Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

2017 Draft Thread 2 Pro days & rumors!
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 57, 58, 59 ... 98, 99, 100  Next
 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> San Francisco 49ers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Forge


Joined: 19 Feb 2010
Posts: 19458
Location: Las Vegas
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The 49ers have used one of their 30 pre-draft visits on Alabama linebacker Reuben Foster, who met with the team Friday, according to ESPNís Adam Caplan

_________________


Stupid NFL coaches and their need to reach for quarterbacks....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fureys49ers


Joined: 31 Mar 2015
Posts: 962
Location: Sacramento, CA
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Forge wrote:
Quote:
The 49ers have used one of their 30 pre-draft visits on Alabama linebacker Reuben Foster, who met with the team Friday, according to ESPNís Adam Caplan


I really can't see us targeting him at #2 but as I think we all are assuming and are hoping for he is a target for us in a trade down scenario.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Forge


Joined: 19 Feb 2010
Posts: 19458
Location: Las Vegas
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fureys49ers wrote:
Forge wrote:
Quote:
The 49ers have used one of their 30 pre-draft visits on Alabama linebacker Reuben Foster, who met with the team Friday, according to ESPNís Adam Caplan


I really can't see us targeting him at #2 but as I think we all are assuming and are hoping for he is a target for us in a trade down scenario.


Yep. Thats what was said in the full article as well. I would also agree
_________________


Stupid NFL coaches and their need to reach for quarterbacks....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fureys49ers


Joined: 31 Mar 2015
Posts: 962
Location: Sacramento, CA
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 12:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Forge wrote:
Fureys49ers wrote:
Forge wrote:
Quote:
The 49ers have used one of their 30 pre-draft visits on Alabama linebacker Reuben Foster, who met with the team Friday, according to ESPNís Adam Caplan


I really can't see us targeting him at #2 but as I think we all are assuming and are hoping for he is a target for us in a trade down scenario.


Yep. Thats what was said in the full article as well. I would also agree


If we could come out of that trade down scenario, to whichever pick it is and get Foster, a pass rusher at either SAM or LEO and a FS, personal favorite Budda Baker, I would be ecstatic. I'm a fan of Ward and all but he's no difference maker like I think Baker could become.

I will say at this point though I'll be pretty bummed if we don't stay at #2 and take Solomon Thomas. Since easing off my QB hype Thomas has pretty much been my guy. Love the way he plays the game like he's a walk on out to prove himself and has the athletic "freakiness" one looks for in a top 5 pick. Not to mention he'd fill a huge need as our LEO and his versatility to line up inside on passing downs makes him even more valuable. As far as I'm concerned we take Thomas and our DL is set for the next couple of years with the pieces we already have in place. It would look something like this :

Thomas(LEO) - Buckner(3T) - Mitchell(NT) - Armstead(5T)
Lynch - Jones/Blair - Purcell - Dial

Have always believed the trenches are where games are won and lost so I'm leaning more towards one of these talented OG/OT prospects in the 2nd to try and sure up that side of the line as well. I'm not quite satisfied with depending on Brown to reach his potential, Beadles to develop more this late into his career and Zuttah to come in and be our answer at C. I'd throw Garnett and his performance bettering dramatically as well but being a rookie last year I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for now. Being that this is a multi year rebuild I'd like to see some parts of our team made whole with talented starters and solid depth, even if it is just on the OL and DL. So taking a C with our second 4th, Toth specifically is what I'm thinking, wouldn't be a bad idea to me as well.

That would leave our 3rd and 4th as well as our two 5ths, 6ths and 7ths to maybe find some pieces at other positions. Say a QB, RB, WR, TE, ILB, OLB and S. Maybe we hit on one or two, maybe we don't but we've sured up, or attempted to sure up as the draft is never an exact science, two important parts of our team.

I think I've just laid out the guide line to my next and final mock of the offseason to help paint a better picture for y'all.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
y2lamanaki


Moderator
FF Fanatic
Joined: 03 Jan 2006
Posts: 13973
Location: Lancaster, PA
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Forge wrote:
Fureys49ers wrote:
Forge wrote:
Quote:
The 49ers have used one of their 30 pre-draft visits on Alabama linebacker Reuben Foster, who met with the team Friday, according to ESPNís Adam Caplan


I really can't see us targeting him at #2 but as I think we all are assuming and are hoping for he is a target for us in a trade down scenario.


Yep. Thats what was said in the full article as well. I would also agree


^My favorite non-bizarre draft possibility for me. After seeing the meat of free agency, I don't want to spend picks on people who would push out Armstead/Buckner, as they remain two of the best (young) players on the roster. Assuming we've all had the correct information on the upcoming defense, I'd see Allen and Thomas (who I do not see as a traditional Leo) as the UT (over Buckner) or SDE (over Armstead) respectively. If we have a different defense than we were told, then I could see Thomas possibly as a defense in a second strong end role. Otherwise, the only other guy I would even want to take at #2 is Malik Hooker. I like Hooker, I think he's the best safety in this draft, and he'd fit at a position where we could move Ward back to corner and solidify two groups. But, I also want to see if Ward could be that same guy already and see if there's anything in Redmond/or draft a CB in a later round. At Strong Safety, Reid/Tartt can hold that down year one in a multi-year rebuild where replacing those two is among the least of our concerns.

I love Allen, Thomas, and Hooker, and will be very happy with any of them, but with all the needs we have, I would rather roll with Armstead/Mitchell/Buckner on the interior, roll with Ward and Reid/Tartt at the safeties, let's pick up whatever extra draft picks we can, and go back and get Foster at ILB and fix the Linebackers (which doesn't require eliminating anyone important), or we can pick up a WR in which our top 2 WRs going into the season do not have to be Pierre Garcon and Jeremy Kerley (which I'm really hoping, even with Goodwin/Robinson, that this is still a priority). But I would not take either Foster or Davis/Williams at #2.

So, for me, unless the bizarre happens and Cleveland trades out so someone can hop everyone for a QB, or Cleveland themselves pick someone other than Garrett where Garrett becomes available for us to select him, then trade down for me is the best option, and Foster I think is the strongest option (since the 2nd round WRs intrigue me more than the 2nd round ILBs).
_________________


Future Hall of Famer Frank Gore's Career Rushing List Tracker:

*Currently Ranked 8th All-Time
*Yards needed to pass #7 Eric Dickerson: 194
*Yards needed to pass #6 Jerome Bettis: 597
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Fureys49ers


Joined: 31 Mar 2015
Posts: 962
Location: Sacramento, CA
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 11:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I get that line of thinking Y2 but I'm curious as to why you think Thomas wouldn't be a good fit as our LEO?
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John232


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Posts: 13383
Location: Los Angeles
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 12:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fureys49ers wrote:
I get that line of thinking Y2 but I'm curious as to why you think Thomas wouldn't be a good fit as our LEO?


Can't speak for Y2, but Thomas, with all his skills is still not an explosive in the vein of Irvin, Garrett or Aldon Smith (for example). His greatest skill is being able to wreak havoc kicking inside, or over/outside shoulder of the tackle. Putting him in that wide nine position wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, but I'd rather try Brooks or Lynch in that position. Furthermore, there are going to be instances where that Leo is still going to have to drop back into coverage...not a whole lot but enough to where he needs to be able to hold his own, and I personally think that would be a rough transition for him.

Not totally against it, but I don't think it utilizes his skills to the fullest.
_________________

xsaMainevent on the sig
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fureys49ers


Joined: 31 Mar 2015
Posts: 962
Location: Sacramento, CA
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

John232 wrote:
Fureys49ers wrote:
I get that line of thinking Y2 but I'm curious as to why you think Thomas wouldn't be a good fit as our LEO?


Can't speak for Y2, but Thomas, with all his skills is still not an explosive in the vein of Irvin, Garrett or Aldon Smith (for example). His greatest skill is being able to wreak havoc kicking inside, or over/outside shoulder of the tackle. Putting him in that wide nine position wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, but I'd rather try Brooks or Lynch in that position. Furthermore, there are going to be instances where that Leo is still going to have to drop back into coverage...not a whole lot but enough to where he needs to be able to hold his own, and I personally think that would be a rough transition for him.

Not totally against it, but I don't think it utilizes his skills to the fullest.


But doesn't Michael Bennett play LEO? I wouldn't exactly call him the edge bender that most pass rushers are but he's extremely disruptive wherever they line him. That's exactly the role I see for Thomas. I don't believe Irvin ever played LEO as he was there SAM LB. I'm not sure the LEO is ever really asked to drop back in coverage either except for the very few times where there's a zone blitz called and we're trying to trick the opposing QB. Thomas' athleticism I'm sure would allow him to fulfill his duties for those select few plays. One base downs having his disruptive ability and edge setting capability would be awesome in stopping the run and he could slide inside on passing downs and we could put Lynch or another quicker guy at LEO on the outside although I think Thomas might be our best pass rusher if brought in. Even in a wide 9 technique Thomas' quickness and explosion paired with his strength could be a great combo coming off the edge.

The thing I like most about Thomas is with his skillset and the high motor he plays with I don't think he will ever truly find himself in a position where he won't effective or used to his fullest.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John232


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Posts: 13383
Location: Los Angeles
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fureys49ers wrote:
John232 wrote:
Fureys49ers wrote:
I get that line of thinking Y2 but I'm curious as to why you think Thomas wouldn't be a good fit as our LEO?


Can't speak for Y2, but Thomas, with all his skills is still not an explosive in the vein of Irvin, Garrett or Aldon Smith (for example). His greatest skill is being able to wreak havoc kicking inside, or over/outside shoulder of the tackle. Putting him in that wide nine position wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, but I'd rather try Brooks or Lynch in that position. Furthermore, there are going to be instances where that Leo is still going to have to drop back into coverage...not a whole lot but enough to where he needs to be able to hold his own, and I personally think that would be a rough transition for him.

Not totally against it, but I don't think it utilizes his skills to the fullest.


But doesn't Michael Bennett play LEO? I wouldn't exactly call him the edge bender that most pass rushers are but he's extremely disruptive wherever they line him. That's exactly the role I see for Thomas. I don't believe Irvin ever played LEO as he was there SAM LB. I'm not sure the LEO is ever really asked to drop back in coverage either except for the very few times where there's a zone blitz called and we're trying to trick the opposing QB. Thomas' athleticism I'm sure would allow him to fulfill his duties for those select few plays. One base downs having his disruptive ability and edge setting capability would be awesome in stopping the run and he could slide inside on passing downs and we could put Lynch or another quicker guy at LEO on the outside although I think Thomas might be our best pass rusher if brought in. Even in a wide 9 technique Thomas' quickness and explosion paired with his strength could be a great combo coming off the edge.

The thing I like most about Thomas is with his skillset and the high motor he plays with I don't think he will ever truly find himself in a position where he won't effective or used to his fullest.


Nope, Bruce Irvin was the Leo, Michael Bennett is the 2 gap 6 tech. Although they mixed it up A LOT. Clemons was also a Leo, same with Avril.
_________________

xsaMainevent on the sig
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John232


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Posts: 13383
Location: Los Angeles
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 3:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.bigcatcountry.com/2013/1/19/3890928/gus-bradley-defense-leo-position

Good source. Might also take a look at how Atlanta organized their defense.

We may also be arguing on semantics with Sam and Leo. a lot of this depends on personnel.

To your point, I'm sure Thomas could play wide nine, and depending on what they do with Armstead, he may be doing that most of the time. But it seems like we're going to be giving teams a lot of looks.

I mostly interpret this defense as 2 backers, 4 Downlinemen, and a spy/joke backer, last year for Atlanta, that was Beasley who basically stuck on the ball all the time. A lot of his sacks were happening on flush outs
_________________

xsaMainevent on the sig
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
757-NINER


Joined: 08 Jan 2013
Posts: 1934
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 3:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

John232 wrote:
Fureys49ers wrote:
I get that line of thinking Y2 but I'm curious as to why you think Thomas wouldn't be a good fit as our LEO?


Can't speak for Y2, but Thomas, with all his skills is still not an explosive in the vein of Irvin, Garrett or Aldon Smith (for example). His greatest skill is being able to wreak havoc kicking inside, or over/outside shoulder of the tackle. Putting him in that wide nine position wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, but I'd rather try Brooks or Lynch in that position. Furthermore, there are going to be instances where that Leo is still going to have to drop back into coverage...not a whole lot but enough to where he needs to be able to hold his own, and I personally think that would be a rough transition for him.

Not totally against it, but I don't think it utilizes his skills to the fullest.


The problem is if you stay@2, you have to go BPA(really should be best talent available) and that's probably going to be along the D-Line or probably DB. I've already stated me belief in NOT going DB@2 so I won't rehash that stance. In a perfect world, you would hope to find a guy on the edge to get after the QB. While Thomas might not be the ideal Leo, I think he could function there at a high level, to go along with his versatility to help out at other places like UT or SDE in the nickel. I understand ppl see lack of explosion when they watch Thomas but I think most of that stems from where he played and the responsibilities of that position. He was a 5-Tech@Stanford. He was an interior rusher 98% of the time. His explosiveness won't necessarily jump out at you from that position, especially when there are certain techniques and leverages he was asked to play, within the scheme. So its hard to gauge whether or not he could function as a edge rusher but I think he could. The Combine really cemented that for me because I was wondering how he could function in space and how truly quick and agile he was and he eased a lot of my worries as far as him being able to drop in a zone. Will he need development/coaching moving to Leo? Absolutely. But its not because of physical limitations. Its just something foreign to him, that he's never done and will have to learn. But I trust he can. Its not because physically he can't do it. And if he was the pick@2, I'd think they would have brought him for a private workout to see if he could translate to edge so they would have confidence that he could.

The only reservation, and its a legit one, is drafting a guy that high to play primarily@position he's never really played. But I feel if you believe in his talent that much and guys who get after the QB are at a premium in this league, you make him your pick if that is indeed the #2 payer on your board.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John232


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Posts: 13383
Location: Los Angeles
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 3:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

757-NINER wrote:
John232 wrote:
Fureys49ers wrote:
I get that line of thinking Y2 but I'm curious as to why you think Thomas wouldn't be a good fit as our LEO?


Can't speak for Y2, but Thomas, with all his skills is still not an explosive in the vein of Irvin, Garrett or Aldon Smith (for example). His greatest skill is being able to wreak havoc kicking inside, or over/outside shoulder of the tackle. Putting him in that wide nine position wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, but I'd rather try Brooks or Lynch in that position. Furthermore, there are going to be instances where that Leo is still going to have to drop back into coverage...not a whole lot but enough to where he needs to be able to hold his own, and I personally think that would be a rough transition for him.

Not totally against it, but I don't think it utilizes his skills to the fullest.


The problem is if you stay@2, you have to go BPA(really should be best talent available) and that's probably going to be along the D-Line or probably DB. I've already stated me belief in NOT going DB@2 so I won't rehash that stance. In a perfect world, you would hope to find a guy on the edge to get after the QB. While Thomas might not be the ideal Leo, I think he could function there at a high level, to go along with his versatility to help out at other places like UT or SDE in the nickel. I understand ppl see lack of explosion when they watch Thomas but I think most of that stems from where he played and the responsibilities of that position. He was a 5-Tech@Stanford. He was an interior rusher 98% of the time. His explosiveness won't necessarily jump out at you from that position, especially when there are certain techniques and leverages he was asked to play, within the scheme. So its hard to gauge whether or not he could function as a edge rusher but I think he could. The Combine really cemented that for me because I was wondering how he could function in space and how truly quick and agile he was and he eased a lot of my worries as far as him being able to drop in a zone. Will he need development/coaching moving to Leo? Absolutely. But its not because of physical limitations. Its just something foreign to him, that he's never done and will have to learn. But I trust he can. Its not because physically he can't do it. And if he was the pick@2, I'd think they would have brought him for a private workout to see if he could translate to edge so they would have confidence that he could.

