Commanders Post at The Warpath - View Single Post

SkinsRock · 08-19-2005, 02:06 PM

Rock lost the weight because Gibbs doesn't use small (short) fullbacks (Joe does use players that are technically FB's, but as H-backs), so his best chance was at RB. Keep in mind a couple other things:
Rock is 210-215, but at 5'7" that is still very solid for his height.....he can go "under the pile" as opposed to stretching over it.
Nemo looks good (after ONE game), and has the size, but he is a rookie. Also, he was only a 7th round pick...I could see him on the practice squad this year and maybe getting called up if/when there are injuries.

Of course the best scenario would be to keep both, but I voted for Rock due to his experience and dependability.

08-19-2005, 02:06 PM	#39
SkinsRock Impact Rookie Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Crofton, MD Age: 56 Posts: 907	Re: Rock or Nemo? Rock lost the weight because Gibbs doesn't use small (short) fullbacks (Joe does use players that are technically FB's, but as H-backs), so his best chance was at RB. Keep in mind a couple other things: Rock is 210-215, but at 5'7" that is still very solid for his height.....he can go "under the pile" as opposed to stretching over it. Nemo looks good (after ONE game), and has the size, but he is a rookie. Also, he was only a 7th round pick...I could see him on the practice squad this year and maybe getting called up if/when there are injuries. Of course the best scenario would be to keep both, but I voted for Rock due to his experience and dependability.