gay-ness isn't the problem with getting a deal. That would make me hate the shit out of the NFL. The only thing worse than bigotry is bigots bitching that they're facing anti-bigotry bigotry. Their right to be really shitty to large segments of the population is getting trampled on!
Makes me think Lee Atwater is still working. That Orwellian fake outrage is pretty ingenious.
A blonde ponytailed rich mom in my lily white exburb sent around an e-mail about the war on Christmas. I told her to look around: If it's a war, Christmas won by a knockout. Like 250 years ago. And then the kicking began.
I'd just like to know why a guy like Rhodes coming off a season like he had is still available. I don't get it.
-
I like our heteros, Bademosi and Gipson. Free agent is a position where someone can break through from anywhere on the roster, my money is on Bademosi, but Gipson is a good fallback, I thought he played well and showed good skills last year. I'm glad they will both be getting reps and playing time in camp and preseason. If one goes down ... then it's time to scour through veterans.
Zombo
-
I like our heteros, Bademosi and Gipson. Free agent is a position where someone can break through from anywhere on the roster, my money is on Bademosi, but Gipson is a good fallback, I thought he played well and showed good skills last year. I'm glad they will both be getting reps and playing time in camp and preseason. If one goes down ... then it's time to scour through veterans.
Zombo
Zombo said:
I like our heteros, Bademosi and Gipson. Free agent is a position where someone can break through from anywhere on the roster, my money is on Bademosi, but Gipson is a good fallback, I thought he played well and showed good skills last year. I'm glad they will both be getting reps and playing time in camp and preseason. If one goes down ... then it's time to scour through veterans.
Zombo
My money is on Slaughter.
In 2015.
-
I like our heteros, Bademosi and Gipson. Free agent is a position where someone can break through from anywhere on the roster, my money is on Bademosi, but Gipson is a good fallback, I thought he played well and showed good skills last year. I'm glad they will both be getting reps and playing time in camp and preseason. If one goes down ... then it's time to scour through veterans.
Zombo
-
Zombo said:
I like our heteros, Bademosi and Gipson. Free agent is a position where someone can break through from anywhere on the roster, my money is on Bademosi, but Gipson is a good fallback, I thought he played well and showed good skills last year. I'm glad they will both be getting reps and playing time in camp and preseason. If one goes down ... then it's time to scour through veterans.
Zombo
My money is on Slaughter.
In 2015.
My money is on Slaughter.
In 2015.
Maybe in 2015. This year i see him aprenticing behind Ward at SS and helping our special teams.
Zombo
-
By all accounts by writers outside of Cleveland, Gipson isn't anything special. I tend to trust the outside perspective a little more than the biased beat reporters everyone else quotes.
Actually, I think Gipson is a completely unknown commodity. Writers outside Cleveland don't have a clue if he is special or not...and neither do "inside" writers. . He really hasn't played that much for them.....or for us really, to know for sure. We think the coaches on this team like him. That is all we have to go by.
-
The reason we go back and forth on this is that neither is such a bad idea, it's just a matter of personnel philosophy.
1. You have three young, inexperienced candidates for FS and you like them all quite a bit, see definite potential for one or more to be a long-term starter or rotation player. They're under contract. They're here. You want the winner of the competition to play football on Sundays, not watch.
2. This team is a lot better than some people realize, or at least could be. The coaching adds, the pass rushers, the accumulation of high-end young talent... we could figure out very soon that this team is more of a contender than we thought. As in, right after we beat an equally interesting Miami team.
If that's true, and if Kerry Rhodes is 100% and ready to play at a high level for a couple years, one of those three young guys is shit out of luck and we're playing for right now.
AND: Rhodes is gay? I'd never read that. Not that I give a shit.
There's a controversy about it. His alleged former boyfriend keeps releasing pictures of the two together in different places...including bed.
I just think that Rhodes at 100% for the next couple seasons is a better safety than anything we have on the roster.
People say that only contenders make moves like this. I submit that they are only contenders because they make moves like this.
There's a controversy about it. His alleged former boyfriend keeps releasing pictures of the two together in different places...including bed.
Ask him for a date then. Maybe you will find out that way
I just think that Rhodes at 100% for the next couple seasons is a better safety than anything we have on the roster.
He may be. Or maybe not. I am not opposed to bringing him in....if it seems he could really help. The "young guys" particularly a 6th round pick like Slaughter could spend a year on the Taxi Squad as far as I am concerned.
People say that only contenders make moves like this. I submit that they are only contenders because they make moves like this.
The SF 49ers once won the SB with 2 rookie CBs. I would say that there is no absolute solution.
