Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24
  1. #11
    Bdubya is offline Star Spokesman
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,766

    Re: Brandon Stokley Released By Colts

    "ItalianStallion" wrote:
    He's O.K., but he was probably one of those receivers that was made to look better than he was with Peyton Manning.
    I thought he looked pretty good when Trent Dilfer was throwing him the ball.
    I don't know if he would fit well with us though.
    If we got him, he would probably be our number 1 receiver, which obviously, he isn't.
    He's a solid two though.
    MC's run away when I kick it
    They act so chicken, they should come with a large drink and a biscuit
    -Canibus

  2. #12
    Mr. Purple's Avatar
    Mr. Purple is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    4,005

    Re: Brandon Stokley Released By Colts

    Hes a decent WR when healthy, nothing close to a number 1 tho if you ask me.He'd have to come at a bargin deal for me to be intrested.

    Theres NOTHING greater then a Florida Gator!
    "I promise everyone this. When Childress is let go in two years I can honestly say this.
    "I am not surprised"."-PurplePackerEater

  3. #13
    vikingsfan717 is offline Rookie
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    78

    Re: Brandon Stokley Released By Colts

    He would def. be a good pick up for us.

  4. #14
    VikesfaninWis's Avatar
    VikesfaninWis is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    5,055

    Re: Brandon Stokley Released By Colts

    Hasn't he been injured quite a bit with Indy? Its sad, he is the #3 WR on that team, but he would be the #1 WR on this team.. Jeez, we need so much help with the WR crew.. I am sick of having all these career backup, and 3rd and 4th string WR's.. Go out and get us a legit #1, and #2 WR already.. This is getting old really fast..

  5. #15
    cajunvike's Avatar
    cajunvike is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    32,063

    Re: Brandon Stokley Released By Colts

    "Bdubya" wrote:
    "ItalianStallion" wrote:
    He's O.K., but he was probably one of those receivers that was made to look better than he was with Peyton Manning.
    I thought he looked pretty good when Trent Dilfer was throwing him the ball.
    I don't know if he would fit well with us though.
    If we got him, he would probably be our number 1 receiver, which obviously, he isn't.
    He's a solid two though.
    NOT TRUE, Italian!
    He has always been a speedy slot receiver....he scored the first TD in the Super Bowl that the Ravens won.
    The ONLY reason he got cut was that Indy has moved towards more of a two WR, two TE offense.
    BANNED OR DEAD...I'LL TAKE EITHER ONE

  6. #16
    ItalianStallion's Avatar
    ItalianStallion is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,615

    Re: Brandon Stokley Released By Colts

    "V-Unit" wrote:
    If he is healthy get him. We need all the WR help we can get.
    True, but our problems will be solved by quality rather than quantity.


    I m like a Ja Rule poster, cause I'm off the wall.

  7. #17
    cajunvike's Avatar
    cajunvike is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    32,063

    Re: Brandon Stokley Released By Colts

    I would like it if we signed him...if only for the fact that he's a Ragin' Cajun!!! ;D
    BANNED OR DEAD...I'LL TAKE EITHER ONE

  8. #18
    ItalianStallion's Avatar
    ItalianStallion is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,615

    Re: Brandon Stokley Released By Colts

    "cajunvike" wrote:
    "Bdubya" wrote:
    "ItalianStallion" wrote:
    He's O.K., but he was probably one of those receivers that was made to look better than he was with Peyton Manning.
    I thought he looked pretty good when Trent Dilfer was throwing him the ball.
    I don't know if he would fit well with us though.
    If we got him, he would probably be our number 1 receiver, which obviously, he isn't.
    He's a solid two though.
    NOT TRUE, Italian!
    He has always been a speedy slot receiver....he scored the first TD in the Super Bowl that the Ravens won.
    The ONLY reason he got cut was that Indy has moved towards more of a two WR, two TE offense.
    So he caught a TD in a game.
    He has had bright spots, and likely would be a decent addition (given that we have barely any receivers under contract).
    The question you have to ask yourself is why was he cut from the Ravens (who have had bad WRs practically the entire history of their franchise) and the Colts ( 2 years after catching 10 TDs and signing a big contract).

    I'm just leery of signing average receivers to overvalued contracts simply because we have nothing better.
    That is how we got in last seasons predicament to begin with.


    I m like a Ja Rule poster, cause I'm off the wall.

  9. #19
    Desertvikingfan's Avatar
    Desertvikingfan is offline Pro-Bowler
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    395

    Re: Brandon Stokley Released By Colts

    "VikesfaninWis" wrote:
    Hasn't he been injured quite a bit with Indy? Its sad, he is the #3 WR on that team, but he would be the #1 WR on this team.. Jeez, we need so much help with the WR crew.. I am sick of having all these career backup, and 3rd and 4th string WR's.. Go out and get us a legit #1, and #2 WR already.. This is getting old really fast..
    Agree with this!! I true #1 only makes the rest of receiver corps better. This guy probably benefitted greatly from Harrison, Wayne and Manning. We have enough ok receivers how about someone GOOD!

  10. #20
    cajunvike's Avatar
    cajunvike is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    32,063

    Re: Brandon Stokley Released By Colts

    "ItalianStallion" wrote:
    "cajunvike" wrote:
    "Bdubya" wrote:
    "ItalianStallion" wrote:
    He's O.K., but he was probably one of those receivers that was made to look better than he was with Peyton Manning.
    I thought he looked pretty good when Trent Dilfer was throwing him the ball.
    I don't know if he would fit well with us though.
    If we got him, he would probably be our number 1 receiver, which obviously, he isn't.
    He's a solid two though.
    NOT TRUE, Italian!
    He has always been a speedy slot receiver....he scored the first TD in the Super Bowl that the Ravens won.
    The ONLY reason he got cut was that Indy has moved towards more of a two WR, two TE offense.
    So he caught a TD in a game.
    He has had bright spots, and likely would be a decent addition (given that we have barely any receivers under contract).
    The question you have to ask yourself is why was he cut from the Ravens (who have had bad WRs practically the entire history of their franchise) and the Colts ( 2 years after catching 10 TDs and signing a big contract).

    I'm just leery of signing average receivers to overvalued contracts simply because we have nothing better.
    That is how we got in last seasons predicament to begin with.
    Cut from Ravens in a salary purge from what I remember...and by the Colts for the reason that I gave above (move to a 2WR, 2TE set).
    I think he still could be a good addition to our team as a third option...not as a starter...for the right price of course.
    BANNED OR DEAD...I'LL TAKE EITHER ONE

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Brandon Fusco, C
    By Marrdro in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 05-01-2011, 01:32 PM
  2. Brandon Lloyd and Eddie Kennison released
    By SharperImage in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 02-27-2008, 08:07 AM
  3. Stokley signs with Denver
    By cajunvike in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-21-2007, 12:37 AM
  4. Availability of Stokley
    By Phlegm in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-07-2007, 04:25 AM
  5. Brandon Lloyd
    By cc21 in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-19-2005, 08:34 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •