Is Stone salvageable?

[Russ Smith]

Originally posted by Northern Card
Curious... who says STONE has the "rolling hips" problem other than K-9?

I mean, by that... quoting someone who is a professional talent evaluator...

He does look a lot "stiffer" than other CB's. FWIW SI's post draft synopsis of him said he was " a little stiff".

CBSsportsline.com had him rated a 4th rounder before the draft and after the combine. He had a 41" vertical which impressed the scouts, but they said he lacked instincts in and struggled in coverage.

They sure nailed Adrian Wilson that year, should have stayed in school, looks better in workouts than he plays on the field, big hitter but not a good tackler, struggles in coverage.

 

[Tangodnzr]

Originally posted by kerouac9
The reason that Stone isn't salvageable as a starting DB (I personally think that he can play gunner on special teams) is because his hips are WAY too stiff for the NFL.

For all the good things about Mac, he was a horrible talent evaluator. He drafted Mike Stone too high, and has virtually no value now. He'll be the third safety on the depth chart at either position, and, because of the lack of "roll" in his hips (which you need to make "the turn" on WRs on deep routes/sharp cuts), he's almost totally useless as a cornerback.


Tango seems to think that seasons spent on IR don't count on their contracts. Wrong again, Tango. Stone is a RFA this season or in the final year of his deal (I think it's the last year. As a second-round pick, he should have the same 4-year deal that KVB got). The greatest value that Gilmore and Stone have to the Cards right now are as gunners on special teams. Including ST standout LB LeVar Woods, that's three primary special teamers on the roster. That might be one too many. Woods was the ST MVP and has a lot of promise as a backup OLB. Stone has a lot to prove this camp in his value to this franchise as a special teamer.

As a defensive back, Stone's NFL career is finished.

I'm not so sure I buy this explanation of "stiff hips". It seems to me this has become the "hip" buzz phrase some people use to sound like an expert, but I have my doubts as to how accurate and reliable this particular "observation " really is. I write most such comments of as "important speak" more than anything. Now is Stone "too stiff"? I don't really kow for sure, and I have a sneaking suspicion I'm not the only poster here "as such". As to Mac being "horrible" as a talent evaluator, I would disagree with that on at least 2 counts.
#1 - While I would suppose Mac certainly had a significant input on draft selections, he didn't make those decisions in a complete vacuum. I believe Stone was drafted before Graves "got promoted", but to simply diss Mac as the sole "horrible" draft picker, I think is an overly exaggerated simplification,.
#2- I simply don't agree on how "horrible" some of the picks under Mac's regime were. Personally I don't think Mac was as bad an evaluator as you claim. No one ever proves to be a 100% genius in drafting. "mispicks" are common to everyone.

Here's the Card's draft picks during Mac's tenure:
2001:
1 (2) - Leonard Davis
2 (34) - Kyle Vanden Bosch
2 (54) - Michael Stone
3 (64) - Adrian Wilson
4 (123) - Bill Grammatica
5 (133) - Marcus Bell
6 (166) - Mario Fatafehi
7 (202) - Reynaldo Hill
7 (246-Mr irrelevant)- Tevita Ofahengaue

This was a "horrible" draft???

2002:
1 (12) - Wendall Bryant
2 (49) - Levar Fisher
3 (81) - Josh McCown
3 (98) - Dennis Johnson
4 (113) - Nate Dwyer
5 (149) - Jason McAddley
6 (185) - Josh Scobey
7 (223) - Mike Banks

This, too, was "horrible"???

2003:
1 (17) - Bryant Johnson
1 (18) - Calvin Pace
2 (54) - Anquan Boldin
3-(70) - Gerald Hayes
5 (141) - Kenny King
6 (177) - Reggie Wells
6 (210) - Tony Gilbert

Again...this is "horrible"???

3 years. I'm not sure about Tony Gilbert, but he may be the only one not still in the NFL (plus Mr. Irrelevant, but I don't consider that particular choice a "bad" one)

If anything these look like 3 fairly decent drafts to me. If you're going to hammer Mac, then I think you could make a case for how some of the talent didn't get developed under his tutelege like it should have, but to say he was simply "horrible" is barking up the wrong tree, and maybe even in the wrong forrest, to me.

It also never ceases to amaze me how some of you are so prone to trot out your simplified, black & white, "absolutisms". . .
such as here:
"his hips are WAy too stiff for the NFL". (how has this been "proven"....and by whom?)
"he is almost totally useless as a cornerback". (thank you for your input mr K9. You have expressed YOUR opinion. That's all it is. It certainly isn't written in stone yet.)
the same goes for the comment:
"He'll be the third safety on the depth chart at either position"

"As a defensive back, Stone's NFL career is finished." ( and Swamie K9 evidently knows something no one else does, or has a crystal ball....or something. ) His career isn't "finished" until "if and when" he IS cut. Until then...its only "opinion"...nothing more.

About the only thing I might agree with in your comments is that he does seem to be a decent special teamer, and "Stone has a lot to prove this camp".

He does have a lot to prove. I've never denied that for a second.

As to the contract situation. I never claimed to "know for sure" on that. But I do know that he and Wilson essentially signed about the same contracts....both for 3 years, AND that when he was put on IR at the beginning of last season, there was some comment made, (and not just from a poster here) that it would not "use up" his 3rd year. Also, if it doesn't, then that would make him an RFA, just like Wilson, and he is not listed as such.
I didn't just make that up.
Does anyone actually know for sure exactly what the situation is there???

 

[SECTION 11]

I don't know. I think stiff hips in a cornerback is fairly easy to spot.

 

[kerouac9]

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. When you ask someone if they've read your posts, Tango, you can generally assume that the answer is "no", because you're posts are rambling. No one says less with more than you, except maybe LB Coach Mac himself.

Now, let's look at these drafts:

Originally posted by Tangodnzr
Here's the Card's draft picks during Mac's tenure:
2001:
1 (2) - Leonard Davis
2 (34) - Kyle Vanden Bosch
2 (54) - Michael Stone
3 (64) - Adrian Wilson
4 (123) - Bill Grammatica
5 (133) - Marcus Bell
6 (166) - Mario Fatafehi
7 (202) - Reynaldo Hill
7 (246-Mr irrelevant)- Tevita Ofahengaue

This was a "horrible" draft???

2002:
1 (12) - Wendall Bryant
2 (49) - Levar Fisher
3 (81) - Josh McCown
3 (98) - Dennis Johnson
4 (113) - Nate Dwyer
5 (149) - Jason McAddley
6 (185) - Josh Scobey
7 (223) - Mike Banks

This, too, was "horrible"???

2003:
1 (17) - Bryant Johnson
1 (18) - Calvin Pace
2 (54) - Anquan Boldin
3-(70) - Gerald Hayes
5 (141) - Kenny King
6 (177) - Reggie Wells
6 (210) - Tony Gilbert

2001:

Leonard Davis: #3 overall pick. No Pro Bowls, the Cards remain in the bottom of the league in rushing. Has been all right, but look at that draft and see if there aren't any players that we would have been better with (*cough*Ladandian Tomlinson*cough*Richard Seymour*cough*).
KVB: Please. I've addressed this enough. 3 years of tenure, only one complete season of play in which his impact was minimal.
Mike Stone: Still waiting for ANY value
Adrian Wilson: At least he's a starter and has been on the field for two full seasons. That being said, we're still waiting for him to come to fruition.
Grammatica: Will probably be off the team after this training camp (Rackers)
Bell: All right. Good value.
Fatafehi: Is okay as a Bronco. Was bad as a Cardinal.
Hill: Solid. Maybe the best pick of this draft.

2002:

Bryant: I'm a fan of the guy, but he hasn't shown that he can live up to his potential. Still would rather have Albert Haynesworth.
Fisher: Good, but not a standout. Mac kept him off the field on passing downs, even though he's a head-and-shoulders better pass defender than McKinnon.
McCown: Okay, always a developmental prospect.
Johnson: Hasn't been the sack-master that we thought he'd be. Another all right strongside DE. Didn't do anything his rookie year, didn't do much more this season.
Dwyer: Is he still on the team? Could've fooled me.
McAddley: Injured. Was all right at the end of last season, but couldn't get healthy this year.
Scobey: Returned one kick for a TD, did nothing the rest of the season. Decent value, but still 3 or 4 on the depth chart.
Banks: Outplayed for two years by Steve Bush. Does he even get on the field?

In 2003, it's really too early to tell. But looking on what we could have had (at #6, at #17 and #18) and what we got all three years, I'd say that Mac's drafting record is really, really bad. So, yes. His drafts have been horrible. One or two solid players over three years isn't going to help this team get better. Perhaps part of the reason that this team got progressively worse under Mac's direction had to do with the fact that he could neither recognize young talent nor teach up the talent that he did find.

