Does ?Rock's new deal mean no Nemo?
 

I was disappointed with all the hype about Nemo last year that he never played. Now, Rock has re-signed. We again have Rock, Betts, and Portis. So is Nemo gonna play or get cut?

Re: Does ?Rock's new deal mean no Nemo?
 

i think we hang onto all of them. rock was a good specail teams guy.

Re: Does ?Rock's new deal mean no Nemo?
 

Yeah, but don't we usually just have 3 active roster spots for RBs? I like Rock, Im glad we resigned him, but my guess is Nemo is gone without ever playing.

Re: Does ?Rock's new deal mean no Nemo?
 

If we don't keep em all on the active roster, maybe one makes the practice squad.

Re: Does ?Rock's new deal mean no Nemo?
 

At what point can you no longer bury a guy on the practice squad??

Re: Does ?Rock's new deal mean no Nemo?
 

Can you put a guy on the practice squad 2 years in a row? Nemo was on the practice squad last year wasn't he?

Re: Does ?Rock's new deal mean no Nemo?
 

Two years on PS is fine, I think o going into the third year is a no-no.

Re: Does ?Rock's new deal mean no Nemo?
 

Nemo will probably end up on the practice squad.

Re: Does ?Rock's new deal mean no Nemo?
 

I like what Rock brings to the table. He is great on special teams and when he is called on to run the ball has done pretty good. I tried to look up his stats as a RB but they do not have any posted for him at NFLplayer.com. It just seems from what I can remember that when he is call on and gets more than a few carries he has some decent numbers.
I found his stats carrier average 4.5 and last year 7.5 maybe we need to get him more involved in our game planing. Betts carrier average is 4.0 and last year averaged 3.8.

Re: Does ?Rock's new deal mean no Nemo?
 

Would it be fair to say that if Nemo is relegated to the practice squad again this upcoming season, and is unable to jump past Rock that he's another mid round draft pick gone awry?

Re: Does ?Rock's new deal mean no Nemo?
 

[QUOTE=Beemnseven]Would it be fair to say that if Nemo is relegated to the practice squad again this upcoming season, and is unable to jump past Rock that he's another mid round draft pick gone awry?[/QUOTE]

not really. Green Bay had 6 different starting RBs last year. He's cheap insurance if nothing else and may be able to play FB is sellers gets hurt. that's not an amazing value for a 7th round pick, but it wouldn't be as bad as the guys that don't even make the team.

of course, he could still prove to be good enough to keep around as well. If we don't keep him after this year, i'm sure he'll be able to stay in the league as a #2/#3 for a while.

Re: Does ?Rock's new deal mean no Nemo?
 

Nemo is more of a Clydesdale. Portis/Betts are more Thourobreds (sic).

I really expected to see Nemo active more for short yardage situations.

Re: Does ?Rock's new deal mean no Nemo?
 

[QUOTE=Beemnseven]Would it be fair to say that if Nemo is relegated to the practice squad again this upcoming season, and is unable to jump past Rock that he's another mid round draft pick gone awry?[/QUOTE]

Wasn't he a 7th rounder? White might have been the mid-round waste of a pick.

Re: Does ?Rock's new deal mean no Nemo?
 

with lumsford in the mix, I imagine it will have to be worked out in training camp. Rock is a gamer.

Re: Does ?Rock's new deal mean no Nemo?
 

white was a 4th rounder (and a decent RB) asked to play h-back. if not for the injury he probably would have been cut. Gibbs seems to stash people on IR every year though. Simon, 2 years ago and white last year among others.

Re: Does ?Rock's new deal mean no Nemo?
 

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but if Nemo goes to the practice squad, he can be picked up by another team. Guys on the practice squad are not protected. They can be signed and leave.

Re: Does ?Rock's new deal mean no Nemo?
 

[QUOTE=scowan]Someone correct me if I am wrong, but if Nemo goes to the practice squad, he can be picked up by another team. Guys on the practice squad are not protected. They can be signed and leave.[/QUOTE]

I believe we have the right to match any outside offers.

Re: Does ?Rock's new deal mean no Nemo?
 

Remember Betts is a free agent next year and Rock could be used as insurance if we end up having to let him go.

Re: Does ?Rock's new deal mean no Nemo?
 

[QUOTE=paulskinsfan]Yeah, but don't we usually just have 3 active roster spots for RBs? I like Rock, Im glad we resigned him, but my guess is Nemo is gone without ever playing.[/QUOTE]

Not with Gibbs. He doesn't have fullbacks so you can keep an extra RB on the roster. (especially if they star on teams)

They like Rock because he's apparently a monster in practice. Gibbs says that he (Cartwright) often admonishes his teammates to work harder during drills, etc. Thrash is in the same category. I would be surprised if Thrash were cut, as some here have suggested.

Re: Does ?Rock's new deal mean no Nemo?
 

thrash is just expensive for his production, but wynn is too, and there's no way gibbs is ditching him.

Re: Does ?Rock's new deal mean no Nemo?
 

Nemo may have to play some teams. I bet he can crush people.

Re: Does ?Rock's new deal mean no Nemo?
 

Nemo had some fumbling problems in short yardage "sitcheations" last preseason. However, Rock had a rough preseason too before turning in a solid regular season. He averaged 7.4 per carry and even managed that 108 yard game against St. Louis. Extremely impressive for a third stringer. I like the idea of keeping Nemo on the practice squad this year in case we don't retain Betts at the end of the season.

Re: Does ?Rock's new deal mean no Nemo?
 

just to not read too much into that stat, rocks huge YPC average came on a couple HUGE gains.

Re: Does ?Rock's new deal mean no Nemo?
 

BTW, Gibbs' teams have fielded more than three RBs before. During the super bowl run of 1991-92, he had Earnest Byner as a starter with Ricky Ervins and Gerald Riggs in relief. Brian Mitchell was used as a KR/PR and by late season, Riggs was exclusively used as a short yardage back. All four played extremely significant roles for the team. Byner led the team with 1048 yards rushing and made the Pro Bowl. Ervins was a home run threat and led the team in rushing during the postseason. Riggs had a team leading 11 tds in the regular season and an additional 6 in the postseason. Mitchell returned two punts for TDs and had another called back due to a penalty. (A bunch of useless trivia for all you stat freaks).

Re: Does ?Rock's new deal mean no Nemo?
 

[QUOTE=PWNED]just to not read too much into that stat, rocks huge YPC average came on a couple HUGE gains.[/QUOTE]

Good point. One of those runs covered 52 yards.

Re: Does ?Rock's new deal mean no Nemo?
 

[QUOTE=jermus22]Good point. One of those runs covered 52 yards.[/QUOTE]

PWNED might be the smartest under-15 year old this board has seen. Guess that home schooling pays off

Re: Does ?Rock's new deal mean no Nemo?
 

im hoping one day to major in NFL. i dont know if thats a major, but if its not, ill make it one.

Re: Does ?Rock's new deal mean no Nemo?
 

[QUOTE=TAFKAS]PWNED might be the smartest under-15 year old this board has seen. Guess that home schooling pays off[/QUOTE]

Hey, you aren't knocking on homeschoolers, are you?
:joke:
I was actually homeschooled (my family was military so we moved a lot).

Re: Does ?Rock's new deal mean no Nemo?
 

THANK YOU jermus... see tafkas i know whassssssssssssaaaaaaaaa!!!!

Re: Does ?Rock's new deal mean no Nemo?
 

Give rock alot of credit for making those long runs.

Re: Does ?Rock's new deal mean no Nemo?
 

i give him credit and i like rock a lot on special teams, but we also must not lose sight that the rams run defense sucks balls.

i know it seems like im diminishing his accomplishment, but i just want to keep us grounded

glad we resigned him though1

Re: Does ?Rock's new deal mean no Nemo?
 

[QUOTE=PWNED]i give him credit and i like rock a lot on special teams, but we also must not lose sight that the rams run defense sucks balls.

i know it seems like im diminishing his accomplishment, but i just want to keep us grounded

glad we resigned him though1[/QUOTE]
I too am glad we re-signed Rock. I remember when he was a 7th round pick from Kansas State years ago and he has worked his butt off every year to make the roster. There is no good reason why he and Nemo should not BOTH be on the roster. Rock for Teams and hopefully Nemo can morph into a solid short-yardage back. At least Nemo needs to step up on teams but we know Rock is awesome there. Rock won't have a lot of 100 yard games, but he's a real Redskin and that's why he was still here. Love the Rock, pound the rock.
Anyone notice that LaVar was not on Lennie's list of top 50 UFAs? He may not get any good offers....

Re: Does ?Rock's new deal mean no Nemo?
 

[QUOTE=SanFranSkinsFan]I too am glad we re-signed Rock. I remember when he was a 7th round pick from Kansas State years ago and he has worked his butt off every year to make the roster. There is no good reason why he and Nemo should not BOTH be on the roster. Rock for Teams and hopefully Nemo can morph into a solid short-yardage back. At least Nemo needs to step up on teams but we know Rock is awesome there. Rock won't have a lot of 100 yard games, but he's a real Redskin and that's why he was still here. Love the Rock, pound the rock.
Anyone notice that LaVar was not on Lennie's list of top 50 UFAs? He may not get any good offers....[/QUOTE]

I think it has something to do with his release status. Lavar has to be top 10 if not top 5.

Re: Does ?Rock's new deal mean no Nemo?
 

[QUOTE=PWNED]just to not read too much into that stat, rocks huge YPC average came on a couple HUGE gains.[/QUOTE]

More importantly he cost them the K.C. game.

Re: Does ?Rock's new deal mean no Nemo?
 

[QUOTE=Grim21Reaper]I think it has something to do with his release status. Lavar has to be top 10 if not top 5.[/QUOTE]

unless someone thinks lavar's knee is blown for good...

Re: Does ?Rock's new deal mean no Nemo?
 

Rock was originally a fullback and al saunders uses that position in his schemes so maybe they had a place for him