The Most Underused Players of the John Fox Era.
by Revshawn on Feb 13, 2011 3:00 PM EST
Email
Print
I was pondering yesterday, looking back on the John Fox era and looking forward to the Ron Rivera. Then it occurred to me just how much obvious talent was held back by John Fox’s preference to veteran’s complex that held us back for so many years. Some of the names that immediately come to mind are DeAngelo Williams, Greg Hardy, James Anderson, Sherrod Martin, Charles Johnson. And those are just the ones that managed to escape John Fox’s influence and show us how good they are. Imagine the countless ones that were never offered the opportunity to prove themselves such as Armanti Edwards, Kenny Moore, and Gary Barnidge.
DeAngelo Williams is a perfect example. All of 2007 he was kept behind DeShaun Foster, who managed a paltry 3.5 yards a carry throughout the entire year and cost us several games. DeAngelo Williams receives 100 carries less than he does and yet he finishes just 100 yards less than him with more touchdowns and over 5.0 yards per carry. If John Fox doesn’t keep DeAngelo Williams in the back of the depth chart, we never choose Jonathan Stewart in the 08 draft and we ride DeAngelo Williams to back-to-back winning seasons and a trip to the playoffs.
Greg Hardy is another more recent example. He was a pure star in the preseason and beginning of the year despite being held in the back of the depth chart. Several sacks and tackles behind the line, two forced fumbles, and a blocked punt highlight just a few of his achievements. Meanwhile, Tyler Brayton plays as a regular starter and he’s pretty much non-existent the entire year. And he won that job by making a measly TWO tackles during the preseason, both of them sacks. Greg Hardy gets 16 tackles and 3 sacks, and the job is given to the veteran.
Looking back, you see this kind of thing happening again and again. Some of it is hind-sight being 20-20, but a lot of it is blatantly obvious as well! Which player do you think was the worst hold-backer? Are you happy for what John Fox gave us, or do you think some of these decisions kept us from reaching our combined potential as a team?
69 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
So anytime a vet struggles...
We should quickly bench them for a rookie? None of us knew how good DeAngelo would be. It’s why we were ecstatic about drafting Stewart… Who most then thought would be starting by now.
on behalf of tha dirty south: soul food, carolina blue, southern hospitality, and tha queen city
by southtunnel on Feb 13, 2011 3:21 PM EST via mobile reply actions
But when you have an incumbent who is under-performing and a rookie who is maximizing his touches
Then I think you should steadily give the young guy more touches. If he continues to perform better, then yes, I think you bench the veteran. He should have pulled the plug on Foster earlier.
Unofficial Agent for Armanti Edwards, WR #10, Carolina Panthers
Except he wasn't "maximizing" his touches
Deangelo had 4.1 yards per carry his rookie year, while Foster had 4.0. In 2007, except for one 75 yard run, DeAngelo averaged only 3.5 ypc through the first 10 games.
So unless you’re justifying this on one carry, then there’s was little-to-nothing at that point to suggest DeAngelo would be significantly better than Foster.
on behalf of tha dirty south: soul food, carolina blue, southern hospitality, and tha queen city
by southtunnel on Feb 14, 2011 10:25 AM EST up reply actions
But there was evidence that he would at least be equal to Foster if not greater than
In my mind, if you have a veteran who isn’t showing the propensity to improve, and you have a young guy who is continually improving and is at least on par with the veteran, then you should play the younger guy and give him that experience to improve.
Especially if we are talking about a 1st round pick with a high ceiling.
Unofficial Agent for Armanti Edwards, WR #10, Carolina Panthers
Starting DeAngelo half way though the 2007 season would not have salvaged the season
And considering the how he performed in 08, sitting didn’t hurt him either. So I don’t see what benefit at all starting DeAngelo would have accomplished.
Not that I disagree with what you are suggesting. I just don’t see how Fox’s more player-friendly approach did any damage in this scenario. It maybe even sent a message to DWill that in 08, Fox would also be loyal to him.
on behalf of tha dirty south: soul food, carolina blue, southern hospitality, and tha queen city
by southtunnel on Feb 14, 2011 10:52 AM EST up reply actions
I agree
I don’t think it damaged either party, however I do think it affected our draft in 08. If we were more sold on DeAngelo, we may not have made a move on Stewart. I’m very glad we did, and I think our two back system is excellent, but it MAY have influenced events.
I don’t think he hurt or helped DeAngelo in this scenario, but as you said, it probably would not have salvaged the season. In my opinion, that is the best time to get the youth in there. When a season is already lost, you’re better off getting those young guys experience.
Unofficial Agent for Armanti Edwards, WR #10, Carolina Panthers
I can sort of agree, just because he was a 1st round pick
And one that at times was thought go as high as top 10. The rest of the list above though I have no problem at all with Fox sitting them for a year.
Except for maybe not putting Moore in earlier in the ARZ layoff game, or earlier in the 2009 season.
on behalf of tha dirty south: soul food, carolina blue, southern hospitality, and tha queen city
by southtunnel on Feb 14, 2011 12:40 PM EST up reply actions
I voted Deangelo, but am now having 2nd thoughts. Hardy should have been starting
this year over Brayton. I know Hardy made a few mistakes when he played, but so did Brayton. I thought about Anderson over Diggs, but Diggs didn’t really suck. Moore v. Delhomme should have happened sooner in ’09 as well.
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you
with experience.
You're also overlooking the fact that we rebuilt the O-line in 2008
And Fox built it to run the ball. Had DeAngelo started in 07, he’d had nowhere near the numbers he had in 08.
on behalf of tha dirty south: soul food, carolina blue, southern hospitality, and tha queen city
by southtunnel on Feb 13, 2011 3:24 PM EST via mobile reply actions
While that may be true
DeShaun Foster had horrible form when running the ball. When we had Davis, Foster could be a finesse back. But when he had to bust through the line Foster would never drop his shoulder to make penetration. That guy would try to run standing straight up. It was like he was wearing a scoliosis back brace.
I think DWill has admitted that his attitude and drive wasn’t the best, but he was always had better skills than Foster.
If God came down on Christmas Day/ I know exactly what He'd say/ He'd say "Oi!" to the punks/ and "Oi!" to the skins/ but "Oi!" to the world and everybody wins.
-The Vandals
Hindsight is 20/20
Very few of us were comfortable starting the 2008 season with DeAngelo. Neither us nor Fox knew his true potential then. By that point we knew Foster wasn’t the answer… But Foster was the same guy we were all clamoring for in 2005, when Davis looked horrible.
A rookie sitting for a year or 2 to learn from the bench, is not a bad thing.
on behalf of tha dirty south: soul food, carolina blue, southern hospitality, and tha queen city
While I am not a football genius
I was calling for Foster to be benched looooong before he was. It’s like Tater said:
if you have a veteran (Foster) who isn’t showing the propensity to improve, and you have a young guy who is continually improving and is at least on par with the veteran, then you should play the younger guy (DWill) and give him that experience to improve.
To me, the 20/20 is DWill saying he wasn’t working as hard as he should. That explains to me why he stayed on the bench. In noticeable (while at the time not measurable) skill, there is no way Foster should have stayed on the field as long as he did.
If God came down on Christmas Day/ I know exactly what He'd say/ He'd say "Oi!" to the punks/ and "Oi!" to the skins/ but "Oi!" to the world and everybody wins.
-The Vandals
Very nice topic to bring up for discussion.
All your examples are valid.
Let’s hope the new regime recognizes talent and production for their own sakes, and seniority is not the only determining factor to decide who plays.
Hardy was criminally underused.
And the fact that Brayton was a fail on so many levels.
East Carolina Pirates - No Quarter
Name one other "good" team that started a 6th round rookie?
Hardy in no way would have saved our season. And he’ll probably be better this year because of it.
on behalf of tha dirty south: soul food, carolina blue, southern hospitality, and tha queen city
Course he wouldn't.
He still had better stats then Brayton had the end of the year with 0 starts compared than Brayton’s 14.
Brayton was one of the worst pass rushers in the NFL last season and in my hindsight goggles I would have benched him back in November.
Oh well.
East Carolina Pirates - No Quarter
by RjTheMetalhead on Feb 13, 2011 8:49 PM EST up reply actions
Anderson
Diggs was completely mediocre, and the first chance Anderson gets to do some real damage, he puts up an absolutely outstanding season.
by Ol' Uncle Munnerlyn on Feb 13, 2011 3:51 PM EST reply actions
Nobody thought Anderson would be any better than Diggs
I find it pretty crazy that everybody here is crucifying Fox for decisions that at the time we had no clue about either. It just sounds so fair weather to me. I guarantee you at the end of Rivera’s tenure in Carolina, all the same bashing will be going on here about him.
on behalf of tha dirty south: soul food, carolina blue, southern hospitality, and tha queen city
I dunno, when he first got here I remember people kept comparing him to Witherspoon.
