Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The importance of Ian Gold

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The importance of Ian Gold

    I know he tore his acl, but have you read the artice that said gold was FLYING past Berry in wind sprints just last week at a voluntary practice. Berry is a pretty fast lineman, but Gold was flying by him, that means he still has his speed, which is what we thought he would lose. I know Sykes and Spragan are solid, but damnit i dnt want to be solid, i want t be spectacular! Sykes and Spragan arent gonne be jumping WR's or RB's routes for INT's and returning them fr TD's c'mon now, Gold did that 2 times in 5 games he is a very good playmaker. We are the ones who discovered him in the first place why let another team take the benefits? I know he asked for a lot of money, but if he is still blowing by peopel with his speed, why not give it to him? he would have definitely deserved it had not been for an acl injury, but he is proving he can still fly around and do the things that made him worth that much in the first place.

    If you are like me, you feel Q can easily step in and succeed, he has the vision and the speed, which is really all he needs to run in our system am i right? Sure he has other qualities also, but as long as he runs through the holes he gets, why sign a free agent Rb to do the same thing? I am sure Charlie Garner or Clinton Portis would have gotten 130 yards against the colts also, but why sign him when Q can already do it? Thats just wasted money. As far as #3 WR goes, what makes you think Madise cant catch, or nate either? They are cheap, yet very polished. Madise has the precise routes and nate has the size of a mccaffrey jr. if we really need a #3 or #4 WR, let them 2 in there.

    Therefore, all the money we have can be given to Gold, we dont need it for anybody else. Gold has the chance to make MORE plays then he was on pace for last year cause Champ is going to probably be avoided, meaning more balls thrown Gold's way, and Sykes or Spragan arent the INT type (Wilson either for that matter) so there is the importance of Ian Gold.
    Last edited by Return of Lava; 03-07-2004, 10:48 PM.
    dont let him pull dat move on ya, dont let him pull that move.......................oh no dats da move! TOUCHDOWN!!!

    I tried to warn ya.

  • #2
    Re: The importance of Ian Gold

    Originally posted by Return of Lava
    [B] I am sure Charlie Garner or Clinton Portis would have gotten 130 yards against the colts also [/ B]
    Portis would've gotten over 200 . . .

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Re: The importance of Ian Gold

      Originally posted by duaneok66
      Portis would've gotten over 200 . . .
      portis didnt even break 70 in his chance so how would you know in the other game?
      dont let him pull dat move on ya, dont let him pull that move.......................oh no dats da move! TOUCHDOWN!!!

      I tried to warn ya.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Re: Re: The importance of Ian Gold

        Originally posted by Return of Lava
        portis didnt even break 70 in his chance so how would you know in the other game?
        Lava, you are smarter than that . . . the game was over in the first quarter, so Denver had to stop running . . .

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Re: Re: Re: The importance of Ian Gold

          Originally posted by duaneok66
          Lava, you are smarter than that . . . the game was over in the first quarter, so Denver had to stop running . . .
          i know but portis still had 17 carries, but he was pretty much stuffed in all his attempts
          dont let him pull dat move on ya, dont let him pull that move.......................oh no dats da move! TOUCHDOWN!!!

          I tried to warn ya.

          Comment


          • #6
            his yards per carry still sucked tho!
            Remember kids, being a grammar Nazi makes you cool!

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The importance of Ian Gold

              Originally posted by Return of Lava
              i know but portis still had 17 carries, but he was pretty much stuffed in all his attempts
              sure he was . . . he averaged 4.0 yards per carry . . . that is not "stuffed" . . .

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Re: The importance of Ian Gold

                Originally posted by duaneok66
                Portis would've gotten over 200 . . .
                He had his chance.......what'd he get....67 yards?????

                Or are you saying that the colts d suddenly became better than they were 2 weeks earlier and shut down the running game.
                Or maybe it was because plummer didn't throw a pick right off the bat to ignite the offense.
                Or maybe it was because Q was the better runner against their d.

                Hurry, times running out............................................
                Last edited by rcsodak; 03-07-2004, 10:59 PM.
                "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate,
                tireless minority keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of
                men."

                -- Samuel Adams

                sigpicJacks RULE!!!!!!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The importance of Ian Gold

                  Originally posted by duaneok66
                  sure he was . . . he averaged 4.0 yards per carry . . . that is not "stuffed" . . .
                  the point you say he would have got 200 against the colts the first game, and i doubt that. he would have had the same type of success griffin had, griffin made some great plays that game. i am just saying if he can do that for another game, then another, then another, who is to say he cant endure more games as a starter, he is used to being a feature back anyway, he had a lot of carries in college, the NFL is stronger and faster, but Griffin isnt a college runner anymore he is improved into an NFL runner.
                  dont let him pull dat move on ya, dont let him pull that move.......................oh no dats da move! TOUCHDOWN!!!

                  I tried to warn ya.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I don't know what the hell we're doing spending all this money on Bailey, then letting Gold and Berry get away! That's just stupid! Berry wasn't asking all that much for a successful DL. I mean, if he wanted Warren Sapp money, fine. But It doesn't look like his contract was completely out of bounds. Denver even tried to match. Well, if you're going to match, then why not make the offer BEFORE HAND??? Why the hell wait to "see what other teams will do" before you make a decent offer. Berry told them "I'm not restricted" meaning you can't get away with that S***.

                    As for Gold it seems the Broncos are trying to do the same damn thing. Wait to "see what the market is for Gold" then try to match. Gold isn't buying that c*** either! Either make an offer that is comensurate with what other teams are offering or he's gone. Don't expect him to do all the work negotiating and putting his life in transition and then expect you're going to be able to swoop in at the last minute and "match"!

                    But if you let him go don't sit there on Monday's and make a lot lame excuses (Ex: "our defense just needs to step up and make plays").

                    If your linebackers are all a LOT slower this season and your line doesn't generate any pressure 'cause Trevor Pryce is double-teamed all the time there's going to be problems, no matter how great Bailey is! Al Wilson is great, but not exactly the fastest guy on the team. Mobley and Gold had real speed. Spragan, Sykes, Pierce, the rest of them don't. It makes a huge difference IMO. I see us being about average (maybe a little better) at linebacker this year except for Wilson. You don't win super-bowls with "average", adequate, or O.K.



                    One step forward. Two steps back.
                    sigpic

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The importance of Ian Gold

                      Originally posted by Return of Lava
                      the point you say he would have got 200 against the colts the first game, and i doubt that. he would have had the same type of success griffin had, griffin made some great plays that game. i am just saying if he can do that for another game, then another, then another, who is to say he cant endure more games as a starter, he is used to being a feature back anyway, he had a lot of carries in college, the NFL is stronger and faster, but Griffin isnt a college runner anymore he is improved into an NFL runner.
                      Now you are saying that Griffin = Portis???? Please tell me you are joking . . .

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Cugel
                        I don't know what the hell we're doing spending all this money on Bailey, then letting Gold and Berry get away! That's just stupid! Berry wasn't asking all that much for a successful DL. I mean, if he wanted Warren Sapp money, fine. But It doesn't look like his contract was completely out of bounds. Denver even tried to match. Well, if you're going to match, then why not make the offer BEFORE HAND??? Why the hell wait to "see what other teams will do" before you make a decent offer. Berry told them "I'm not restricted" meaning you can't get away with that S***.

                        As for Gold it seems the Broncos are trying to do the same damn thing. Wait to "see what the market is for Gold" then try to match. Gold isn't buying that c*** either! Either make an offer that is comensurate with what other teams are offering or he's gone. Don't expect him to do all the work negotiating and putting his life in transition and then expect you're going to be able to swoop in at the last minute and "match"!

                        But if you let him go don't sit there on Monday's and make a lot lame excuses (Ex: "our defense just needs to step up and make plays").

                        If your linebackers are all a LOT slower this season and your line doesn't generate any pressure 'cause Trevor Pryce is double-teamed all the time there's going to be problems, no matter how great Bailey is! Al Wilson is great, but not exactly the fastest guy on the team. Mobley and Gold had real speed. Spragan, Sykes, Pierce, the rest of them don't. It makes a huge difference IMO. I see us being about average (maybe a little better) at linebacker this year except for Wilson. You don't win super-bowls with "average", adequate, or O.K.



                        One step forward. Two steps back.
                        LOL i think that is a little harsh, dont get me wrong i love ian gold and i agree with you about this contract match nonsense, but i dont think the D would be average without gold, just not spectacular, but solid. i think champ is a huge help in the pass game and cant help but add to an "solid" D that was ranked 4th without gold(for the final 11 games). I think Gold is what we need to have the dominant D though.
                        dont let him pull dat move on ya, dont let him pull that move.......................oh no dats da move! TOUCHDOWN!!!

                        I tried to warn ya.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Another bet?
                          "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate,
                          tireless minority keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of
                          men."

                          -- Samuel Adams

                          sigpicJacks RULE!!!!!!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The importance of Ian Gold

                            Originally posted by duaneok66
                            Now you are saying that Griffin = Portis???? Please tell me you are joking . . .
                            i am saying Portis would not have gotten 200 just cause he is better. I am saying griffin can run over easy defense also, portis wasnt the only one that could do it in this system thats what im sayin.

                            the difference is if griffin does it, we get to have champ at cb, but if portis does it, we dont get to have champ, which would you take?
                            dont let him pull dat move on ya, dont let him pull that move.......................oh no dats da move! TOUCHDOWN!!!

                            I tried to warn ya.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I don't believe cp would have had the success that Q had in the first game.....just look at the difference in moves PLUS the results in the second game....a D is a D is a D.....right Lava?
                              "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate,
                              tireless minority keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of
                              men."

                              -- Samuel Adams

                              sigpicJacks RULE!!!!!!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X