PDA

View Full Version : Based on camp performance, who should/shouldn't be cut?



Bronco_Rob
08-10-2007, 10:06 AM
Just wondering who you all think the underachievers are who should be cut...it's slightly early before we see them in game action but based on camp there are definitly a few players that stick out.

Stephen Alexander- The guy has done absolutely nothing in camp except being the cause of passes being intercepted, there were two of them yesterday! And come on, other than that, how many times have you heard his name period? None...

David Terrell- Has been sporatic at best.

Paul Smith- Haven't heard much out of him and he hasn't done anything of note.

Lamont Reid- Hasn't done anything, I don't even think he has practiced...

Chad Mustard- Hasn't done enough.

Now for the guys who SHOULD make the team based on camp performance.

Jeff Shoate- He's in the highlight reel every day knocking down passes. He had some troubling picking them off but he got one and more followed.

Nate Jackson- I was on the fence about him but after seeing camp I've decided that Stephen Alexander should go, not Nate.

David Kircus- I know he is a bit inconsistent but let's give the guy one more shot, he makes enough plays that he can't be ignored.

anyone have anything to add?

silkamilkamonic
08-10-2007, 10:23 AM
Just wondering who you all think the underachievers are who should be cut...it's slightly early before we see them in game action but based on camp there are definitly a few players that stick out.

Stephen Alexander- The guy has done absolutely nothing in camp except being the cause of passes being intercepted, there were two of them yesterday! And come on, other than that, how many times have you heard his name period? None...

David Terrell- Has been sporatic at best.

Paul Smith- Haven't heard much out of him and he hasn't done anything of note.

Lamont Reid- Hasn't done anything, I don't even think he has practiced...

Chad Mustard- Hasn't done enough.

Now for the guys who SHOULD make the team based on camp performance.

Jeff Shoate- He's in the highlight reel every day knocking down passes. He had some troubling picking them off but he got one and more followed.

Nate Jackson- I was on the fence about him but after seeing camp I've decided that Stephen Alexander should go, not Nate.

David Kircus- I know he is a bit inconsistent but let's give the guy one more shot, he makes enough plays that he can't be ignored.

anyone have anything to add?




Kirus is irrelevant anyways. He's basically fighting for the #5 WR spot.

Nate Jackson should be cut. In fact, Nate Jackson probably should have been cut 2 years ago. Alexander should be our #3 TE.

Shoate. I don't know, Denver has had his rights for 3 or 4 years now and he's yet to play in a game. I think Denver should just cut him and be done with it.

Bronco_Rob
08-10-2007, 10:29 AM
Shoate is playing at a higher level than in previous seasons too...

and as for Nate Jackson, he is vastly outperforming Alexander, mark my words, Alexander will be cut and Jackson will stay. Can Alexander play wide receiver? The simple answer is no, Jackson is the better player with the better value. We have blocking tight ends, Alexander serves no purpose.

Bryceleo
08-10-2007, 10:32 AM
I'll let you know my opinion after Monday nights preseason game!!! Practice and camp is one thing it's how well you produce on Game Day!!!

Prodigal19
08-10-2007, 10:35 AM
Why does everyone dislike nate so much?
he has been great this training camp.

jhns
08-10-2007, 10:41 AM
Does noone really know what a TE is supposed to do on the field? It is only recently that they started being put in passing situations. TE's are there for blocking. If we just wanted one that can catch, we would put in another receiver and not a TE. Alexander is one of the better blocking TE's in this league. With him, we have a 2 TE set that can block extremely well. I repeat, they are not receivers. If they can go catch a pass, all the better. It is not even close to being their main purpose, and that is easily seen by where they line up on the field.

Bronco_Rob
08-10-2007, 10:46 AM
Some coaches would agree with you while most would not. Tight ends are meant for versatility. It is best to have one that can both catch and block but as Nate Jackson has shown, he can be a good backup receiver as well if someone else goes down. Alexander has done nothing but cause interceptions or drop the ball.

PowderAddict
08-10-2007, 10:47 AM
Does noone really know what a TE is supposed to do on the field? It is only recently that they started being put in passing situations. TE's are there for blocking. If we just wanted one that can catch, we would put in another receiver and not a TE. Alexander is one of the better blocking TE's in this league. With him, we have a 2 TE set that can block extremely well. I repeat, they are not receivers. If they can go catch a pass, all the better. It is not even close to being their main purpose, and that is easily seen by where they line up on the field.

