Cimini Says Blaylock Likely Starter for Week 1

Good for blaylock. So, I guess herm made a good decision bringing him in? Whewww I cant wait to read the responses to herm making a good move lol

 

thats good, can't have barlow out there when he doesn't know 1/2 the playbook....

 

its his opinion...fine

 

So, one of the media guys was actually able to formulate an opinion as to who the starting rb will be without Mangini announcing it? Why isnt he crying that the HC didnt tell him who it is? Or is he just reading the alphabetical depth chart which has Blalock on top?

 

just because hes starting doesnt mean it was a good pickup....im not anti-blaylock but we still have to see if he can do anything...as for now he won the job by dfault no? he didnt exactly beat out barry sanders

 

Funny we can announce the RB starter but not the QB.

 

Cimini suggesting that in one of his articles is hardly an 'official announcement.'

 

If 'deserving it' means being on the team longer, having an entire preseason to learn all the plays and not having been on the team for 2 days before seeing your first carry.... then I guess I agree, Blaylock 'deserves it.'

 

I saw that too, but what do we think about the long-term starter? I mean, post-week-3?

 

He's been the best RB I've seen so far. I don't think he'll continue to be the starter, but week 1 sounds about right.

 

It does look like Blaylock will get the nod, according to the Star-Ledger this morning also.

So now I'm back to questioning giving up the 4th for Barlow again. Is it me or does this trade still seem unnecessary? If Blaylock goes down (and he has been injured before) then I'll be glad we got him I guess. But a 4th Round pick for somebody who isn't going to start right now? There will be other guys coming off the waiver wire too (we get the 4th shot at this). So, I don't know. Is this just me or did we screw up here?

 

its just you.

 

how much longer can you harp on this trade dude...the 4th rounder is not a big deal for barlow. please get over it....would you trade hermy for barlow? same shit....lets worry about jmac for a second rounder or picking a kicker on the first day of the draft...or sliding down to pick up jolley....all worse than this trade

 

I'm still sobbing uncontrollably. It wasn't supposed to be this way.

 

227/5, I have to agree with you. I didn't particularly approve of the trade then, and I don't now. A fourth round pick isn't bad for a guy who, if he takes well to CMart's mentoring, can be an impact player, but it still wasan't necessary.

Like I have been saying, if this CS is not thinking like us, that this is a rebuilding year, and they are trying to make the push for January games, then it makes sense. Otherwise, it's just a sacrificed pick. Package that up with a second round pick on draft day, move up a few spots, and grab a future feature back.

I will admit too, I have liked Blaylock since day one. If the line can jell, giving him an extra second to get his wheels in motion, then he can break for some big plays. The big if is the run blocking, not Blaylock's natural talent.

 

Yeah, brought him in and then refused to give him any carries even though Curtis was on one leg.

 

I'm looking at it the same way, Alio. In my mind, a couple of things could be happening. Either:

1) Our CS has gone from "We're rebuilding and it'll be 2 years before we're contenders," to "Maybe we can actually do something in January. Hence, let's go out and grab Barlow and give up our 4th." Or...

2) Curtis Martin is totally shot... finished... and not taking the field at all. They already know this (how bad he is) and got Barlow for depth and to put together a half-assed reasonably decent running game for the time being.

In other words, it (the Barlow trade) just doesn't seem to fit in with what I thought the overall Master Plan was. That being, rebuild from the bottom up (starting with the lines) with quality people (D'Brick and Mangold, for example) and going up from there. Picking up guys like Brad Smith along the way are a plus.

This is why I say, the Barlow deal just doesn't seem to fit in. I don't see him as the quality, high-caliber player Tangini has it's sights set on, just the way I see it. I see Barlow as a stop-gap measure. Perhaps later as insurance and depth. But if that's the case, #4 was too high for that need.

 

Everyone deserves a second chance, including Barlow. But what did he do with it? He shot his mouth off immediately. So, while I wasn't against the trade, I am left to second guess it now, which is always easy to do.... hindsight is more accurate than foresight. Still, a 4th rounder is worth the trade off against potential upside.

Of all the RB's, Blaylock has impressed me the least. He's been getting the loin's share of the snaps, and I'd still like to see more of Houston, but it's obvious this CS isn't high on the guy. Rookie HC's will make mistakes, and I think limiting Houston's touches may be one of them.

Having said that, I do hope our RB of the future will be taken in round 1 next year. I just don't see either Blaylock or Washington as feature backs, and Houston looks like the odd man out, while Barlow may continue his turdish behavior in the long term. That could limit his time as a Jet.

 

No, that comes only in Cannizarro's articles, right?:smile: