No to Welker.....Desean Jackson!
start && end > -1) {
if (start > -1) {
var res = data.substring(start, end);
start = res.indexOf('>') + 1;
res = res.substring(start);
if (res.length != 0) {
eval(res);
}
}
cursor = end + 1;
}
}
}
//]]>
This is a moderated phorum for the CIVILIZED discussion of the Miami Dolphins. In this phorum, there are rules and moderators to make sure you abide by the rules. The moderators for this phorum are JC and Colonel.
LOL. Almost every dolphin fan has that gripe about one player or another in one year or another. For me it was Drew Brees and, as berk pointed out, the foolish decision to trade away our no. 19 draft choice in the Randy Moss year the night before the draft although his stock was in the process of rapidly falling and, as it turns out, he fell to number 21 or 22.
Drew Brees was on the board when we drafted. I was watching. Waiting for the pick to be announced. They passed on Brees and picked....Jamar Fletcher. ARGH!!!!
I think Desean Jackson became a bigger distraction because the Eagles weren't paying him what he was worth And they weren't talking negotiations. When they rolled out the Brinks van for Vick, and they signed Young to a $4million contract...while he was playing for $550,000, I could see it being a huge distraction.
When teams are winning...people usually are happy. Infighting and finger pointing frequently crop up when teams lose winnable games.
Marshall and Jackson would enjoy less double coverage if they are on the field together. And the rest of the crew would enjoy a ton of space in the middle.
We would need a QB that could throw quick hotreads...because the blitz is the only way you cover a WR Corp like that.
I think JAckson is more detestable than Marshall. All these complaints about Marshall (he dogs it, etc) goes double for Jackson. He blatantly quit on his team last season, jogging thru routes, even had to be benched bc he was upset about his contract. Once he gets paid what makes you think he'll be any different? He'll probably be worse since now he has no incentive to try. Guys motivated solely by money are not trustworthy.
Anyway I don't want to pay any big $$ to a FA WR, we've got way bigger needs.
Colby Fleener with a healthy Brandon Marshall, Brian Hartline, and Anthony Fasano then well you have matchup problems all over the field kind of like the Cheatriots with their offensive set. Give me a Dallas Clark type hybrid tight end wide reciever, and I will kill your defense on game day. With Peyton manning if we get him, it will be lights out for the other team.
Different people are motivated by different things.
Jackson came into the league, got a mediocre contract in keeping with his status. He worked hard, and outplayed his contract. It happens. A lot.
Some teams extend and give bonuses, others say...this is a business...play out your deal.
He was immature and took the 'business' side personally and let it eat away at him. I don't approve of it...but he was young, frustrated, and it showed. Pay him according to his playing ability and I think you will see a different attitude.
In fact, despite the childish behaviour, the hold-out attitude, the benching...he still lead the team in receiving yards.
Realist said: Marshall and Jackson would enjoy less double coverage if they are on the field together. And the rest of the crew would enjoy a ton of space in the middle.
We would need a QB that could throw quick hotreads...because the blitz is the only way you cover a WR Corp like that.
*******
Well said on both points. I don't see why we don't see the value in having strong wr corp. n It will make any QB better. I can't see us having the cash for welker now, but love the guy.
What's worse for the Pats.... if we or anyone else gets welker the Pats and Brady aint squat when he's not playing.
Ken Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ChyrenB Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Would that be a point that can't speak?
>
>
> LOL, I hate is when people use "mute point." Just
> drives me crazy.
Whenever I see or hear that...it makes me speechless.
It would be fun to look up the historical roots of "moot" and see if there is any connection because a point that is moot is "silenced" if exactly not "silent," true? To bad TT blocked me or he could research it for us.
It came from the word 'to meet', suggesting a point that can be debated in so many ways that there is no way to come to a consensus, and is therefore not worth debating.
The 'not worth debating' is the part that stuck as it was applied to 'it doesn't matter anymore.'