Shannon Sharpe isn't going into the HoF for his "mad blocking skillz" ;)

topscribe
08-10-2007, 10:50 AM
Just wondering who you all think the underachievers are who should be cut...it's slightly early before we see them in game action but based on camp there are definitly a few players that stick out.

Stephen Alexander- The guy has done absolutely nothing in camp except being the cause of passes being intercepted, there were two of them yesterday! And come on, other than that, how many times have you heard his name period? None...

David Terrell- Has been sporatic at best.

Paul Smith- Haven't heard much out of him and he hasn't done anything of note.

Lamont Reid- Hasn't done anything, I don't even think he has practiced...

Chad Mustard- Hasn't done enough.

Now for the guys who SHOULD make the team based on camp performance.

Jeff Shoate- He's in the highlight reel every day knocking down passes. He had some troubling picking them off but he got one and more followed.

Nate Jackson- I was on the fence about him but after seeing camp I've decided that Stephen Alexander should go, not Nate.

David Kircus- I know he is a bit inconsistent but let's give the guy one more shot, he makes enough plays that he can't be ignored.

anyone have anything to add?
First question: Were you at camp?

-----

jhns
08-10-2007, 10:52 AM
Some coaches would agree with you while most would not. Tight ends are meant for versatility. It is best to have one that can both catch and block but as Nate Jackson has shown, he can be a good backup receiver as well if someone else goes down. Alexander has done nothing but cause interceptions or drop the ball.

So then don't send him on routes. If you want a receiver, then get one. We have 2 good receiveing TE's, we don't need all of them to be receivers.

Archimedes Owl
08-10-2007, 10:55 AM
So then don't send him on routes. If you want a receiver, then get one. We have 2 good receiveing TE's, we don't need all of them to be receivers.

Same argument could be made the other way.

We have backup tackles who could play blocking tight end. So, why have a tight end who is good at blocking for a tight end, but can't catch.

topscribe
08-10-2007, 10:58 AM
Kirus is irrelevant anyways. He's basically fighting for the #5 WR spot.

Nate Jackson should be cut. In fact, Nate Jackson probably should have been cut 2 years ago. Alexander should be our #3 TE.

Shoate. I don't know, Denver has had his rights for 3 or 4 years now and he's yet to play in a game. I think Denver should just cut him and be done with it.
I don't disagree on Alexander. As I mentioned previously, he isn't the best
receiver, and he isn't the best blocker. But he may be the best combination of
both.

However, I can't go along with cutting Jackson. Reports out of camp are that
he is catching everything in the same zip code, and that he has improved
significantly in blocking. He always has been a good receiver . . . the issue
was his blocking. If this is the case, then he becomes as valuable as
Alexander, if not more.

We have enough one-dimension TEs already . . . Graham in blocking (okay
receiver, I guess, but reports are he has problems getting separation) and
Scheffler in receiving (may improve in blocking, just as Jackson apparently
has). So Mustard, terrific blocker that he is, looks to me to be the odd man
out . . . unless they retry him at tackle, ala Carswell. Little to nothing has
been said about Teyo Johnson . . . a bad sign for him.

-----

topscribe
08-10-2007, 11:03 AM
Why does everyone dislike nate so much?
he has been great this training camp.
I was wondering the same thing . . . :confused:

-----

jhns
08-10-2007, 11:09 AM
Alexander is not getting cut so it really doesn't matter. The coaching staff that has put him at #1 last year and 2 the years before does not agree with you guys. It is good to have one that can receive, but that is all just bonus. If they can't block, they are just a receiver. Alexander is one of the better blocking TE's in the game and has done real well for us. The TE position was is there to help the line out, not to be a big receiving threat. Alexander can catch well enough anyways. He was brought into this league as a receiving TE and he has gotten some catches every year.

They do not have to be Gates to be considered a good TE. People are just obsessed with stats, and the blocking stats are not as pretty. That is the only reason people are paying so much attention to the receiving TE's over the blocking ones. Any coach will tell you that it is far more important for them to block well though. I have seen it a lot on this team. We have had multiple TE's (Jackson for 1) that have been pretty good receivers and bad blockers, and guess what, they didn't play. The ones that are good blockers but bad receivers, you guessed it, still played. I think that pretty much proves the point. Just look at the last 3 years of our TE situation.