I think folks knew how good Anderson was. I always liked Diggs, though. Maybe his stats were poor, but it seemed like to me he usually got the job done on the field. I rarely recall having a complaint about him.
stuff 'bout stuff.
by silver82blade on Feb 14, 2011 3:28 AM EST up reply actions
...
I rarely recall having a complaint about him.
just kidding :-)
"I think that fits right along with what my vision is, and that is to help build this team into a Super Bowl caliber team, win, and sustain that for a period of time." ~Ron Rivera
I wouldnt necassarily say unused..
Charles Johnson finally got the starting job due to Pepper’s departure. More playing time means more effeciency. Greg Hardy is going to beast in the near future, but Brayton played more because he understood the defensive plays. Hardy showed amazing flashes on the field but he doesnt cover the runs and drop back in coverage well enough. We all knew Dwill had talent, but didnt get to start his first two years because of Foster. Foster fell off his last year with the Panthers, and he got kicked to the curb. So I believe Fox knew what he was doing, thats why he draft these players because he knew it was only a matter of time when they earned playing time. If Deangelo leaves Carolina and J-stew becomes Adrian Peterson like, does that mean that Fox underused him? Fox is the one coach who will keep two starting rb caliber because its his offensive philosophy. We all wonder why Jarret was such a bust, its because Fox only played players who knew their assignments. So to say that some of these players were unused fairly is not a fair assessment. But everyone will agree that Fox underused the tight end position. So to be fair, we should mention Barnidge, King, and Rosario as underused players.
by chang_gang84 on Feb 13, 2011 3:53 PM EST via mobile reply actions
If Hardy not being good enough in coverage is one of your reasons for holding him back
Then you’re making a reach.
Follow me on Twitter at @JakeHumphrey91
by Jake Humphrey on Feb 13, 2011 4:20 PM EST up reply actions
I get what he's saying though...
Hindsight is always 20/20, and honestly if you’re a HC and you’re choosing between a rookie and someone whose been in the system who are you going to choose? It’s easy for us to talk about “OMGZ how is player x not getting the snaps??!”, but what if some of these guys really aren’t kicking it up in practice? I’d say Deangelo was probably ready to take snaps as early as 07, but I’m glad that 4 years into his career he’s still got more tread on his tires than many of the starters in the league….
I was a little confused by Brayton keeping his job later on in the season when it was apparent he wasn’t doing much, but wasn’t all that surprised that he had the job at the beginning of the season. Besides, there’s a ton of players that he played when they were rookies (at positions that are easy to fuck up as a rook no less) like TD, Gamble, Beason, Gross, Wharton, etc…..
Nobody fucks with the Jesus! -Big Lebowski
I have no problems with Hardy not starting early in the year
Brayton was the veteran and was to be given the benefit of the doubt. But droping back in coverage? Really? C’mon man, we’re talking about a defensive end!
Follow me on Twitter at @JakeHumphrey91
by Jake Humphrey on Feb 13, 2011 7:46 PM EST up reply actions
No, him being a 6th round rookie is the reason for holding him back
Did you not just witness what happens when you are the youngest team in the league. Would you like to amplify that?
Holding late round rookies back a year, so they can learn through observation is not a bad thing!
on behalf of tha dirty south: soul food, carolina blue, southern hospitality, and tha queen city
I understand that
But saying he was held back because of his coverage skills is ridiculous. That’s all I ever said.
Follow me on Twitter at @JakeHumphrey91
by Jake Humphrey on Feb 13, 2011 8:04 PM EST up reply actions
Ok, my bad then
on behalf of tha dirty south: soul food, carolina blue, southern hospitality, and tha queen city
Gettis seemed to do pretty well for a 6th round rookie
And I think he will be better this year because he got more time.
Unofficial Agent for Armanti Edwards, WR #10, Carolina Panthers
+1
Blount was an undrafted rookie for Tampa who started and made a huge difference. I don’t think the round you were drafted in should make more of a difference than skills. Plus Tampa gives us a look at what the right coaching can do for young players.
Disclaimer: BusyBeingAwesome = Irony. And, on a side note. I miss you, Steve Beuerlein.
by BusyBeingAwesome on Feb 14, 2011 9:44 AM EST up reply actions
So you're goal is to be like Tampa? Go young, gut your team and be a league worst for a year?
Than to be like the Patriots and create consistency by maintaining experienced vets and bringing rookies along slowly?
on behalf of tha dirty south: soul food, carolina blue, southern hospitality, and tha queen city
by southtunnel on Feb 14, 2011 10:33 AM EST up reply actions
No, I never said that was a goal.
My point is that you shouldn’t be relegated to the bench or the placed in the starting line up based on your draft status. You should be in or out of the line up based on skill and talent.
Disclaimer: BusyBeingAwesome = Irony. And, on a side note. I miss you, Steve Beuerlein.
by BusyBeingAwesome on Feb 14, 2011 10:40 AM EST up reply actions
Well I believe experience is every bit as valuable as skill and talent
This team had more talent then what a 2 win team should have. What it lacked was experience and leadership.
on behalf of tha dirty south: soul food, carolina blue, southern hospitality, and tha queen city
by southtunnel on Feb 14, 2011 10:56 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
You're probably right that he'll be better next year for it
But that’s at the expense of having a 2-14 team last year. I’d rather hang on to some vets, transition young guys slowly, and not go through the horror we just went through.
on behalf of tha dirty south: soul food, carolina blue, southern hospitality, and tha queen city
by southtunnel on Feb 14, 2011 10:31 AM EST up reply actions
Agreed there.
And as you touched on earlier, we were just TOO young last year. Nothing wrong with starting a few young guys in spots, but when you’re starting nothing but rookies.. you end up with no leadership, and in many cases cannot properly evaluate other players.
I firmly believe the reason we could not evaluate Clausen (or even Moore) last year was due to the fact that all his targets were rookies as well.
Unofficial Agent for Armanti Edwards, WR #10, Carolina Panthers
Yeah, they really need to bring in a strong, vet QB to help smooth out that position
on behalf of tha dirty south: soul food, carolina blue, southern hospitality, and tha queen city
by southtunnel on Feb 14, 2011 10:57 AM EST up reply actions
i remember thinking d-will should of gotten snaps sooner
maybe not his rookie year, even though he did well, but certainly in 07’. he was clealy more effective. also i dont know if sherrod martin was underused. he got alot of pt last season and started this season. not to mention that martin was chosen as a starter over godfrey a couple games but wasnt ready (ricky williams and the dolphins). anderson should of started last year in place of diggs. diggs was a non factor. he had some pathetic number like 24 tackles. anderson started half the year and had 65. brayton was another guy that i was really disapointed with. i liked him after his 2 solid seasons but he definitley should of lost his starting job early on. when your not doing you strength (runstopper) then your sure as hell arent playing good
Eh
I’m hesitant to say “Williams should’ve started over Foster” only because Williams & Stewart were part of the movement that’s led us to the 2-3 back rotation that’s so commonplace today. Even if D-Will was “starting” Foster would’ve been in about as often as Williams came in for Foster in reality, so the stats wouldn’t be that different.
One of those “Did Carolina really lose any games because Foster was in instead of Williams on certain plays?” situations where you’d have to take so many other things into account (potential for injuries or wearing down due to the extra work, different circumstances in that particular game & the season overall, etc.) to really say “Yeah if DeAngelo was in on 3rd and 7 we totally get 8 with that play call versus Foster’s 4.5” or anything of the sort.
The stats would suggest otherwise
Foster had 247 carries with 5 fumbles lost with YPC of 3.6 with 3 TDs
D-Will had 144 carries with 1 fumble lost with YPC of 5.0 and 4 TDs
D-Will was more productive, was a bigger scoring threat and also displayed greater ball-security. Probably would have made a difference.
A qualified defense of Fox
D-Will couldn’t block in the backfield to save his life his first year and a half. (he started to come around by the end of his second season) Fox’s system always needed a certain level of perfection in execution to work. You knew what he was going to do, you could sit there and call each play before it happened, and yet it worked over and over again when everyone did their job correctly. That basically demands that you have people doing their job correctly time after time which basically means veterans. Now the qualified comes in light of the fact that if he had changed his system to reflect his players rather than necessitating that they follow his to the letter then some of the better talent would have seen the field more earlier.
Good point about the blocking.
Disclaimer: BusyBeingAwesome = Irony. And, on a side note. I miss you, Steve Beuerlein.
by BusyBeingAwesome on Feb 14, 2011 9:45 AM EST up reply actions
Our problem this year was that we were TOO YOUNG
Yet everybody seems to be infuriated with the idea of holding back rookies for a year. Listen, if you’re betting on a rookie to come in and save your season, then it’s no wonder you are 2-14.
Bottom line, starting guys like Anderson, Martin and Moore over vets like Diggs, Godfrey and Delhomme, DIDN’T make us better. It made us worse!