The only reservation, and its a legit one, is drafting a guy that high to play primarily@position he's never really played. But I feel if you believe in his talent that much and guys who get after the QB are at a premium in this league, you make him your pick if that is indeed the #2 payer on your board.


Yeah, I mean I really have no problem Drafting Thomas because he's that good. But it creates a weird problem of how to use a bunch of lineman that all seemingly play the same position. I still contend that the best thing for us to do is Trade back and take Foster, Adams or Mike Williams. The talent gap between 2-10 is miniscule imo.
_________________

xsaMainevent on the sig
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
big9erfan


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 19733
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 4:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

y2lamanaki wrote:
Forge wrote:
Fureys49ers wrote:
Forge wrote:
Quote:
The 49ers have used one of their 30 pre-draft visits on Alabama linebacker Reuben Foster, who met with the team Friday, according to ESPNís Adam Caplan


I really can't see us targeting him at #2 but as I think we all are assuming and are hoping for he is a target for us in a trade down scenario.


Yep. Thats what was said in the full article as well. I would also agree


^My favorite non-bizarre draft possibility for me. After seeing the meat of free agency, I don't want to spend picks on people who would push out Armstead/Buckner, as they remain two of the best (young) players on the roster. Assuming we've all had the correct information on the upcoming defense, I'd see Allen and Thomas (who I do not see as a traditional Leo) as the UT (over Buckner) or SDE (over Armstead) respectively. If we have a different defense than we were told, then I could see Thomas possibly as a defense in a second strong end role. Otherwise, the only other guy I would even want to take at #2 is Malik Hooker. I like Hooker, I think he's the best safety in this draft, and he'd fit at a position where we could move Ward back to corner and solidify two groups. But, I also want to see if Ward could be that same guy already and see if there's anything in Redmond/or draft a CB in a later round. At Strong Safety, Reid/Tartt can hold that down year one in a multi-year rebuild where replacing those two is among the least of our concerns.

I love Allen, Thomas, and Hooker, and will be very happy with any of them, but with all the needs we have, I would rather roll with Armstead/Mitchell/Buckner on the interior, roll with Ward and Reid/Tartt at the safeties, let's pick up whatever extra draft picks we can, and go back and get Foster at ILB and fix the Linebackers (which doesn't require eliminating anyone important), or we can pick up a WR in which our top 2 WRs going into the season do not have to be Pierre Garcon and Jeremy Kerley (which I'm really hoping, even with Goodwin/Robinson, that this is still a priority). But I would not take either Foster or Davis/Williams at #2.

So, for me, unless the bizarre happens and Cleveland trades out so someone can hop everyone for a QB, or Cleveland themselves pick someone other than Garrett where Garrett becomes available for us to select him, then trade down for me is the best option, and Foster I think is the strongest option (since the 2nd round WRs intrigue me more than the 2nd round ILBs).


I think Foster and Howard are going to end up going in about the same spot in the draft in which case I'd prefer Howard. I'm rolling with the "give an offensive minded coach offensive weapons" philosophy. I'd be happy enough with a merely OK inside LB than with a merely OK TE. Depending on how far we trade back I'd be interested in Reddick who I think has the potential to be a superior pass rusher which I would help the team a lot more than a guy like Foster is likely to.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
757-NINER


Joined: 08 Jan 2013
Posts: 1934
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

John232 wrote:
757-NINER wrote:
John232 wrote:
Fureys49ers wrote:
I get that line of thinking Y2 but I'm curious as to why you think Thomas wouldn't be a good fit as our LEO?


