There's a fine line between not liking the current FO and thinking they will not do well with legacy player contracts, and I'm seeing many posts like this that are basically diving bodily over that fine line into the land of Whiny Baby. Wilkerson and Richardson will be signed for gaudy contracts, that's a fucking guarantee. The problem is whether the team can put any other pieces together.
Or you can look at he's +12.7 10 games in. While he had +22 or whatever by the end of the season. At this rate he should end up +32 in total (right around) with similar run production (or a bit less) and improved pass rushing production.
Pffft. Sapp was a monster at the position, but a poor analyst. Richardson has the potential to develop into a multiple All-Pro (and will almost certainly be a perennial Pro Bowler) at his position.
If I had to choose between the two, I prefer Richardson to Mo Wilk. I think Wilkerson is very good, but Sheldon has the chance of being _great_. My concern is that we will end up paying Wilkerson, and end up losing Richardson in the process - which is exactly backwards.
Rich is better than wilk and I know that is saying a lot. Rich is disruption to the offense on every play.
I think richardson Without a doubt will be better than wilk. But I think they will both be great. We should get them both locked up, they will be the core to our success (think SB Giants).
They're both top 5 players at their position whether it be 34 DE or 43 DT. I don't think it really matters who's better haha
So snacks might be the odd man out?! I'd love to lock all 3 up but I can't see us doing it. Plus kendrick ellis might be able to cause damage at his spot too honestly
I honestly think he's are best player. His motor is unmatchable. I wish every jet played with the intensity he does. I love Wilkerson but to me his drive isn't there like richardsons. If coples had his motor and rex played him at his natural position we would be looking at one of the best d lines to ever play the game
Just wondering if anyone was surprised by your typical negative take on the story. I don't have to ask if anyone is surprised by the typical name calling
You were not JUST doing anything. You had nothing to add of substance on that report on Richardson, and were whining that I noticed something about it that does not fit with your homerism. So, my comment was somehow inaccurate? Or it just didn't meet your standards of what is an appropriate thing to say here? And who are you talking to, wondering what others think of my posts? And typical name calling, huh? Like saying someone else is too negative? By whose standards? Yours? So, going back to my original question, I guess we know the answer. But when it comes to you, why should today be different than any other day?
You are right, i wasn't just asking. I was also laughing at you for being wrong about him regressing. As stated, its a cumlative score and he is ahead of last years pace.
You were "just asking" to make your snotty little point. WHich had nothing to do with the merits, but instead to criticize me for the crime of insufficient homerism. I never said Richardson has overall regressed, anyway. I must admit I do not laugh at you. I find it hard to laugh at people who are pathetic. What's it to you if I don't meet your standard of pom pom waving optimism? At 2-8 we should all be the homer you are? What an insecure little twerp you are.
Nothing insecure about ne. I am not on a message board posting 8 hrs a day in attempt to show everyone how intelligent i am. This thread was to talk about a bright spot in what has been a dismal season that doesn't seem to show any promise for the future. If thats homerism fine. Whatever. Btw, for someone who tries to be so articulate in their post, you are rather quick to resort to the name calling.
I find posters who take personal angles on shit here and do not make substantive points, such as yourself, to be somewhat annoying, I would acknowledge. Perhaps you are not insecure, but are merely an a-hole to be like that. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. So, do you have some maximum amount of time a poster should not be on this board before one becomes, in your view, insecure? Obviously your 8 hour thing there is hyperbole, but let's say something more realistic. Two hours? Four? At what point is the amount of time spent evidence of insecurity? Face it, as your homerism point in effect concedes, your argument with me has nothing to do with amount of time spent here, how articulate or not that I am, even with name calling. It has to do with my insufficient homerism, as you see it. And that is pathetic.