-
Dbn did a film room segment on gipson, which was quite good. My problem with this argument is that the primary assumption is our 3 current options are as good as they'll ever be. That's just simply untrue.
Rhodes lost almost all of 2011 to injury, had a good 2012. He certainly isn't gonna get any better, not that he would need to. Its less that I think he's adequate at the position than I think our youngins show more promise and are worth developing. Rhodes is not gonna push us over the top, as FS is not as important in this defense as puss rusher. All signing Rhodes does is kick the can down the road....
Gipson showed some promise last year, enough to warrant another look. Same with bademosi. I'm not sure how putting them on the bench helps them develop....so if you want to explain how not playing makes one better, couch...I'm all ears. I get the feeling your opinion rides along the myopic view that unless the young guys are high draft picks, they have no business on the field. And that is simply wrong, cause it removes many factors that determine success.
It seems the browns are banking on the idea that a good pass rush makes a average secondary better. The coaches appear to like our youngins so far in shorts....which doesn't eliminate Rhodes coming aboard later. He won't need time to learn the defense as the other do, so what's the rush. Km of the opinion that youth an promise trumps age and savy, cause one has a known limit while the other is unknown....for better or worse. In other words...no risk, no reward. You chose to go the safe route, I choose the risky route. Higher payout IMO.
Signing Rhodes simply means we're having this same conversation in a year or 2. I'd rather solidify that spot sooner rather than later.....find out if the youngins can play now, scour the cuts before falling back on the last resort Rhodes. Horton's action led me to this line of thinking....years of losing led you to yours.
-
Dbn did a film room segment on gipson, which was quite good. My problem with this argument is that the primary assumption is our 3 current options are as good as they'll ever be. That's just simply untrue.
Rhodes lost almost all of 2011 to injury, had a good 2012. He certainly isn't gonna get any better, not that he would need to. Its less that I think he's adequate at the position than I think our youngins show more promise and are worth developing. Rhodes is not gonna push us over the top, as FS is not as important in this defense as puss rusher. All signing Rhodes does is kick the can down the road....
Gipson showed some promise last year, enough to warrant another look. Same with bademosi. I'm not sure how putting them on the bench helps them develop....so if you want to explain how not playing makes one better, couch...I'm all ears. I get the feeling your opinion rides along the myopic view that unless the young guys are high draft picks, they have no business on the field. And that is simply wrong, cause it removes many factors that determine success.
It seems the browns are banking on the idea that a good pass rush makes a average secondary better. The coaches appear to like our youngins so far in shorts....which doesn't eliminate Rhodes coming aboard later. He won't need time to learn the defense as the other do, so what's the rush. Km of the opinion that youth an promise trumps age and savy, cause one has a known limit while the other is unknown....for better or worse. In other words...no risk, no reward. You chose to go the safe route, I choose the risky route. Higher payout IMO.
Signing Rhodes simply means we're having this same conversation in a year or 2. I'd rather solidify that spot sooner rather than later.....find out if the youngins can play now, scour the cuts before falling back on the last resort Rhodes. Horton's action led me to this line of thinking....years of losing led you to yours.
Dbn did a film room segment on gipson, which was quite good. My problem with this argument is that the primary assumption is our 3 current options are as good as they'll ever be. That's just simply untrue.
Rhodes lost almost all of 2011 to injury, had a good 2012. He certainly isn't gonna get any better, not that he would need to. Its less that I think he's adequate at the position than I think our youngins show more promise and are worth developing. Rhodes is not gonna push us over the top, as FS is not as important in this defense as puss rusher. All signing Rhodes does is kick the can down the road....
Gipson showed some promise last year, enough to warrant another look. Same with bademosi. I'm not sure how putting them on the bench helps them develop....so if you want to explain how not playing makes one better, couch...I'm all ears. I get the feeling your opinion rides along the myopic view that unless the young guys are high draft picks, they have no business on the field. And that is simply wrong, cause it removes many factors that determine success.
It seems the browns are banking on the idea that a good pass rush makes a average secondary better. The coaches appear to like our youngins so far in shorts....which doesn't eliminate Rhodes coming aboard later. He won't need time to learn the defense as the other do, so what's the rush. Km of the opinion that youth an promise trumps age and savy, cause one has a known limit while the other is unknown....for better or worse. In other words...no risk, no reward. You chose to go the safe route, I choose the risky route. Higher payout IMO.
Signing Rhodes simply means we're having this same conversation in a year or 2. I'd rather solidify that spot sooner rather than later.....find out if the youngins can play now, scour the cuts before falling back on the last resort Rhodes. Horton's action led me to this line of thinking....years of losing led you to yours.
You incorrectly assume that I'm of the opinion that only high draft picks become successful. Rhodes is proof otherwise.
Rhodes is a fourth round pick. Not nearly considered a high pick.
I'm only saying that he has had consistent production throughout his entire career, and has spent a majority of that playing for blitz heavy teams.
Gipson has potential in that he's young and decently athletic, but he had 4 starts and did nothing special with them. His performance thus far had been wholly unspectacular, and I feel like we're really only considering him as viable talent because he's not as bad as our FS have been for the past six years.
Being better than we've had doesn't mean much.
Bring Rhodes in and let him and Gipson battle it out. If Rhodes wins, we have a legitimate starter for the next few seasons. If Gipson wins, he deserves the job and then had a veteran mentor with experience in this system backing him up (not to mention a solid backup if he goes down).
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride -
http://www.draftbrowns.com/2013/06/browns-film-room-tashaun-gipson/
"He did nothing special"
And that were you and I.....and knowledgeable football guys.....disagree somewhat. 'Special' I'll concede.....serviceable, more than. While you have a leg up in contending an old vet may be better, gipson did much better than you give him credit for. Rhodes isn't special either, so I'm not sure why you believe a maxed out vet is a better option than an up and comer that more than held his own as an udfa filling in. Rhodes started.... gipson stepped up and shined IMO. Less than fantastic is OK as well, especially when its an undrafted rookie filling in for injury.
So please, contrast your evaluation with the film breakdown I've linked. One source is not end all be all, but draftbrowns guys think he is something to work with.Certainly was better than young. Go to PFF and look as well.
Pardon my preference to take amateur/ professional breakdown over yours....but I don't see Rhodes as an upgrade when considering gipson will get better while Rhodes is destined to decline. Competition due
Doesn't hurt.....I agree....but you assume his competition is junk, which I do not. Cherry picking stats isn't an acceptable retort either. Cutting a promising prospect simply for competition isn't an acceptable answer when its at the expense of a player the browns invested in or developed.
And
-
http://www.draftbrowns.com/2013/06/browns-film-room-tashaun-gipson/
"He did nothing special"
And that were you and I.....and knowledgeable football guys.....disagree somewhat. 'Special' I'll concede.....serviceable, more than. While you have a leg up in contending an old vet may be better, gipson did much better than you give him credit for. Rhodes isn't special either, so I'm not sure why you believe a maxed out vet is a better option than an up and comer that more than held his own as an udfa filling in. Rhodes started.... gipson stepped up and shined IMO. Less than fantastic is OK as well, especially when its an undrafted rookie filling in for injury.
So please, contrast your evaluation with the film breakdown I've linked. One source is not end all be all, but draftbrowns guys think he is something to work with.Certainly was better than young. Go to PFF and look as well.
Pardon my preference to take amateur/ professional breakdown over yours....but I don't see Rhodes as an upgrade when considering gipson will get better while Rhodes is destined to decline. Competition due
Doesn't hurt.....I agree....but you assume his competition is junk, which I do not. Cherry picking stats isn't an acceptable retort either. Cutting a promising prospect simply for competition isn't an acceptable answer when its at the expense of a player the browns invested in or developed.
And
http://www.draftbrowns.com/2013/06/browns-film-room-tashaun-gipson/
"He did nothing special"
And that were you and I.....and knowledgeable football guys.....disagree somewhat. 'Special' I'll concede.....serviceable, more than. While you have a leg up in contending an old vet may be better, gipson did much better than you give him credit for. Rhodes isn't special either, so I'm not sure why you believe a maxed out vet is a better option than an up and comer that more than held his own as an udfa filling in. Rhodes started.... gipson stepped up and shined IMO. Less than fantastic is OK as well, especially when its an undrafted rookie filling in for injury.
So please, contrast your evaluation with the film breakdown I've linked. One source is not end all be all, but draftbrowns guys think he is something to work with.Certainly was better than young. Go to PFF and look as well.
Pardon my preference to take amateur/ professional breakdown over yours....but I don't see Rhodes as an upgrade when considering gipson will get better while Rhodes is destined to decline. Competition due
Doesn't hurt.....I agree....but you assume his competition is junk, which I do not. Cherry picking stats isn't an acceptable retort either. Cutting a promising prospect simply for competition isn't an acceptable answer when its at the expense of a player the browns invested in or developed.
And
Once again, that analysis you linked is from a Browns fan. It's tough to find an objective analyst or professional who agrees that Gipson is starter material.
At the very most, you'll find that he's listed as a question mark. He proved to be "not terrible" in his limited time, but did nothing to warrant having the starting spot essentially handed to him. And that's what's happening...Gipson has had the starting spot handed to him. There's no real competition. It's McCoy vs. Weeden. There's a guy who's going to clearly be the starter facing off against a person with exponentially less talent.
The day that 3.3 tackles a game is considered "special" is the day that I'll admit I know nothing about football.
Being better than Usama Young does not mean he's a starter. This is the exact problem I have with most of the logic on this board. It seems like many are content to say " Well, he's better than what we had...so we're good at that position."
What we had was shit. Pure, unadulterated shit. Our team has been awful for a decade. An entire decade of players that more than likely wouldn't make it on most any other team's taxi squad. Being better than the guy before you only means that you suck slightly less than he does...it's by no means a ringing endorsement.
Rhodes has been a legitimate starter for many years. That's more than most of our players can say.
You're mistakenly assuming I'm asking for any one of our safeties to be cut. I'm not. Adding Rhodes gives us 5 safeties. Rhodes and Ward starting. Gipson and Slaughter as backups. Bademosi at special teams/corner/third string. That's almost exactly what every team carries into the season: a starter, a backup, and a utility player.
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride -
Dbn did a film room segment on gipson, which was quite good. My problem with this argument is that the primary assumption is our 3 current options are as good as they'll ever be. That's just simply untrue.
Rhodes lost almost all of 2011 to injury, had a good 2012. He certainly isn't gonna get any better, not that he would need to. Its less that I think he's adequate at the position than I think our youngins show more promise and are worth developing. Rhodes is not gonna push us over the top, as FS is not as important in this defense as puss rusher. All signing Rhodes does is kick the can down the road....
Gipson showed some promise last year, enough to warrant another look. Same with bademosi. I'm not sure how putting them on the bench helps them develop....so if you want to explain how not playing makes one better, couch...I'm all ears. I get the feeling your opinion rides along the myopic view that unless the young guys are high draft picks, they have no business on the field. And that is simply wrong, cause it removes many factors that determine success.
It seems the browns are banking on the idea that a good pass rush makes a average secondary better. The coaches appear to like our youngins so far in shorts....which doesn't eliminate Rhodes coming aboard later. He won't need time to learn the defense as the other do, so what's the rush. Km of the opinion that youth an promise trumps age and savy, cause one has a known limit while the other is unknown....for better or worse. In other words...no risk, no reward. You chose to go the safe route, I choose the risky route. Higher payout IMO.
Signing Rhodes simply means we're having this same conversation in a year or 2. I'd rather solidify that spot sooner rather than later.....find out if the youngins can play now, scour the cuts before falling back on the last resort Rhodes. Horton's action led me to this line of thinking....years of losing led you to yours.
You incorrectly assume that I'm of the opinion that only high draft picks become successful. Rhodes is proof otherwise.
Rhodes is a fourth round pick. Not nearly considered a high pick.
I'm only saying that he has had consistent production throughout his entire career, and has spent a majority of that playing for blitz heavy teams.
Gipson has potential in that he's young and decently athletic, but he had 4 starts and did nothing special with them. His performance thus far had been wholly unspectacular, and I feel like we're really only considering him as viable talent because he's not as bad as our FS have been for the past six years.
Being better than we've had doesn't mean much.
Bring Rhodes in and let him and Gipson battle it out. If Rhodes wins, we have a legitimate starter for the next few seasons. If Gipson wins, he deserves the job and then had a veteran mentor with experience in this system backing him up (not to mention a solid backup if he goes down).
You incorrectly assume that I'm of the opinion that only high draft picks become successful. Rhodes is proof otherwise.
Rhodes is a fourth round pick. Not nearly considered a high pick.
I'm only saying that he has had consistent production throughout his entire career, and has spent a majority of that playing for blitz heavy teams.
Gipson has potential in that he's young and decently athletic, but he had 4 starts and did nothing special with them. His performance thus far had been wholly unspectacular, and I feel like we're really only considering him as viable talent because he's not as bad as our FS have been for the past six years.
Being better than we've had doesn't mean much.
Bring Rhodes in and let him and Gipson battle it out. If Rhodes wins, we have a legitimate starter for the next few seasons. If Gipson wins, he deserves the job and then had a veteran mentor with experience in this system backing him up (not to mention a solid backup if he goes down).
Whoa whoa... "unspectacular??" Are you suggesting that Rhodes would provide us with "spectacular" play at FS. If so, I'm in. This argument is the classic "6 in one hand, half dozen in the other."
And, considering him only b/c he's better than what we've had... Really??? The coaching staff has praised Gipson... They haven't been around more than a couple months...
#Justsayin'
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