 

[kerouac9]

Originally posted by SECTION 11
I don't know. I think stiff hips in a cornerback is fairly easy to spot.

I do, too. It's pretty easy to tell whether a corner looks "fluid" when he's turning on his man. Stone doesn't.

 

[Stout]

Hey, at least he's backed off his mantra that Stone has talent. I mean, he pulled that out of nowhere, and refused to substantiate it after he'd been called on it. Numerous times. Let's all just agree Tango has a stone fetish and move on, shall we? Stone is low-risk (don't think we'd really save much by cutting him now), so we bring him to camp. If Denny decides he's no good, he'll be gone. Period. If he can salvage him, he'll salvage him. My bet is that he's gone during camp.

 

[Tangodnzr]

Originally posted by kerouac9
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. When you ask someone if they've read your posts, Tango, you can generally assume that the answer is "no", because you're posts are rambling. No one says less with more than you, except maybe LB Coach Mac himself.

Now, let's look at these drafts:

You crack me up K9. First of all you comment on my "rambling" posts. (Do you have an attention disorder problem that limits your attention span and prevents you from actually comprehending any post over a few words in length?)

You also follow up your own "criticism" of my "rambling" with your own detailed retort to my draft list. I guess "rambling" is only bad if someone else does it huh???


...and secondly....like Stout....anyone that disagrees with you is termed "ignorant", "stupid" or some such other adjective...

....and as this thread so clearly demonstrates.....if someone also disagrees with you, any reply is a no-win situation...damned if you do, damned if you don't.

If short and contrite...then I get accused of dodging the issue. If I take the time to try to substantiate, in any detail, my comments...then it's deemed...rambing ..or too long..or something.

yes....Amazing, simply amazing.

 

[kerouac9]

Originally posted by Tangodnzr
...and secondly....like Stout....anyone that disagrees with you is termed "ignorant", "stupid" or some such other adjective...

....and as this thread so clearly demonstrates.....if someone also disagrees with you, any reply is a no-win situation...damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Actually, Tango, I haven't called you either "stupid" or "ignorant" on this thread, or any other in the recent past. I was going to accuse you of "idiocy" in my first post, but I deleted it, because it was uncalled for.

I've disagreed with many posters on this board, but you're by far the most likely to resort to name-calling, because your argument have the least merit. Insisting that something isn't so ("Stone does so have talent") doesn't make it true. Those of us who are critics of Stone's play have three years of non-factordom to the credit of our arguement. You have three-year-old ambivalent draft blurbs. Critiques are most effective when supported by evidence, fella. You have none.

So, if you have a football take that addresses Stone's utility to the franchise, I'd like to hear it. Otherwise, I think there are some non-football forums you can post on that wouldn't pollute the board.

CAUTION: FOOTBALL TAKE FOLLOWS. I agree with Stout that Mike Stone has no downside being taken in to camp. Like KVB, he's in the last year of his contract, and should be motivated to play at his best (the old contract year). Let's look closely at his play, but harbor him no loyalty. Keeping players around for old times' sake isn't going to get this team to the Super Bowl.

 

[Pariah]

Keeping players around for old times' sake isn't going to get this team to the Super Bowl.

Ha! "Old times' sake!"

That's a good one.

 

[LVCARDFREAK]

Originally posted by Stout
Hey, at least he's backed off his mantra that Stone has talent. I mean, he pulled that out of nowhere, and refused to substantiate it after he'd been called on it. Numerous times. Let's all just agree Tango has a stone fetish and move on, shall we? Stone is low-risk (don't think we'd really save much by cutting him now), so we bring him to camp. If Denny decides he's no good, he'll be gone. Period. If he can salvage him, he'll salvage him. My bet is that he's gone during camp.

Good post!

Lets all just move on. Frankly, keeping or cutting Stone wont be the reason this team fais or suceeds!

 

[jf-08]

The thing I always look to in a draft is how many "quality" starters result from each draft class.

2001 - average starters - 2; above average - 0

2002 - average starters - 2; above average - 0

2003 - average starters - 1; above average 1


There has only been 1 above average starter in the 3 years drafting, Boldin.

 

[LVCARDFREAK]

Originally posted by jkf296
The thing I always look to in a draft is how many "quality" starters result from each draft class.

2001 - average starters - 2; above average - 0

2002 - average starters - 2; above average - 0

2003 - average starters - 1; above average 1


There has only been 1 above average starter in the 3 years drafting, Boldin.

Who were the average starters? Johnson and Pace? I dont think you can say either of them werent average. Both seemed on par for a rookie considering they both probably started too early.

 

[Tangodnzr]

Actually K9, you are right, you are not as inclined to label others ignorant, stupid, silly, an idiot, etc. nearly as much as Stout.

You do often resort to hyperbole and what I feel is a very "bias limited" viewpoint on many of your posts (not all, but many).

Your last post is a great example of both:

First of all, - " Those of us who are critics of Stone's play have three years of non-factordom to the credit of our arguement. You have three-year-old ambivalent draft blurbs. Critiques are most effective when supported by evidence, fella. You have none."

The old double-standard ploy once again. You quote 3 years of my use of "draft blurbs", etc versus "your" 3 years of "non factordom". 3 years of What????? And I think you hyperbolize the 3 years and your math is a little questionable. Last year WAS his 3rd in the league, but he was put on IR to begin the season....so the only 3rd year there, would have been training camp. So the reality is 2 years plus an off-season.

Ever since you migrated over here from the Rep board, if anything I would suggest your "signature" is to many times post "takes" regarding the Cards with a bent towards always choosing the most negative option available in any situation. You, so often, seem to use the scenario that is most critical of the Cards, and seldom if ever, consider any positive alternative ones. It like the old song 'Accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative'...you do just the opposite
Reading though your specific comments on the draft are a perfect example of that.
I can see it now...K9's "Cardinal" evaluation of Dan Marino.....
"The guy is way to slow. He's just too slow and immobile to be a successful NFL QB."

Also....you refer to how for 3 years, I only post superfluous things like "draft blubs" etc. while "you" have that great and tangible...."non-factordom" (translated= opinion..little else)

Go figure.

 

[jf-08]

Originally posted by LVCARDFREAK
Who were the average starters? Johnson and Pace? I dont think you can say either of them werent average. Both seemed on par for a rookie considering they both probably started too early.

I had to stretch at both of them - so I gave each a .5 to come up with 1.



I put Johnson as Average, but you are right - he had too raw of a season for an adequate #2.

 

[Tangodnzr]

Originally posted by LVCARDFREAK
Good post!

Lets all just move on. Frankly, keeping or cutting Stone wont be the reason this team fais or suceeds!

Ummmm....it's offseason. Why can't this topic be discussed here by any that so desire?

No offense, but if it doesn't interest you, then stay away from this thread. You have the freedom of choice.

Is that the new rule?...if LV doesn't like the subject, then it should be eliminated???

 

[kerouac9]

Tango, are you insane? Seriously. If you are, are you're posing from a loony bin, I'll leave you alone. In good faith:

The old double-standard ploy once again. You quote 3 years of my use of "draft blurbs", etc versus "your" 3 years of "non factordom". 3 years of What????? And I think you hyperbolize the 3 years and your math is a little questionable. Last year WAS his 3rd in the league, but he was put on IR to begin the season....so the only 3rd year there, would have been training camp. So the reality is 2 years plus an off-season.

Has Stone accrued 3 years of NFL tenure? Yes. Just because a player was on IR doesn't discount the fact that he was in the NFL, getting paid his salary, counting against the cap, for that season. By your accounting, KVB has been in the league for less than 2 years. That makes no sense.

CAUTION: FOOTBALL TAKE FOLLOWS: In those three seasons that Stone has accrued, he's started 11 games (out of a possible 48), notched 11 tackles and assisted on another three. No picks, no sacks, no forced fumbles, no passes defense. (Stone's "Career" by NFL.com) I don't know what you're definition of being a "non-factor" is, but this conforms pretty closely to the one in my textbook. All this while collecting on his contract as a second-round pick. Frankly, it's hard to express or determine how truly bad Michael Stone might be, since he's never on the field to display his lack of efficiacy.

Ever since you migrated over here from the Rep board, if anything I would suggest your "signature" is to many times post "takes" regarding the Cards with a bent towards always choosing the most negative option available in any situation. You, so often, seem to use the scenario that is most critical of the Cards, and seldom if ever, consider any positive alternative ones. It like the old song 'Accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative'...you do just the opposite
Reading though your specific comments on the draft are a perfect example of that.
I can see it now...K9's "Cardinal" evaluation of Dan Marino.....
"The guy is way to slow. He's just too slow and immobile to be a successful NFL QB."

I'm really not sure what you're talking about here. To be honest with you, I'm happier about the Cards' prospects now than I have been in a long, long time. You might think that Nate Dwyer, Mario Fatafehi, Martin Grammatica, and Mike Banks are future contributors to the Cards' success for the next few years. Perhaps you belive that the Cards got good value in drafting KVB and Leonard Davis, as well as Wendell Bryant, and are certain in your belief that they'll develop into Pro Bowl talents. I haven't seen that yet, on either count. If that's being unacceptable negative, I'm sorry. I just want what's best for the Cards, and that plan doesn't include saving roster spots for non-contributors.

EDIT: To me, players don't just have value because they wear a red bird on their helmets. They have to prove themselves every single week. To be totally honest, there are very few players on this roster who have proven their value to this franchise, and those that are being given large paychecks aren't earning them. That needs to change if this team is going to have success.

 

[LVCARDFREAK]

Originally posted by Tangodnzr
Ummmm....it's offseason. Why can't this topic be discussed here by any that so desire?

No offense, but if it doesn't interest you, then stay away from this thread. You have the freedom of choice.

Is that the new rule?...if LV doesn't like the subject, then it should be eliminated???

Yes that is the rule.

You dont like it, dont let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

From now on , I decide what you are too talk about . I am your GOD, and you must answer to me for any and all your glowing posts of players that have proven nothing yet you seem to latch on to for no particular reason then you like the way their names roll off your tongue!


Oh can you please wait a few minutes before you send another F-Bomb laced PM. I have to do something before checking it

 

[LVCARDFREAK]

Originally posted by jkf296
I had to stretch at both of them - so I gave each a .5 to come up with 1.



I put Johnson as Average, but you are right - he had too raw of a season for an adequate #2.

He was raw, and I agree he did drop some balls, but overall, a rookie WR catching 37 passes (i believe) is about par for the course. I actually agree that Johnson played avergage, I was just curious if you didnt feel Pace played average as well?

 

[Tangodnzr]

I'm really not sure what you're talking about here. To be honest with you

There's actually a name for that....it's called denial.

Your last paragraph once again demonstrates it, to a certain degree.

 

[vikesfan]

QUOTE>>>>As to Mac being "horrible" as a talent evaluator, I would disagree with that on at least 2 counts.
#1 - While I would suppose Mac certainly had a significant input on draft selections, he didn't make those decisions in a complete vacuum. I believe Stone was drafted before Graves "got promoted", but to simply diss Mac as the sole "horrible" draft picker, I think is an overly exaggerated simplification,.
#2- I simply don't agree on how "horrible" some of the picks under Mac's regime were. Personally I don't think Mac was as bad an evaluator as you claim. No one ever proves to be a 100% genius in drafting. "mispicks" are common to everyone.

Here's the Card's draft picks during Mac's tenure:
2001:
1 (2) - Leonard Davis

DRAFTED AS A T CAN'T PLAY T.
NOT EVEN A PROBOWL G.

2 (34) - Kyle Vanden Bosch
HORRIBLE.

2 (54) - Michael Stone
HORRIBLE.

3 (64) - Adrian Wilson
DECENT PICK. HOW DECENT?

4 (123) - Bill Grammatica
DON'T DRAFT A K. DUMB.

5 (133) - Marcus Bell
6 (166) - Mario Fatafehi
7 (202) - Reynaldo Hill
7 (246-Mr irrelevant)- Tevita Ofahengaue

NOTHING SPECIAL. SOME PEOPLE LIKE BELL. HILL WAS A GOOD PICK AT 7.

This was a "horrible" draft???
YES.

2002:

1 (12) - Wendall Bryant
HAS NOT PRODUCED A LICK.

2 (49) - Levar Fisher
DECENT PICK IF HE CAN START.
IF NOT BAD PICK.

3 (81) - Josh McCown
GOOD PICK AT THAT POINT.

3 (98) - Dennis Johnson
HAS NOT PRODUCED A LICK.

4 (113) - Nate Dwyer
5 (149) - Jason McAddley
6 (185) - Josh Scobey
7 (223) - Mike Banks
NOTHING SPECIAL.

This, too, was "horrible"???
YES

2003:

1 (17) - Bryant Johnson
1 (18) - Calvin Pace
HORRIBLE. Especially giving up Suggs Gross Lefwich.

2 (54) - Anquan Boldin
GREAT ASTUTE MOVE.

3-(70) - Gerald Hayes
DECENT PICK.

5 (141) - Kenny King
6 (177) - Reggie Wells
6 (210) - Tony Gilbert
NOTHING SPECIAL.


Again...this is "horrible"???
YES.

This is hardly stellar drafting. If he had had great drafts the last 3 years the team would not be the worst team in the NFL. Lack of solid starters throughout.




3 years. I'm not sure about Tony Gilbert, but he may be the only one not still in the NFL (plus Mr. Irrelevant, but I don't consider that particular choice a "bad" one)

If anything these look like 3 fairly decent drafts to me. If you're going to hammer Mac, then I think you could make a case for how some of the talent didn't get developed under his tutelege like it should have, but to say he was simply "horrible" is barking up the wrong tree, and maybe even in the wrong forrest, to me.

It also never ceases to amaze me how some of you are so prone to trot out your simplified, black & white, "absolutisms". . .
such as here:
"his hips are WAy too stiff for the NFL". (how has this been "proven"....and by whom?)
"he is almost totally useless as a cornerback". (thank you for your input mr K9. You have expressed YOUR opinion. That's all it is. It certainly isn't written in stone yet.)
the same goes for the comment:
"He'll be the third safety on the depth chart at either position"

"As a defensive back, Stone's NFL career is finished." ( and Swamie K9 evidently knows something no one else does, or has a crystal ball....or something. ) His career isn't "finished" until "if and when" he IS cut. Until then...its only "opinion"...nothing more.

About the only thing I might agree with in your comments is that he does seem to be a decent special teamer, and "Stone has a lot to prove this camp".

He does have a lot to prove. I've never denied that for a second.

As to the contract situation. I never claimed to "know for sure" on that. But I do know that he and Wilson essentially signed about the same contracts....both for 3 years, AND that when he was put on IR at the beginning of last season, there was some comment made, (and not just from a poster here) that it would not "use up" his 3rd year. Also, if it doesn't, then that would make him an RFA, just like Wilson, and he is not listed as such.
I didn't just make that up.
Does anyone actually know for sure exactly what the situation is there?

 

[kerouac9]

Originally posted by Tangodnzr
There's actually a name for that....it's called denial.

Your last paragraph once again demonstrates it, to a certain degree.

You'll seldom be disappointed casting a critical eye to the Cards' decision-making on personnel moves. History supports the idea that the Cards have made poor decisions on draft day. If you look at the evidence currently available, you'll see that (CAUTION: FOOTBALL TAKE FOLLOWS) the recent draft picks of the Cards have underperformed to their draft status. If you look at KVB in comparison to a 4th round defensive end, then he looks like an all right pick. But he wasn't a 4th rounder. He was a high, high 2nd rounder. Same with Mike Stone, only his contributions might only be acceptable from a 6th or 7th round pick.

If you're the Cards trying to save face, accentuating the positive and eliminating the negative makes a lot of sense. If you're looking at what's best for the team, from a fan or insider's perspective, it's more profitable to look at the negative first, and then see if the positives outweighs the negative.

One example of this would be Hill. The negative: too slow. The postives, playmaking ability, instinct for the ball, and the ability to blitz off the corner, outweigh that negative. I find very little to outweigh the lack of production from KVB and Michael Stone, as well as the other players that I mention, that justified the Cards' continuing association with those players should a more effective substition become available.

 

[cardsunsfan]

Vikesfan, how many games have you seen us play? I don't think you know our personnel that well....I wouldn't say Wilson was that decent of a pick, at least not yet. I think overall he was probably a detriment to our team last year. I think Leonard Davis might end up a great pick if he gets his S$%T together. At times he has played great for us and blown up the whole line, especially when he gets pissed. Levar Fisher has been very good for us and has started so I don't get if he starts stuff...and Dennis Johnson has produced a lick and is probably our best speed rusher...Kenny King looks like he could be quite good too and was one of our best linemen last year yet you put him as nothing special, for where we picked him I think he is special. How many games have you seen again?

 

[SECTION 11]

For some reason when I see Tango defend Michael Stone, I think of George McFly...
"Hey you, get your damn hands off of her."

 

[MaoTosiFanClub]

Originally posted by SECTION 11
For some reason when I see Tango defend Michael Stone, I think of George McFly...
"Hey you, get your damn hands off of her."

"What are you looking at butthead?"

 

[SECTION 11]

Kerouac9 looks on in disbelief as Tango espouses some of the many, many positive attributes to Michael Stone's game....

You must be registered for see images