Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 17 of 17
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Valparaiso, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    15,745
    Quote Originally Posted by TBATB54 View Post
    Honest mistake. I omitted him, I guess I was trying to think of his time in OAK and I couldn't remember anything there. My mistake. But to draft Eifert at 20 when they just signed Martellus Bennett and have other bigger needs (OG and every position on defense), I'll definitely pass.
    Unless you want to have a TE heavy offense (which is kinda foolish when you don't have any burners in your WR corps to stretch the field) it's an idea that doesn't make too much sense. I'll agree and go with NO on this idea.
    Wouldn't it be great if we booted the 200 lawyers from the House and Senate and replaced them with economists? That way, we'd stop harming our economy with laws that would apply to the politicians, too.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    London, Ont
    Posts
    9,363
    Who in the world would run a CFL offense based heavily on tight ends given the running snap and 11 2/3 yard wider field? (The CFL doesn't even list TE as a category - I really question whoever said Montreal ran 3 TE sets)

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

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






Part of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties.