Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="RRyder" data-source="post: 739797" data-attributes="member: 10329">A: "Proven Vet" is one of the absolute worst catch phrases on this board. Very few vets are "proven" within a system simlar enough to our own to guarantee productivity which is what term is implying. Especially for the RB position where seasoned "vets" aren't generally good things to have as they tend to be broken down by the time they get to the vet stage and become available (hey look that kinda covers a guy like AP)B: Your simply acting pissed off because TT didn't bring in a "name". The fact you bring up AP shows that. The man's done. Can't make his way on the field for the Saints, is losing time to a rookie RB, ( but by gosh he's a "proven vet" how could that be?),  and you want to bring him in. Least you recognize his name thoughC: Drafting 3 RBs and keeping 4 all together on the roster is in fact adequately addressing the position no matter your opinion. Now I'm sure you can argue he couldve drafted one less and then brought in a vet. Problem is most rational fans would, or at least should, take the rookie RB with an actuall future ahead of him rather than a vet who is over the hill so in either case the position would be considered addressed</blockquote>

No members online now.

Total: 688 (members: 1, guests: 687)