Re: Should we have kept Antonio Pierce?
 

Pierce chose to leave for something like $300K more. So we did all we could and he just bailed on us. So eff him.

But yeah, it would be better if we had Marshall on the outside, and someone else manning the middle.

I also agree we could use Lavar as a rush end, but I dont want to get flamed for mentioning him. So I wont.

Re: Should we have kept Antonio Pierce?
 

smoot should have never left, he is on a crappy team now and is in trouble. Smoot never had trouble here.

their AMAZING OUT OF THE PARK GRANDSLAM OFFENSE scored 3 points today...... looks like the vikings can only score when they are on the boat

Re: Should we have kept Antonio Pierce?
 

[QUOTE=BigSKINBauer]smoot should have never left, he is on a crappy team now and is in trouble. Smoot never had trouble here.

their AMAZING OUT OF THE PARK GRANDSLAM OFFENSE scored 3 points today...... looks like the vikings can only score when they are on the boat[/QUOTE]


hahaha:laughing-

Re: Should we have kept Antonio Pierce?
 

[quote]We may miss Smoot but only because of injuries.

When Harris and Springs are 100%, it's Fred Who??[/quote]

Let's get real here Matty. You and I both know you need more than two starting corners (who by the way have a somewhat long history of not exactly being a reliable for game day.) We should also note that injuries are a part of football, and a big part at that. Teams that don't prepare for them are often sunk extremely quickly.

The difference between Smoot and Pierce was Smoot wanted to stay, and while the numbers on the contracts were similar, the structure of the contracts were immensely different.

Re: Should we have kept Antonio Pierce?
 

[QUOTE=Daseal]Let's get real here Matty. You and I both know you need more than two starting corners (who by the way have a somewhat long history of not exactly being a reliable for game day.) We should also note that injuries are a part of football, and a big part at that. Teams that don't prepare for them are often sunk extremely quickly.

The difference between Smoot and Pierce was Smoot wanted to stay, and while the numbers on the contracts were similar, the structure of the contracts were immensely different.[/QUOTE]

We've got Harris, Springs and Rogers... not a bad top 3 in my opinion.

Smoot wasn't the best fit in what Williams likes to do, he's just not physical enough. If the Skins really wanted to keep him and/or Pierce they easily could have.

Re: Should we have kept Antonio Pierce?
 

I disagree that Smooty wasn't physical enough. I think that PRIOR to Williams arrival, Smoot played a little soft. I think that the entire defense gained some swagger throughout last season and Smoot ended up being a great tackler and made some nice hits.

Re: Should we have kept Antonio Pierce?
 

I do agree though. I like the Springs, Harris and Rogers defensive back field just fine.

Springs is arguably the most vital cog in that whole defense, with Lemar Marshall being a close second.

Re: Should we have kept Antonio Pierce?
 

If you minus the three big plays from the past two weeks we are shuting O's down. KC is a high powered O but they only scored 14 points and I would take that any day. We held the Bronco's to under 100 yards passing and they had two big plays. I feel some guys have been out of position on a few plays but teams had big plays on us last year.It's all about the turn overs and the lack of turn overs.

Re: Should we have kept Antonio Pierce?
 

marshall is doing ok but not as good as peirce, holdman is average, and he's missing on some stuff . lavar would help, but williams is calling the shot's. but i believe what we are seeing is a multi layer problem.the linebackers are functioning but are not dominating, the secondary is not up to snuff, rogers is doing well, harris is doing well but jmoh aka toast isn't and number 41 is not doing well. except for taylor we have very little support to the line. if it gets past the line we seem to be having a problem.where was stoudamire yesterday?depth at is issue. there is a weakness on the edge of the d.

Re: Should we have kept Antonio Pierce?
 

Don't forget here people....the D held the tandem of Johnson and Holmes to less than 90 yards rushing yesterday. In fact, I belive Holmes had less than 40 yds rushing the entire game. The D is still very suspect on the bootleg and screen type action, something they need to fix quick!

Re: Should we have kept Antonio Pierce?
 

i think holmes had less than 25

Re: Should we have kept Antonio Pierce?
 

18 yards on 14 rushes i believe

Re: Should we have kept Antonio Pierce?
 

definitely missing pierce and his sure tackling

Re: Should we have kept Antonio Pierce?
 

I think losing smoot is big no matter what people say. He is on a shit team now, but he was great in Williams scheme. There is no doubt in my mind we would be better with him.

As for Pierce leaving I honestly believe Marshall may exceed everyone's potential and be as good if not better then him by seasons end.

I think also that Lavar has exceptional physical skills for the NFL so we should find some way to work him into the games. I cannot except Warick holdman is better. You don't go to Pro Bowls, terrify opposing players while having 4 different D coordinators and not be able to play within a scheme. GW needs to inspire LA to greatness not cross his hands and say he isn't ready. It's unacceptable.

Re: Should we have kept Antonio Pierce?
 

[QUOTE=STPainmaker] You don't go to Pro Bowls, terrify opposing players while having 4 different D coordinators and not be able to play within a scheme. GW needs to inspire LA to greatness not cross his hands and say he isn't ready. It's unacceptable.[/QUOTE]

Man, good post. I totally agree. I think if it is indeed LaVar not being able to fit into GW system, is he inspiring LaVar to greatness? I just don't hear the same level of confidence from Williams when talking about LaVar like you do when you mention Sean Taylor. His face lights up when you mention number 21.