Jamarcus Russell Signed

Talk about any other sports here.

Moderators: Mr. Crackerz, JREED, Guybrush, hobbes

User avatar
Franchise Player
Posts: 5756
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:40 am
Location: On the couch watching sports
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 3:45 pm
TMC wrote:
sfsfsfgiants wrote:P-Will has dominated the NFL so far.


Yep. He's been a monster the only game he's played. HOF worthy. :mrgreen:


He dominated training camp and dominated the preseason, which is why he is starting as a rookie.... So far means in the games he has played, and so far, you have to admit that he has dominated.
User avatar
Franchise Player
Posts: 5756
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:40 am
Location: On the couch watching sports
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 3:48 pm
Thomas Howard is 24.
Kirk Morrison is 25.

Manny Lawson is 23.
Patrick Willis is 22.

You cant compare guys that are two to three years apart in their development. Lawson and Willis are much more talented than Morrison and Howard. Look back on their career when they retire, and you'll see that Willis and Lawson will dominate more than Howard and Morrison.
User avatar
Franchise Player
Posts: 6145
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:13 am
Location: looking down at the Warriors practice facility
Poster Credit: -7
PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 4:13 pm
sfsfsfgiants wrote:Thomas Howard is 24.
Kirk Morrison is 25.

Manny Lawson is 23.
Patrick Willis is 22.

You cant compare guys that are two to three years apart in their development. Lawson and Willis are much more talented than Morrison and Howard. Look back on their career when they retire, and you'll see that Willis and Lawson will dominate more than Howard and Morrison.


I hate both these teams so I would like to think I am impartial. Tough to say that Lawson and Willis are hands down going to be more dominant. I will say they have more athletic ability than Howard and Morrison but Howard and Morrison have been EXTREMELY productive.

I realize schemes are different from team to team but Lawson and Howard where both rookies last year at the OLB position and Howard has 110 tackles to 50 somethign for Lawson. Lawson has freakish physicall tools, but he was a dissapointment.

Willis on the other hand appears to be the real deal. But keep in mind that Morrison has 116 tackles his rookie year and 127 tackles last year. That is great production so until Willis actually does it for a year or two, this cant be judged.
_____________________________________________________
http://WWW.GOLDENSTATEWARRIORS-RT.COM
User avatar
Franchise Player
Posts: 5756
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:40 am
Location: On the couch watching sports
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 4:23 pm
badabing8888 wrote:
sfsfsfgiants wrote:Thomas Howard is 24.
Kirk Morrison is 25.

Manny Lawson is 23.
Patrick Willis is 22.

You cant compare guys that are two to three years apart in their development. Lawson and Willis are much more talented than Morrison and Howard. Look back on their career when they retire, and you'll see that Willis and Lawson will dominate more than Howard and Morrison.


I hate both these teams so I would like to think I am impartial. Tough to say that Lawson and Willis are hands down going to be more dominant. I will say they have more athletic ability than Howard and Morrison but Howard and Morrison have been EXTREMELY productive.

I realize schemes are different from team to team but Lawson and Howard where both rookies last year at the OLB position and Howard has 110 tackles to 50 somethign for Lawson. Lawson has freakish physicall tools, but he was a dissapointment.

Willis on the other hand appears to be the real deal. But keep in mind that Morrison has 116 tackles his rookie year and 127 tackles last year. That is great production so until Willis actually does it for a year or two, this cant be judged.


So what pair do you expect more out of over the cource of their careers?
User avatar
Franchise Player
Posts: 9202
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 11:07 pm
Location: Land of the Lacob.
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 4:24 pm
You hate the Niners? How rude! :evil: :mrgreen: I didn't think there were any "hatred" in our division. It's more of competition than hate to me. The AFC West though... now there's some strong hate there between the Chiefs and Raiders.

Anyways, Lawson did have to change from a DE to OLB so he had to make some adjustments to moving positions. And also note that Derek Smith was our main tackler since most teams usually ran it up the gut against us because we didn't have any good DT's.

As for Willis. I haven't judged him yet. But after his performances at training camp all the way to Week 1, I'm pretty sure this guy is legit. He was involved in every play expect deep passes.
Don't hate yourself in the morning... sleep 'til noon.
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 18461
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:48 am
Location: Somewhere in this site...
Poster Credit: -4
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 2:16 am
sfsfsfgiants wrote:He dominated training camp and dominated the preseason, which is why he is starting as a rookie.... So far means in the games he has played, and so far, you have to admit that he has dominated.


Yeah, true. I'm just saying he has just played one NFL game. It's a bit strong to say he dominates the NFL with just one game. Guess that Adrian Peterson might be feeling the same, then.

As I said, I love P-Willie, and I'm sure he'll be one of the top LBs of the league soon. Just not yet.

As for the guys you're comparing, P-Willie and Kirk Morrison are much better then other two. If I have to pick them in order, it'd be something like this:

1.- Kirk Morrison (so far, although with P-Willie's development this can change as soon as next year).
2.- P-Willie
3.- Howard
4.- Lawson
User avatar
Franchise Player
Posts: 6145
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:13 am
Location: looking down at the Warriors practice facility
Poster Credit: -7
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 9:43 am
sfsfsfgiants wrote:So what pair do you expect more out of over the cource of their careers?


Tought to say. I would probably say I expect Willis to have a better career than Morrison, and Howard to have a better career than Lawson.

But if I had to take either as a pair, I would take Willis and Lawson becuase of the upside in Willis. He has a chance to really be one of the greats. The others are just good players (well not quite yet on Lawson).
_____________________________________________________
http://WWW.GOLDENSTATEWARRIORS-RT.COM
User avatar
Franchise Player
Posts: 9202
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 11:07 pm
Location: Land of the Lacob.
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 4:05 pm
I think I'd take Lofa Tatupu over Kirk Morrison. He's shown to be more impressive thank Kirk. And I'm not being Raiders biased at all. I rarely give credit to Seahawks players... especially Julian Peterson.

The best MLB in the AFC/NFC West has to be either Morrison or Tatupu.

1. Lofa Tatupu
2. Kirk Morrison
3. P-Willis
4. Tinosamoa
5. Donnie Edwards
6. Chargers MLB
7. Cards MLB
8. Broncos MLB

But out of those top three, Willis and Tatupu are probably the smartest ones in coverage. They're both like QB's on defense. The difference between the two is that Willis is a tackling machine that reads coverages well and gets to the ball quick while Tatupu is more of a cover, hard hitting, goal line stopper MLB IMO.
Don't hate yourself in the morning... sleep 'til noon.

All Star
Posts: 3317
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 2:33 pm
Location: the STACK
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 6:02 pm
jamarcus russell's contract is a waste of money. he hasnt proven anything in the league...why give in to his demands of such a high contract? the saints didnt even give reggie bush the number 5...how is russell deserving of that money...oh i forgot, its the raiders... whose motto is "spend hella money, and still lose."
"the victorious warrior wins first, and then goes to war; the defeated warrior goes to war first, and hopes to win."- The Art of War

Image
User avatar
Franchise Player
Posts: 5756
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:40 am
Location: On the couch watching sports
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 6:25 pm
Reggie Bush couldnt use the #5. The NFL's rule about numbers for running backs is only 20-49. It isnt about the Saints.

I do agree with you that Russell was a huge waiste of money, though. :wink:
2007 - GoldenStWarriors.com "Rookie of the Year"
User avatar
Franchise Player
Posts: 6145
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:13 am
Location: looking down at the Warriors practice facility
Poster Credit: -7
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 7:16 pm
xbaywarrior wrote:I think I'd take Lofa Tatupu over Kirk Morrison. He's shown to be more impressive thank Kirk. And I'm not being Raiders biased at all. I rarely give credit to Seahawks players... especially Julian Peterson.

