Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31
  1. #11
    Ranger's Avatar
    Ranger is offline Coach
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,080
    I've rarely seem more wildly diverging opinions about a player. One week everybody on this site is ranting and raving about what a useless back he is, what a waste of a draft pick, and the next it's high praise.

  2. #12
    skum's Avatar
    skum is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Copenhagen, Denmark
    Posts
    2,884
    Blog Entries
    7
    The thinking, at least for my part who has been critical was that if we only give him a few amount of carries, that didnt warrant trading up in the 2nd to get him.

    We need to get him involved more next season for sure..


    ----
    PUT IN JACKSON!

  3. #13
    kevoncox's Avatar
    kevoncox is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,916
    The fact is, he was a terrible, terrible pick for what he cost. He is a back that requires tons of carries...which he won't get here. He isn't a slaslasher, which is what we needed and He cost us a 3rd and 2nd when backs like Ben Tate ( who Houston selected and pocketed the draft pick for) were available. Dwyer, Tate and Blount are better backs in my opinion.

  4. #14
    i_bleed_purple's Avatar
    i_bleed_purple is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Canadialand
    Posts
    16,778
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by kevoncox View Post
    The fact is, he was a terrible, terrible pick for what he cost. He is a back that requires tons of carries...which he won't get here. He isn't a slaslasher, which is what we needed and He cost us a 3rd and 2nd when backs like Ben Tate ( who Houston selected and pocketed the draft pick for) were available. Dwyer, Tate and Blount are better backs in my opinion.
    This 100%.

    you DO NOT pick runningbacks early unless they are an incredible player (Peterson).

    Gerhart is easily replacable, NO need whatsoever to burn a second on him, nevermind trading up, wasting two top-3 round picks on him. We could have had Best, who although is a bigger risk/reward type player, would have been better value than Gerhart.

    It's not that I don't like how he plays, but he was a terrible value for what we spent. In the end, Gerhart was a "safe" pick, in that it's hard for him to bust being a power back. Nobody expects anything special from him, and that's exactly what he provides. Nothing special.

  5. #15
    ConnecticutViking's Avatar
    ConnecticutViking is offline Pro-Bowler
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Milford, CT
    Posts
    383
    Quote Originally Posted by i_bleed_purple View Post
    This 100%.

    you DO NOT pick runningbacks early unless they are an incredible player (Peterson).

    Gerhart is easily replacable, NO need whatsoever to burn a second on him, nevermind trading up, wasting two top-3 round picks on him. We could have had Best, who although is a bigger risk/reward type player, would have been better value than Gerhart.

    It's not that I don't like how he plays, but he was a terrible value for what we spent. In the end, Gerhart was a "safe" pick, in that it's hard for him to bust being a power back. Nobody expects anything special from him, and that's exactly what he provides. Nothing special.
    Agreed...You don't pick this guy #2. You also don't grab Ponder with the #12 overall pick and Rudolph in the second round. Look at our needs! Yes, I like Toby, Christian, and Kyle but the fact that this team suffers in so many areas just kills me. You go after a TE when you have Shank, you go after a RB, when you have AD?

  6. #16
    MaxVike's Avatar
    MaxVike is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    2,563
    Quote Originally Posted by ConnecticutViking View Post
    Agreed...You don't pick this guy #2. You also don't grab Ponder with the #12 overall pick and Rudolph in the second round. Look at our needs! Yes, I like Toby, Christian, and Kyle but the fact that this team suffers in so many areas just kills me. You go after a TE when you have Shank, you go after a RB, when you have AD?
    I like Gerhart too, but as a #2, I agree...too valuable a pick for him, especially at that time.

    Ponder at #12...debateable. Limited options, needed a QB to build on, they liked him. Too early to give up, most objective analysts (Billick, Gruden, Kirwan, Mayock, Gannon, Moose, etc.) think he will improve and be a good one...so do I. Rudolph at #2, also debatable...even with Shiancoe. Tight Ends that can catch the ball create major mismatches, and opportunities for WRs; plus, they are a bigger target for QBs. 2011 was the best year in the history of the NFL for Tight Ends and I don't see the trend going away...I like the pick. Shiancoe will be gone next year, I think, and Rudolph will make his mark.

    Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent
    ----------------------------------------------
    As a matter of fact, I do know

  7. #17
    Zeus's Avatar
    Zeus is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Minnesota.
    Posts
    23,937
    Quote Originally Posted by i_bleed_purple View Post
    Gerhart is easily replacable, NO need whatsoever to burn a second on him, nevermind trading up, wasting two top-3 round picks on him. We could have had Best, who although is a bigger risk/reward type player, would have been better value than Gerhart.
    While I do believe that RBs can be found with value later on, I like the way Gerhart runs - and blocks - and that him being "easily replaceable" was shown to be a fallacy when Booker came into the game on Sunday and did nothing.

    =Z=

    Thanks to Josdin for the awesome sig!

  8. #18
    bleedpurple is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,955
    Decent back in the Peyton Hillis mold... Abissmal back up to Peterson as he doesnt' provide the type of change of pace back we need to counter Peterson... he's a slower less athletic version of Peterson.. Same type of back. Decent if we didn't have Peterson.. but since we do... He's not the guy I would like to see spell him for any reason.. .we'd of been better off using Harvin in that role...

  9. #19
    RK.'s Avatar
    RK.
    RK. is offline Ring of Fame Rally Cross II Champion
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    4,463
    There seem to be a lot of people on here that expect every rookie we have to be a super star the minute they step on the field and if they are not it was a big mistake drafting them or they should be traded for some other untested rookie. It's just silly. Toby is going to be a really good running back in the NFL he is getting better with every game he plays. He is a great compliment to AD.

    Geezus give the guy a break. He was second in the Heisman award by the closest margin in the history of the award. Drafting him where we did was not a reach for a player of that quality.

    WWBGD

  10. #20
    bleedpurple is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,955
    Quote Originally Posted by RK. View Post
    There seem to be a lot of people on here that expect every rookie we have to be a super star the minute they step on the field and if they are not it was a big mistake drafting them or they should be traded for some other untested rookie. It's just silly. Toby is going to be a really good running back in the NFL he is getting better with every game he plays. He is a great compliment to AD.

    Geezus give the guy a break. He was second in the Heisman award by the closest margin in the history of the award. Drafting him where we did was not a reach for a player of that quality.
    very good player??.. really? He's decent.. I wouldn't say very good... Fact is you dont' draft a second round pick to be a back up..!! Sorry!.. He had way more other needs than RB at the time we drafted him... same for Rudolph... although that was a better use of the pick. Second in heisman voting??.. sounds a lot like the untested college credentials theory you just talked about...

    he's good but not as a compliment to AP.. they are virtually the same player.. except Gerhart is slower and less elusive.. he's not a change of pace back.. he's a slower pace back..

    draft picks 1-3 are guys who should step in and start.. atleast with in the first 2 years... unless your the packers or a consistent playoff team... we gave up WAAY to much for dude.. exchanged second round picks and gave up 2 3rd rounders??... that's atleast 3 potential starters we gave up for a back up running back...

    yeah, i'd say it was worth it... rolling my eyes...

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

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
  •