Boston Article

[EndZone]

http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/chargers/20030809-9999_1s9chargers.html

Boston's representatives were up front with the Chargers when the sides met the first week of free agency. They told the club about his training habits and how he wouldn't attend all the voluntary offseason workouts because he was working with his own trainer.

Now, Boston is trying to educate the Chargers about how they can get the most out of him on the field. Unlike last year's leading receiver, Curtis Conway, he doesn't believe it's in his best interest or the team's best interest for him to be on the field every play.

"They need to know the type of receiver that I've always been," Boston said. "If you're going to try to develop me into a Conway type of guy, I'm not an every-down guy. If I make like a nice catch on a dig, I'm going to need to come out of the game because I'm physically heavy. I have a lot of tissue, a lot of blood. I'm not in that type of shape. I'm in shape, but I'm not in that type of shape. I train for explosion, to be at my highest level for four or five plays, then come out for a couple.

"I'm a guy that really made my name by catching slants and making yards after the catch. I'm not really an 'out' runner; I'm really a guy that catches hitches. Guys back up off me because they're scared to death of my size. So if they just throw me (quick) routes and hitches and slants, and I make yards after the catch, that's where I can be successful.

"I think Cam (Cameron, the Chargers' offensive coordinator) is slowly understanding that. But I think he's just trying to install a certain offense that we've got to get down this camp. But when the season comes he's going to realize that when these guys start backing off, all you need to do is throw me a quick stop, I'll take 1 or 2 yards, and I'm going to get you 12 yards. I'll give the guy $100,000 if he tackles me before that. I mean, he's going to be 180 pounds; I'll be embarrassed if he tackles me."

 

[SECTION 11]

He needs to realize that he's now playing... Marty Ball.
He isn't playing under Martz in St. Louis, he's under Shottenheimer.
He'll be on the field the majority of the time because he'll be blocking.


Who's the last Marty Ball receiver to make it to the pro bowl?

 

[jf-08]

Can you say double team bump & run?

He's waaaay too cool for the Cardinals. team

What a freaking mess.

 

[jf-08]

Originally posted by SECTION 11


Who's the last Marty Ball receiver to make it to the pro bowl?

Andre Rison - 1997 with the Chiefs

 

[Cheesebeef]

all I can say about that article is - WOW. I still think not getting anything for him was the black markj on the offseason - but this kid article makes him sound crazy.

 

[CardLogic]

I'm thinking more and more that the Card's did the RIGHT thing with Boston.

Sure it would have been great to get something for him; but as I understand, it is not legit to franchise with the intent to trade [But didn't they do that with A. Williams].

I think that the Cardinals management knew that they needed to rid themselves of Boston (I definitely didn't agree at the time).

At the rate he is self-destructing Boston will be out of football in two years or sooner!

 

[Wild Card]

Is anyone still wondering why the Cardinals were desperate not to guarantee Boston the average of the top five WRs' salaries? I mean, this guy knows more about playing the position than his coaches. That oughta go down real well with Schottenheimer, don't you think?

WC

 

[Redheart]

The guy is smoking Rubarb.

Rumors of a Team-Cancer.

Diagnosis confirmed.

I could not believe what I was reading. I think the only thing that Cam Cameron "is slowly understanding" is that he has a prima donna on his hands.

Adrian, are you reading this???? "throw me a quick stop, I'll take 1 or 2 yards, and I'm going to get you 12 yards. I'll give the guy $100,000 if he tackles me before that". Wow. You get to bust that cancer and pick up a cool $100K bonus. Nice job of painting a target on you sore knee, David.

Smoking Rubarb is what makes your quotes sound chessy.

 

[CardLogic]

I'm also wondering about his speed... Of course, his claim is that he has added size without sacrificing speed (we know how well that worked for T. Suggs). The article from San Diego mentioned Boston's 4.3 speed in the forty.

My question is: When is the last time Boston was clocked for speed by an unbiased source? Anybody have a clue of an answer?

 

[Redheart]

Originally posted by CardLogic
I'm also wondering about his speed... Of course, his claim is that he has added size without sacrificing speed (we know how well that worked for T. Suggs). The article from San Diego mentioned Boston's 4.3 speed in the forty.

My question is: When is the last time Boston was clocked for speed by an unbiased source? Anybody have a clue of an answer?

I don't know about speed, but he was tested positive for cocaine.

 

[EndZone]

Originally posted by CardLogic
I'm also wondering about his speed... Of course, his claim is that he has added size without sacrificing speed (we know how well that worked for T. Suggs). The article from San Diego mentioned Boston's 4.3 speed in the forty.

My question is: When is the last time Boston was clocked for speed by an unbiased source? Anybody have a clue of an answer?

The last time he ran from the cops?

 

[Dback Jon]

I think it is becoming apparant why the Cards did not franchise Boston - they wanted no part of him - and no chance of him coming back.

Maybe some of the Graves bashers will start to come forward and acknowledge that rather than screwing the pooch on this, the Cardinals handled this situation correctly.

The team is better off with out him, and getting rid of him with no compensation was worth it, rather than risk being stuck with him.

 

[Wild Card]

Originally posted by Dback Jon
I think it is becoming apparant why the Cards did not franchise Boston - they wanted no part of him - and no chance of him coming back.

Maybe some of the Graves bashers will start to come forward and acknowledge that rather than screwing the pooch on this, the Cardinals handled this situation correctly.

The team is better off with out him, and getting rid of him with no compensation was worth it, rather than risk being stuck with him.

Jon:

Exactly. The Cardinals wanted zero chance of ending up with Boston on the roster at a fat, guaranteed salary, and they were letter-of-the-law about franchising with intent to trade.

Once again, the coaches and front office appear to have known more about one of their players than the ordinary fan does. What a shock.

WC

 

[AZCB34]

The reason the Cards still screwed the pooch is because they could have tagged him and tried to work out a deal. If a deal wasn't to be had, they could then have simply withdrawn the tag and he would become a FA. There is some leeway in there for that to happen. It would have been apparent wuite early whether a deal could have been had.

Essentially, the Cards should have tagged him and then authorized his agent to go work a sign and trade (I believe that is how it went down with A. Williams).

It is, however, becoming crystal clear why the Cards ended up doing what they did. I never doubted there were issues but always felt they handled it wrong and still feel that way.

 

[kerouac9]

In Defense of DB:

I'm going to get crucified for this, but here it goes anyway:

No one has a problem with DE's like KGB or DT's like Gilbert Brown going in and out of a game as "specialists." The New England D is "genius" for giving safeties "franchise" salaries to come in on Nickel and Dime packages. Ray Crockett just comes in to gain 1 yard. Just because DB wants to be a "specialist" on offense, he might just be an innovator.

DB says that ideally he'd play four downs and take the next two off. That's 60% of the total offensive plays in a game. That's about what we're expecting (or wanting) Emmitt Smith to play for us. I think when you look at DB's deal in San Diego, you'll see that if they don't want to keep him for the life of it, they'll pay DB less than we're paying Emmitt (does anyone really think that Emmitt won't live out the length of his deal here?).

Frankly, the game the DB plays best works to the strengths of San Diego, as well. Drew Brees is a smart player with an accurate, but not strong, arm. He's not going to be throwing a lot of "Go" or "Out" routes this season, anyway. DB sounds like just the kind of player that could help Brees maximize his skills.

As for the attitude talked about in the article, I understand it. I mean, I'm definately an introvert, as apparently DB is, and I don't want to hang out with the people I work with. I'm sure that a lot of the people here don't want to hang out with the people that they work with. DB's a different kind of guy, but so is T.O., so is Randy Moss, so are all people. Just because Brian Griese was standoffish among his teammates didn't prevent a number of people on this board from wanting the Cards to sign him.

Regardless, for the potential production that DB represents, I'd love to see him on the field, if only for 60% of the offensive snaps, than Gilmore or Foster.

Flame away, but I think a lot of people here are hating on DB because we lost him, but in the final analysis, would rather have him starting on Sundays than Foster or Gilmore.

 

[az1965]

No, I'd rather take my chances with Foster and Gilmore than with Boston spoiling entire chemistry. Glad he is not our problem anymore...

 

[AZCB34]

Re: In Defense of DB:

Originally posted by kerouac9
I'm going to get crucified for this, but here it goes anyway:

No one has a problem with DE's like KGB or DT's like Gilbert Brown going in and out of a game as "specialists." The New England D is "genius" for giving safeties "franchise" salaries to come in on Nickel and Dime packages. Ray Crockett just comes in to gain 1 yard. Just because DB wants to be a "specialist" on offense, he might just be an innovator.

DB says that ideally he'd play four downs and take the next two off. That's 60% of the total offensive plays in a game. That's about what we're expecting (or wanting) Emmitt Smith to play for us. I think when you look at DB's deal in San Diego, you'll see that if they don't want to keep him for the life of it, they'll pay DB less than we're paying Emmitt (does anyone really think that Emmitt won't live out the length of his deal here?).

Frankly, the game the DB plays best works to the strengths of San Diego, as well. Drew Brees is a smart player with an accurate, but not strong, arm. He's not going to be throwing a lot of "Go" or "Out" routes this season, anyway. DB sounds like just the kind of player that could help Brees maximize his skills.

As for the attitude talked about in the article, I understand it. I mean, I'm definately an introvert, as apparently DB is, and I don't want to hang out with the people I work with. I'm sure that a lot of the people here don't want to hang out with the people that they work with. DB's a different kind of guy, but so is T.O., so is Randy Moss, so are all people. Just because Brian Griese was standoffish among his teammates didn't prevent a number of people on this board from wanting the Cards to sign him.

Regardless, for the potential production that DB represents, I'd love to see him on the field, if only for 60% of the offensive snaps, than Gilmore or Foster.

Flame away, but I think a lot of people here are hating on DB because we lost him, but in the final analysis, would rather have him starting on Sundays than Foster or Gilmore.

I don't disagree BUT KGB and Gilbert are following coaches orders and not mouthing off to the media about it (or if they do it is rare). DB is essentially telling the Chargers what he is going to do...and if you break it down, he is saying something similar to what Moss said...I play when I want to play. Did Emmitt say he only should play 60% of the snaps or did the coaches say this is what they anticipate?

That is a problem.

Specialization...no big deal to me if the coaches say it that way but for a player to say what DB the way hee said it steps over a line IMO.

 

[football karma]

Kerouac -- I would definatley like to have the 2001 David Boston, but I will pass on the 2002 version-- even pre injury.

My concern was that the bigger he got, the worse his hands got

Add to that factual concerns regarding off the field behavior-- and I end up very conflicted on David Boston

 

[cardzfan]

When a player demands special treatment it can only have a negative effect on team morale. Guys weighing 330 pounds play every down on the line. Dont they have "alot of tissue"? Boston is out of his mind. Boston does not want to be on the field every play because he does not want to get hurt. He got the big contract and now he wants to protect himself.

 

[Pariah]

I don't know that the Cards are better off without Boston. Maybe he would have screwed with the chemistry, maybe he would have caught 125 balls for 2000 yards.

But why isn't anyone calling for us to stop talking about DB? If you mention Plummer around here you get kicked in the junk. You mention Boston and you start a 3 page thread!

 

[Pariah]

Originally posted by cardzfan
He got the big contract and now he wants to protect himself.

Wouldn't the Bolts want to protect him too? Sounds like a win/win situation with this logic (that's not to say it's flawed logic).

 

[EndZone]

Originally posted by Pariah
I don't know that the Cards are better off without Boston. Maybe he would have screwed with the chemistry, maybe he would have caught 125 balls for 2000 yards.

But why isn't anyone calling for us to stop talking about DB? If you mention Plummer around here you get kicked in the junk. You mention Boston and you start a 3 page thread!

Because when you bring up Jake people are trying to compare him to what we have...still trying to say it was bad or good or whatever. We are mearly talking about a selfish player here. When Moss said things like this we talked about it then too.

 

[Dback Jon]

Originally posted by Pariah
I don't know that the Cards are better off without Boston. Maybe he would have screwed with the chemistry, maybe he would have caught 125 balls for 2000 yards.

But why isn't anyone calling for us to stop talking about DB? If you mention Plummer around here you get kicked in the junk. You mention Boston and you start a 3 page thread!

Boston is still brought up by the Graves bashers here, and the Cardinal bashers in the media.
To me, it would be nice for the media to recognize (not that they will ever admit it) that maybe the Cardinals DID do the right thing, the rational thing.

 

[AZCB34]

Originally posted by Pariah
But why isn't anyone calling for us to stop talking about DB? If you mention Plummer around here you get kicked in the junk. You mention Boston and you start a 3 page thread!

Because most people believe (or believed when he signed with SD) that he was going to be productive...even highly productive. It was kind of a given. I would say many are petrified that Jake will shine in Den so they just don't even want to discuss him. Me? I am anxiously waiting for Jake to start real games up there to see exactly what happens. I know he is gone but the intrigue factor is HUGE.

 

[Pariah]

Originally posted by AZCB34
Because most people believe (or believed when he signed with SD) that he was going to be productive...even highly productive. It was kind of a given. I would say many are petrified that Jake will shine in Den so they just don't even want to discuss him. Me? I am anxiously waiting for Jake to start real games up there to see exactly what happens. I know he is gone but the intrigue factor is HUGE.

Dead on.