The best MLB in the AFC/NFC West has to be either Morrison or Tatupu.

1. Lofa Tatupu
2. Kirk Morrison
3. P-Willis
4. Tinosamoa
5. Donnie Edwards
6. Chargers MLB
7. Cards MLB
8. Broncos MLB

But out of those top three, Willis and Tatupu are probably the smartest ones in coverage. They're both like QB's on defense. The difference between the two is that Willis is a tackling machine that reads coverages well and gets to the ball quick while Tatupu is more of a cover, hard hitting, goal line stopper MLB IMO.


Atta boy Xbay. I knew I liked you. Lofa is my boy!!!
_____________________________________________________
http://WWW.GOLDENSTATEWARRIORS-RT.COM
User avatar
Franchise Player
Posts: 5850
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 5:05 am
Location: Brisbane
Poster Credit: 31
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 7:30 pm
sfsfsfgiants wrote:Reggie Bush couldnt use the #5. The NFL's rule about numbers for running backs is only 20-49. It isnt about the Saints.

I do agree with you that Russell was a huge waiste of money, though. :wink:


Not knowing you to weel sfsfsf but i get the general feeling you hate the Raiders. Have you had trouble with gangs beating you for your lunch money or knocking you down while you carry your accountancy textbooks on the way to a university class and you learnt to hate the raiders cause the bullys picking on you wore Raiders baseball caps?
User avatar
Franchise Player
Posts: 5756
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:40 am
Location: On the couch watching sports
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 7:53 pm
I do hate the Raiders, but not because I'm some university trash.. I hate the Raiders because I've noticed that for the most part, their fans are the most ignorant fans in the league. They act like they are so good, and they act like no one else matters. I gotten threatened a couple at a 49er-Raider game at San Francisco for just the fact that I am wearing a 49er shirt. I'm not saying that all fans are this way, but I'm saying it because more than there should be are. You are a Raider fan, I'm a 49er fan. We are going to have our differences, and I'm not going to bother fighting with you, as it is a lost cause. I do have friends that are Raider fans, and of course we disagree, but we dont fight, and you are just an instigator. I simply said that I dont think JaMarcus Russell is worth the money, as he is an unproven rookie with one good year of college under his belt. Maybe you took it the wrong way, I dont know, but I'm not attacking him, or you, so dont attack me. Mutual respect, man.

You dont need to like me. I know that there are probably a couple people on here that dont. As long as you dont attack me, I dont care if you dont like me.

I'm not trashing all Raider's fans. I'm trashing the stupid dumb ass fans. I know the 49ers have some, too, but not as many.
Last edited by sfsfsfgiants on Fri Sep 14, 2007 9:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.
2007 - GoldenStWarriors.com "Rookie of the Year"

All Star
Posts: 3317
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 2:33 pm
Location: the STACK
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 8:33 pm
sfsfsfgiants wrote:Reggie Bush couldnt use the #5. The NFL's rule about numbers for running backs is only 20-49. It isnt about the Saints.

I do agree with you that Russell was a huge waiste of money, though. :wink:


what about wide recievers...i thought wide recievers wore numbers 80-89...yet moss wore 18 and keyshawn wore 19.
"the victorious warrior wins first, and then goes to war; the defeated warrior goes to war first, and hopes to win."- The Art of War

Image
User avatar
Franchise Player
Posts: 5756
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:40 am
Location: On the couch watching sports
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 8:45 pm
it used to be that recievers and tight ends could only use 80-89, but they changed it in 2004 or 2005 that they could wear 10-19 as well. It was just getting too hard to get all the tight ends and recievers, as well as retired numbers, all within the 80's. Most teams will ask a player to use a number in the 80's if it's available, but if there isnt, a 10-19 number is next.
2007 - GoldenStWarriors.com "Rookie of the Year"
PreviousNext

Return to Sports Board

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron