Mistashoesta
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 3,228
- Reaction score
- 2,239
Mistashoesta":1nzkj7ly said:
Grahamhawker":1nipiz8f said:It's hard to find effective DBs as big as Browner and Chancellor.
I'm just hoping one or two of the news guys pops big and become a new fixture.
chris98251":2zqlwkfj said:Grahamhawker":2zqlwkfj said:It's hard to find effective DBs as big as Browner and Chancellor.
I'm just hoping one or two of the news guys pops big and become a new fixture.
You do have a point, when we drafted and signed Browner in version one we had our pick because nobody was looking at their skill set, now we are competing for those types with many others.
Seymour":al5rkros said:chris98251":al5rkros said:Grahamhawker":al5rkros said:It's hard to find effective DBs as big as Browner and Chancellor.
I'm just hoping one or two of the news guys pops big and become a new fixture.
You do have a point, when we drafted and signed Browner in version one we had our pick because nobody was looking at their skill set, now we are competing for those types with many others.
Not possible. We did not draft Browner. We signed him out of the CFL in 2011, and Pete & John was one of few taking notice.
Currently they seem to be going for the LOS. It seems they focused a bit more on pure speed, instincts and playmakers with good size and great ranginess rather then size as the top priority. It's like they looked for Earl Thomas qualities for every position in the secondary. They had several chances to do the LOB 2.0 easily.Ad Hawk":15rjl4gi said:Will version 2.0 still be called the LOB?
Or is this the wrong place and time to ask such a question, or even hint at the eventuality?