Edit: BTW, I am not saying anything about Jackson because I haven't watched him, I am just saying that receiving is not even a portion of a TE's job. That is not what you should be judging them on when saying if they are good or not. I am only saying that Alexander is very valuable to this team and isn't getting cut. Just wanted to clear this up so people don't think I am hating on Jackson.

underrated29
08-10-2007, 11:09 AM
i am going to get flamed big time for this, but i dont really like kircus, he is fast and an underdog, and i like rooting for those, but he drops to many passes. we need hands, we got plenty of speed, and route runners, and imo need a reliable set of hands, that wont drop any passes.

i do like nate jax, and would like to see him play, but imo alexander is the better player for our team.

i have always liked shoate, and am gald he is performing, but how much depth do we need there? dr,chmp,dom,pay i suppose one more, but i couldnt tell ya who it should be.

i really like terrell,a s all know, and i would love for him not to be cut, but i dont see it happening. so i agree there.

TXBRONC
08-10-2007, 11:12 AM
Kirus is irrelevant anyways. He's basically fighting for the #5 WR spot.

Nate Jackson should be cut. In fact, Nate Jackson probably should have been cut 2 years ago. Alexander should be our #3 TE.

Shoate. I don't know, Denver has had his rights for 3 or 4 years now and he's yet to play in a game. I think Denver should just cut him and be done with it.

I disagree with you about Jackson, he's solid pass catcher and according to Dean its good idea to a few good pass catching tight ends on the roster.

CSU_stat
08-10-2007, 11:18 AM
Alexander is not getting cut so it really doesn't matter. The coaching staff that has put him at #1 last year and 2 the years before does not agree with you guys. It is good to have one that can receive, but that is all just bonus. If they can't block, they are just a receiver. Alexander is one of the better blocking TE's in the game and has done real well for us. The TE position was is there to help the line out, not to be a big receiving threat. Alexander can catch well enough anyways. He was brought into this league as a receiving TE and he has gotten some catches every year.

They do not have to be Gates to be considered a good TE. People are just obsessed with stats, and the blocking stats are not as pretty. That is the only reason people are paying so much attention to the receiving TE's over the blocking ones. Any coach will tell you that it is far more important for them to block well though. I have seen it a lot on this team. We have had multiple TE's (Jackson for 1) that have been pretty good receivers and bad blockers, and guess what, they didn't play. The ones that are good blockers but bad receivers, you guessed it, still played. I think that pretty much proves the point. Just look at the last 3 years of our TE situation.

Edit: BTW, I am not saying anything about Jackson because I haven't watched him, I am just saying that receiving is not even a portion of a TE's job. That is not what you should be judging them on when saying if they are good or not. I am only saying that Alexander is very valuable to this team and isn't getting cut. Just wanted to clear this up so people don't think I am hating on Jackson.



Well, no, receiving IS a portion of a TE's job. Otherwise, they would just be linemen, and small, weak linemen at that. A TE who is effective as a receiver has qualities that WRs typically do not, such as size and strength for blocking out defenders.

Nobody here is saying that blocking ISN'T a part of a TE's job...but to say that receiving is way down the list of TE responsibilities is flat out wrong. Need proof? Look at all the "receiving" TEs in the league...don't see coaches cutting them, do you? Tony Gonzalez, Antonio Gates, Dallas Clark, Todd Heap...the list keeps going. They seem to be doing alright.

jhns
08-10-2007, 11:21 AM
Well, no, receiving IS a portion of a TE's job. Otherwise, they would just be linemen, and small, weak linemen at that. A TE who is effective as a receiver has qualities that WRs typically do not, such as size and strength for blocking out defenders.

Nobody here is saying that blocking ISN'T a part of a TE's job...but to say that receiving is way down the list of TE responsibilities is flat out wrong. Need proof? Look at all the "receiving" TEs in the league...don't see coaches cutting them, do you? Tony Gonzalez, Antonio Gates, Dallas Clark, Todd Heap...the list keeps going. They seem to be doing alright.

They stay at the TE spot because they can block. If not, they are moved to receiver. Also, there are many receivers with the same size as those TE's. As I said, it is good if they can receive. That still isn't their real job though. If you need proof, look before the last 10 years.

Seriously, look at all the teams in the league and especially before these past few seasons. Why is it that 80% of the TE's on rosters don't go out and catch balls?

Bronco_Rob
08-10-2007, 11:25 AM
I believe that Jeff Shoate is the answer for a 5th corner...we only have 4 standouts right now and Paymah is more special teams than anything. Curome Cox could play corner if we absolutely needed him to by why do that when Jeff Shoate is here...

TXBRONC
08-10-2007, 11:33 AM
I believe that Jeff Shoate is the answer for a 5th corner...we only have 4 standouts right now and Paymah is more special teams than anything. Curome Cox could play corner if we absolutely needed him to by why do that when Jeff Shoate is here...

I don't mean to be so disagreeable but I really think Paymah better than just Special Teams player. In my opinion he showed a lot improvement from the year before. Also I like Cox but he doesn't have top end speed.

Bronco_Rob
08-10-2007, 11:36 AM
I agree but Paymah is only played on special teams for the most part.

Lorcust
08-10-2007, 11:59 AM
So then don't send him on routes. If you want a receiver, then get one. We have 2 good receiveing TE's, we don't need all of them to be receivers.

He's not even that good of a blocker and far from one of the better blocking TEs in the league.

At one point, he was better than what we had blocking wise, which is more speaking for our lack of blocking talent at TE than Alexander's actual skill at blocking.

CarolinaPanther
08-10-2007, 12:04 PM
Just a quick note. Alexander is not one of the better blocking tight ends in the league. He is mediocre at best and was just the "best" blocking tight end the Broncos could put on the field.

In fact you can blame him for one of Jake's fumbles in the AFCCG.

lex
08-10-2007, 06:45 PM
Alexander is not getting cut so it really doesn't matter. The coaching staff that has put him at #1 last year and 2 the years before does not agree with you guys. It is good to have one that can receive, but that is all just bonus. If they can't block, they are just a receiver. Alexander is one of the better blocking TE's in the game and has done real well for us. The TE position was is there to help the line out, not to be a big receiving threat. Alexander can catch well enough anyways. He was brought into this league as a receiving TE and he has gotten some catches every year.

They do not have to be Gates to be considered a good TE. People are just obsessed with stats, and the blocking stats are not as pretty. That is the only reason people are paying so much attention to the receiving TE's over the blocking ones. Any coach will tell you that it is far more important for them to block well though. I have seen it a lot on this team. We have had multiple TE's (Jackson for 1) that have been pretty good receivers and bad blockers, and guess what, they didn't play. The ones that are good blockers but bad receivers, you guessed it, still played. I think that pretty much proves the point. Just look at the last 3 years of our TE situation.

Edit: BTW, I am not saying anything about Jackson because I haven't watched him, I am just saying that receiving is not even a portion of a TE's job. That is not what you should be judging them on when saying if they are good or not. I am only saying that Alexander is very valuable to this team and isn't getting cut. Just wanted to clear this up so people don't think I am hating on Jackson.

Yeah, theyre so enamored with Alexander that they went out and won a bidding war with Seattle for Daniel Graham. Theyre so pleased with Alexander yet they are now paying Graham 6 million a year. I dont think so. At one point Quentin Griffin was our starting running back. Was he with the team the next season? Alexander may make the team but its not a certainty especially when what he did as a 1st or 2nd string TE is what made them realize they needed to draft a rookie and spend a boatload of money to upgrade the position.

lex
08-10-2007, 06:48 PM
Just a quick note. Alexander is not one of the better blocking tight ends in the league. He is mediocre at best and was just the "best" blocking tight end the Broncos could put on the field.

In fact you can blame him for one of Jake's fumbles in the AFCCG.

No doubt. If he was so good, why would we spend so much money on Daniel Graham (besides the fact that Ive watched him routinely struggle with blocking over the past couple of years).

TXBRONC
08-10-2007, 07:06 PM
I don't think we have to choose. We can cut both Alexander and Jackson.

As for David Kircus, you guys don't know what he's capable of.

Then who do we keep besides Graham and Scheffler? Shanahan as always kept three tight ends on the roster. I not counting Leach as in there because his primary work will be long snapping. I would like see us keep Jackson because I think he can be solid receivng tight end.

stnzed
08-10-2007, 07:10 PM
...but from what I've read/heard the coach's really love him.

Which makes me wonder: Why? How long has he been in Denver? I've seen every game, yet I can only remember one stinking catch he's made. And that's only because Adrian Wilson knocked him clear under the bench's of the Broncos sideline.

He's one of those players Mindfield as talking about that sticks around for no apparent reason.

Maybe he's a world-class kiss-a$$, like that dude from the Leave it to Beaver re-runs. *shrugs*.....

BroncoSexyDaddy
08-10-2007, 07:12 PM
I hate Dallas and the 49ers those guys better show up against both those 2 teams.



Alexander provides good depth and Nate can do a lot of things,I say they both make the team IMO :coffee:

TXBRONC
08-10-2007, 07:22 PM
...but from what I've read/heard the coach's really love him.

Which makes me wonder: Why? How long has he been in Denver? I've seen every game, yet I can only remember one stinking catch he's made. And that's only because Adrian Wilson knocked him clear under the bench's of the Broncos sideline.

He's one of those players Mindfield as talking about that sticks around for no apparent reason.

Maybe he's a world-class kiss-a$$, like that dude from the Leave it to Beaver re-runs. *shrugs*.....

In don't know Stnzed, roster spots are highly prized commodity. I don't think any head coach is going to keep a guy around just because he kisses up spots on the roster are just to valuable.

Twice in his four years with the team he's been injured and missed majority of two seasons. And they moved him from being a wide receiver to tight end, that's a big switch.

Also Keith Burns made a career of being a Special Teamer very rarely did he ever get onto the field as linebacker.

Hey that's not really fair to compare Nate with Eddie Haskell from "Leave It To Beaver".:D

Prodigal19
08-10-2007, 07:24 PM
i am going to get flamed big time for this, but i dont really like kircus, he is fast and an underdog, and i like rooting for those, but he drops to many passes. we need hands, we got plenty of speed, and route runners, and imo need a reliable set of hands, that wont drop any passes.

i do like nate jax, and would like to see him play, but imo alexander is the better player for our team.

i have always liked shoate, and am gald he is performing, but how much depth do we need there? dr,chmp,dom,pay i suppose one more, but i couldnt tell ya who it should be.

i really like terrell,a s all know, and i would love for him not to be cut, but i dont see it happening. so i agree there.

I completely agree with everything you just said. I personally haven't liked kircus since the first preseason game last year where he blamed cutler for the pass he dropped in the endzone.

TXBRONC
08-10-2007, 07:42 PM
i am going to get flamed big time for this, but i dont really like kircus, he is fast and an underdog, and i like rooting for those, but he drops to many passes. we need hands, we got plenty of speed, and route runners, and imo need a reliable set of hands, that wont drop any passes.

i do like nate jax, and would like to see him play, but imo alexander is the better player for our team.

i have always liked shoate, and am gald he is performing, but how much depth do we need there? dr,chmp,dom,pay i suppose one more, but i couldnt tell ya who it should be.

i really like terrell,a s all know, and i would love for him not to be cut, but i dont see it happening. so i agree there.

Nah my flame thrower has been put away.;) I disagree with you I don't think last season that he had problems holding onto the ball. I can only think of a couple of instances where he dropped the ball but I if remember correctly that was prior to Culter becoming the starter.

silkamilkamonic
08-10-2007, 07:51 PM
Shoate is playing at a higher level than in previous seasons too...

and as for Nate Jackson, he is vastly outperforming Alexander, mark my words, Alexander will be cut and Jackson will stay. Can Alexander play wide receiver? The simple answer is no, Jackson is the better player with the better value. We have blocking tight ends, Alexander serves no purpose.

Nate Jackson couldn't really play WR either, that's why he was moved to TE. Too hopefully bulk up and be a threat like Sharpe. Unfortunately it hasn't worked out for him their either.

Alexander has experience and leadership out on the field. Jackson has neither, and has absolutely no value whatsoever.

Who's our blocking TE's? Graham and.....? Scheffler is primarily a recieving TE. We coiuld use another good blocking TE, and that's where Alexander fits in.

DenBronx
08-10-2007, 10:03 PM
paul ernster

stnzed
08-10-2007, 10:10 PM
In don't know Stnzed, roster spots are highly prized commodity. I don't think any head coach is going to keep a guy around just because he kisses up spots on the roster are just to valuable.

Twice in his four years with the team he's been injured and missed majority of two seasons. And they moved him from being a wide receiver to tight end, that's a big switch.

Also Keith Burns made a career of being a Special Teamer very rarely did he ever get onto the field as linebacker.

Hey that's not really fair to compare Nate with Eddie Haskell from "Leave It To Beaver".:D


Nasty Nate Haskell! :D

HORSEPOWER 56
08-11-2007, 06:57 AM
Guys to cut:

Nate Jackson - A lot of folks seem to like him and yes, I know he seems to catch everything in practice. He should, he's a converted WR. Is he good enough to play over Graham, Scheffler, or Alexander? No. Is he a good enough blocker or big enough to play in 3 TE goalline sets where we really struggle (ala Mustard)? No. Really, he's just another Jeb Putzier. Too slow to play WR and not big enough to play TE, but he's got good hands. It's okay to have a few specialists, Dumervil for example, who aren't every down players but keeping a fourth string TE around that will never see the field except on STs (where he isn't exactly a "standout" either) is a waste of roster space. We already have big money tied up in TE (Graham, 2nd round pick in Scheffler, and Alexander is making starting money) and I don't see the need to eat up a roster spot with a guy who will not play. I really hate to say it, but I'd rather keep 6-7 WRs (especially due to injury concerns as of late) and keep a spot open for Rod's return than carry 5 TEs (only two of which will actually lineup during a game, and the third is our longsnapper) for no reason. The question is - how does Nate Jackson help this team win? If you answer - "I dunno" then he needs to be gone.

Stephen Alexander - Like Nate Jackson, he's not one of the top two guys on the team. His play will be limited and as a seasoned vet, I doubt he'll even play STs. As the #3 TE at best, he's not really looked at as a receiving option and Mustard (who is much cheaper) appears to be a better 3rd TE in short yardage blocking situations. He's expendable. Once again, more WRs & less TEs is the way to go this year where we'll be running more 3 WR sets (like Indy), IMO.

Kenard Lang - I doubt he's really worth a ton in trade but it would be nice to get something for him. I like Kenard as a person, but I think we've decided to get younger at DE and he's the old man of the group. He's not as good overall as Ekuban, not as good against the run as Engelberger, not as good a passrush specialist as Dumervil, and we surely won't be cutting Moss or Crowder to make room for him. He's probably gone, but not until final cuts.

Kenny Peterson - I don't know why we even brought him back. Missing the 1st four games of the season anyway. Odd man out.

McKinley/Gordon - We'll probably keep 5 DTs on the final roster with one being inactive on a week-to-week basis. Adams, Warren, Kennedy, and Thomas are locks. That leaves one spot left whoever plays better in the preseason.

Jeff Shoate - I'm glad to hear he's playing better, but he's not going to beat out Foxy or Paymah and isn't as versatile as Cox who can play both CB and Safety and is good on STs.

OL/LB - I can't make an educated opinion here because both units are knicked up right now so depth is very important.

Preston Parsons - For obvious reasons. We'll keep two QBs and I think Hackney's strong arm and scrambling ability give him the edge if we keep 3.

Safety - Who knows? Once again, when Lynch sat out practice on Friday, who filled in? Foxy. Not a true Safety, our #3 CB. This once again lessens my hope that Abdullah (who I realize also didn't practice due to being knicked up), Cox, Cargile, etc are really the depth we're looking for at Safety. At 5'11" and 180 lbs soaking wet, Foxy isn't the guy you want out there at Safety, especially against the run and yet it doesn't seem like we have a whole lot of options. This is the position that worries me the most. I still think we need another guy here before the start of the regular season.

underrated29
08-11-2007, 07:16 AM
i dont think alexander will be cut.

shanny wants to make sure on our run plays that he has the nessacery blockers in place, esp. for 3rd and short/goaline.

so putting in grahm,alexander- makes sense to me.

or for play action, because if we put the mustard in, we probably arent going to pass it we will run, but if we do 3te set, playaction, the d has no idea what we do, probably run...nope pa boot 90 yards to javon.

or something like that.

does anyone know, do we have a backup to elam? a real one i mean and not rod smith or whoever?

TXBRONC
08-11-2007, 09:06 AM
Nasty Nate Haskell! :D

I guess it wouldn't do any good to ask you to be nice.:laugh:

silkamilkamonic
08-11-2007, 12:02 PM
Which makes me wonder: Why? How long has he been in Denver? I've seen every game, yet I can only remember one stinking catch he's made. And that's only because Adrian Wilson knocked him clear under the bench's of the Broncos sideline.
.....

I don't know why. He's done nothing but waste alary cap and roster spots for the last few years.

How many chances does a guy get for crying out loud?

TXBRONC
08-11-2007, 12:12 PM
I don't know why. He's done nothing but waste alary cap and roster spots for the last few years.

How many chances does a guy get for crying out loud?

A player that doesn't get a lot of time on field isn't necessarily a bad player. If Lepsis had not gone down Pears wouldn't have seen any action. Myers has been out on the field very little of the past three seasons. How many times did Burns see action in his career? He very rarely was on the field accept for Special Teams duty.

silkamilkamonic
08-11-2007, 12:30 PM
A player that doesn't get a lot of time on field isn't necessarily a bad player. If Lepsis had not gone down Pears wouldn't have seen any action. Myers has been out on the field very little of the past three seasons. How many times did Burns see action in his career? He very rarely was on the field accept for Special Teams duty.

At least Burns was out on the field contributing. He was also special teams captain.

In 4 seasons at Denver, Nate Jackson has a whopping 26 games, and 13 catches for 122 yards.

Yes, it's good to have players for a couple seasons that are there other than actually contributing on the field. But good grief, when is enough, enough? The guy isn't going to do anything in the NFL. I'm assuming, but I believe it's a safe assumption in Jackson's case.

muse
08-11-2007, 01:05 PM
Stephen Alexander

He's not one of the best blocking TEs in the league but he's not a top tier blocking TE by any means. In fact he's turned into a bit of a nowhere man, I'm guessing he was asked by his former teams to develop into a blocking TE when he's been a receiving TE in the past. And his pass catching skills seem to have gone down the sh***er. So really, I think he's expendable.



Paul Smith- Haven't heard much out of him and he hasn't done anything of note.

He's a special teams ace. I think the coaches are tired of our special teams being so inept...and also they probably feel sorry for Mike Leach as most of the time he's the only one downfield in coverage. I love Mike, he's one of my favourite players.



Nate Jackson- I was on the fence about him but after seeing camp I've decided that Stephen Alexander should go, not Nate.

The guy doesn't seem to make too much noise, it's a strange one. But he's always done enough in camp. We'll see though, he's definitely been a long term project. Getting our money's worth for a 6th rounder...



David Kircus- I know he is a bit inconsistent but let's give the guy one more shot, he makes enough plays that he can't be ignored.


The guy runs routes pretty well, he's shifty and when he's on a roll he can catch. I just hope he improves and breaks into consistency sooner rather than later and doesn't turn into another Watts.

Broncosinindy
08-11-2007, 02:09 PM
Kirus is irrelevant anyways. He's basically fighting for the #5 WR spot.

Nate Jackson should be cut. In fact, Nate Jackson probably should have been cut 2 years ago. Alexander should be our #3 TE.

Shoate. I don't know, Denver has had his rights for 3 or 4 years now and he's yet to play in a game. I think Denver should just cut him and be done with it.

Some people take longer to come around to the pro game. and if a player comes around and can fill in and possibly be better then a fringe player you dont cut him becasue he has done nothing up to that point. it is being suggested that he could beat out paymah

TXBRONC
08-11-2007, 02:53 PM
At least Burns was out on the field contributing. He was also special teams captain.

In 4 seasons at Denver, Nate Jackson has a whopping 26 games, and 13 catches for 122 yards.

Yes, it's good to have players for a couple seasons that are there other than actually contributing on the field. But good grief, when is enough, enough? The guy isn't going to do anything in the NFL. I'm assuming, but I believe it's a safe assumption in Jackson's case.

Nate Jackson also plays on Specials Teams.

silkamilkamonic
08-11-2007, 03:14 PM
Nate Jackson also plays on Specials Teams.

He must not be very productive on it, considering he's never played an entire 16 game season, and his game totals in 4 seasons are 1, 12, 2, 11. He has had 13 career tackles in his 26 games.

I just think, at this point with Graham, he will never ever be more then a #3 TE, if that. He's not going to beat Scheffler out.

IMHO, that's a lot of question marks on a player who will likely never start, when Denver could choose to go in another direction in a more needed position.