Can't speak for Y2, but Thomas, with all his skills is still not an explosive in the vein of Irvin, Garrett or Aldon Smith (for example). His greatest skill is being able to wreak havoc kicking inside, or over/outside shoulder of the tackle. Putting him in that wide nine position wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, but I'd rather try Brooks or Lynch in that position. Furthermore, there are going to be instances where that Leo is still going to have to drop back into coverage...not a whole lot but enough to where he needs to be able to hold his own, and I personally think that would be a rough transition for him.

Not totally against it, but I don't think it utilizes his skills to the fullest.


The problem is if you stay@2, you have to go BPA(really should be best talent available) and that's probably going to be along the D-Line or probably DB. I've already stated me belief in NOT going DB@2 so I won't rehash that stance. In a perfect world, you would hope to find a guy on the edge to get after the QB. While Thomas might not be the ideal Leo, I think he could function there at a high level, to go along with his versatility to help out at other places like UT or SDE in the nickel. I understand ppl see lack of explosion when they watch Thomas but I think most of that stems from where he played and the responsibilities of that position. He was a 5-Tech@Stanford. He was an interior rusher 98% of the time. His explosiveness won't necessarily jump out at you from that position, especially when there are certain techniques and leverages he was asked to play, within the scheme. So its hard to gauge whether or not he could function as a edge rusher but I think he could. The Combine really cemented that for me because I was wondering how he could function in space and how truly quick and agile he was and he eased a lot of my worries as far as him being able to drop in a zone. Will he need development/coaching moving to Leo? Absolutely. But its not because of physical limitations. Its just something foreign to him, that he's never done and will have to learn. But I trust he can. Its not because physically he can't do it. And if he was the pick@2, I'd think they would have brought him for a private workout to see if he could translate to edge so they would have confidence that he could.

The only reservation, and its a legit one, is drafting a guy that high to play primarily@position he's never really played. But I feel if you believe in his talent that much and guys who get after the QB are at a premium in this league, you make him your pick if that is indeed the #2 payer on your board.


Yeah, I mean I really have no problem Drafting Thomas because he's that good. But it creates a weird problem of how to use a bunch of lineman that all seemingly play the same position. I still contend that the best thing for us to do is Trade back and take Foster, Adams or Mike Williams. The talent gap between 2-10 is miniscule imo.


Agreed. Hopeful the stars align and somebody is willing to move up. That would alleviate a lot of the drafting for talent/bpa vs need/immediate impact concerns I think most of the fanbase has.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
y2lamanaki


Moderator
FF Fanatic
Joined: 03 Jan 2006
Posts: 13973
Location: Lancaster, PA
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

John232 wrote:
Fureys49ers wrote:
I get that line of thinking Y2 but I'm curious as to why you think Thomas wouldn't be a good fit as our LEO?


Can't speak for Y2, but Thomas, with all his skills is still not an explosive in the vein of Irvin, Garrett or Aldon Smith (for example). His greatest skill is being able to wreak havoc kicking inside, or over/outside shoulder of the tackle. Putting him in that wide nine position wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, but I'd rather try Brooks or Lynch in that position. Furthermore, there are going to be instances where that Leo is still going to have to drop back into coverage...not a whole lot but enough to where he needs to be able to hold his own, and I personally think that would be a rough transition for him.

Not totally against it, but I don't think it utilizes his skills to the fullest.


Yep. This and your other posts perfectly express my thoughts.
_________________


Future Hall of Famer Frank Gore's Career Rushing List Tracker:

*Currently Ranked 8th All-Time
*Yards needed to pass #7 Eric Dickerson: 194
*Yards needed to pass #6 Jerome Bettis: 597
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> San Francisco 49ers All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 57, 58, 59 ... 98, 99, 100  Next
Page 58 of 100

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group