I said it last offseason and was laughed at… But if you want to start a bunch of 1st and 2nd year players, then you better have some really strong vets around them.
on behalf of tha dirty south: soul food, carolina blue, southern hospitality, and tha queen city
I call bullshit
The Panthers average age was 25.4 years old. Tampa was an average age of 25.5 years old. I refuse to believe a month and a half makes the difference between winning 2 games and 10.
Disclaimer: BusyBeingAwesome = Irony. And, on a side note. I miss you, Steve Beuerlein.
by BusyBeingAwesome on Feb 14, 2011 9:50 AM EST up reply actions
And Tampa Bay has 13 wins in 2 seasons and no playoff appearances
I can’t believe you guys don’t have higher standards than Tampa. If they make the playoffs next year, it won’t be because they are young… It will be because they now have experience together.
If I’m not mistaken, Green Bay is also one of the youngest teams in the league. The difference however is that they have solid vet experience at key positions. That’s how you go young and maintain consistency. But what we did was just suicide.
on behalf of tha dirty south: soul food, carolina blue, southern hospitality, and tha queen city
by southtunnel on Feb 14, 2011 10:41 AM EST up reply actions
You bring up my standards, but I haven't ever stated them.
I am using Tampa as an example. You said the team was too young, and I am pointing out that there are successful teams out there who are also quite young. So let me repeat, Tampa is an example of a ten win team who is very young.
I do however see your point about having veterans at key positions on the roster, but I don’t think it would have done much more than keep us at mediocre without the right veterans in place, like an Aaron Rodgers or Ben Rothlesburger.
Disclaimer: BusyBeingAwesome = Irony. And, on a side note. I miss you, Steve Beuerlein.
by BusyBeingAwesome on Feb 14, 2011 10:50 AM EST up reply actions
I don't think we give Jake enough credit
Clearly his time was up as the Panther’s starting QB. But for many years he was the glue holding this team together. Losing his leadership really hurt us… I think we could have transitioned better without such an abrupt vet purge.
on behalf of tha dirty south: soul food, carolina blue, southern hospitality, and tha queen city
by southtunnel on Feb 14, 2011 11:03 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Okay, now youre speaking my language.
First off, sorry if I came off strong in some comments. I don’t want to sound like I’m not respecting your opinions.
But I agree with you 100% on your assessment of Jake Delhomme. I do think too much is made of being a young team (I think the issues with the Panthers go much deeper than age) but you bring up a fantastic example in Jake.
Disclaimer: BusyBeingAwesome = Irony. And, on a side note. I miss you, Steve Beuerlein.
by BusyBeingAwesome on Feb 14, 2011 11:06 AM EST up reply actions
He was, and I think management severely overreacted
But at the same time, i think they HAD to, because they know John Fox.
It would sound great to us as fans to have Matt Moore as the starter, keep Jake Delhomme as a somewhat reliable backup and leader in the locker-room, and have Jimmy Clausen in the 3rd spot holding a clipboard and soaking it all up. I think Hurney would have liked that too. However, I also think he knew that if they allowed Jake to come back, Fox would replace Matt Moore in a heartbeat and go back to Jake (if he even started Matt Moore at all). So i think Fox forced their hand in releasing Delhomme like they did. I think we would have had a better record this year if he had Jake as a backup and leader for both Matt and Jimmy, especially after Matt was injured, because Jimmy was clearly not ready.
Unofficial Agent for Armanti Edwards, WR #10, Carolina Panthers
That's something I have thought about too.
I agree that Fox essentially forced management’s hand on that one.
Disclaimer: BusyBeingAwesome = Irony. And, on a side note. I miss you, Steve Beuerlein.
by BusyBeingAwesome on Feb 14, 2011 11:18 AM EST up reply actions
As it turns out, Moore wasn't good for much anyways
If Jimmy sat behind Jake for a year then I think he would have been MUCH better off… And I bet we would have had more than 2 wins.
on behalf of tha dirty south: soul food, carolina blue, southern hospitality, and tha queen city
by southtunnel on Feb 14, 2011 12:46 PM EST up reply actions
I think there's a bit of a misconception about Fox and rookies.
He’s started plenty of rookies before. But he will start his guys over other players who may not be as talented. Diggs and Delhomme are good examples. Both were hard working, blue collar guys, the type Foxy loves. I don’t think he’s particularily different in that regard than some other coaches.
"Sometimes the journey is better than the destiny."-John Fox
"Ever noticed that you can say "it is what it is" after anything? It’s the perfect cop-out. Sorry man, I didn’t mean to hit on your girl… But it is what it is!"-Southtunnel (previously El Bacon)
by Flowing Willow on Feb 13, 2011 10:19 PM EST reply actions
Interesting theory, however I ardently disagree...
DeAngello was a rookie, and didn’t have it all together his first year. I remember thinking that he was good and would be great, but needed some time to transition into our offense. To say that he should’ve been starting instead of DeShaun Foster I think isn’t fair because Foster had earned it. Foster had proven himself for the past few years. In the SB run, he proved to be a great entity in our offense. Now, he wasn’t spectacular following the SB run, and proved to be adequately good, but he deserved to start over a rookie.
I think the same is true with the rest of the players, they were rookies and inexperienced, and the veterans were well deserving of the playing time. We all know Armanti is talented, however he is a rookie. Additionally, he is converting to a completely new and unknown position. I would have loved to see him play, however he wasn’t ready this year and wasn’t deserving of more playing time. I respect what John Fox did, the veterans proved their worth and playing time, and the rookies have to earn it. Would you rather have a coach who didn’t make the rookies earn it? I personally think that it is a smart strategy and gives the rookies motivation to work hard and earn playing time.
I think somebody should post a bash Rivera thread
And we can all pretend it’s like 10 years from now, when he’s coaching somewhere else.
on behalf of tha dirty south: soul food, carolina blue, southern hospitality, and tha queen city
by southtunnel on Feb 13, 2011 10:39 PM EST via mobile reply actions
you can never say if anyone was started too early or held out too long.
Until you get to see everything the coaches see in the practices and hear all the answers the coaches get to instructions. For all anyone knows Fox waited the perfect amount of time to start Williams. Williams is playing well, that doesnt mean he would have played well the year b4 he started. It is all assumption and you cant base any facts to back up either side.
Actually the argument is Martin as a rookie, over Godfrey.
That’s why this whole discussion is getting ridiculous, because people are debating why we should have started rookies.
on behalf of tha dirty south: soul food, carolina blue, southern hospitality, and tha queen city
by southtunnel on Feb 14, 2011 10:43 AM EST up reply actions
Clearly the most talented guy he held back was Charles Johnson in favor of Brayton, and that wasn't a poll option.
Williams wasn’t a great back until 2/3rds of the way through the 2007 season. That was the year Testaverde came in and schooled him up.
stuff 'bout stuff.
Who's to blame for that?
Of all the people that were with the Panthers at the time, I always found it strange that D-Will connected with Testaverde. Testaverde was an outsider at the point – he would not be there if it wasn’t for Jake’s injury and Carr sucking. If all that had not happened, would we be talking about D-Will as a bust? I guess Hurney would be taking the fall for the pick.
I think this speaks poorly of our previous coaching staff.
What about the depth guys that were backups that walked in free agency and would un starting for other teams?
If anything
I think that’s a testament to the old staff, especially when we talk about o-linemen.
Follow me on Twitter at @JakeHumphrey91
by Jake Humphrey on Feb 14, 2011 9:28 AM EST up reply actions
Godfrey was drafted in ‘08, Martin was drafted in ’09. Wasn’t this rookies over veterans? Or second year guys are also kicked to the curb?
Really, you should ask John Fox about that one.
Godfrey had only 2 interceptions his entire career and when he got hurt Sherrod Martin comes in and beats that in only 3 games, including two against the Bills. Now if I’m the coach I’m thinking
“Hmm, Sherrod Martin is hot. Might wanna ride the hot streak on this one.”
Nope. The instant Godfrey is well again they throw him back in. Wrong move in my opinion.
"Once again the trousers of evil are yanked down by the mocking hands of justice!"-Revshawn
Martin did have more INT's.
But he also showed a severe weakness in run support. Then Godfrey comes back in and becomes a playmaking monster. I think this is a situation where it all worked out for the best.
"Sometimes the journey is better than the destiny."-John Fox
"Ever noticed that you can say "it is what it is" after anything? It’s the perfect cop-out. Sorry man, I didn’t mean to hit on your girl… But it is what it is!"-Southtunnel (previously El Bacon)
by Flowing Willow on Feb 14, 2011 5:42 PM EST up reply actions
I see your point
and I agree it worked out for the best, in fact it was Sherrod Martin OVER Chris Harris this year, don’t see why get Godfrey involved into this
by Armando Trejo on Feb 14, 2011 7:07 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Cat Scratch Reader
Related FanShots on Cat Scratch Reader
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- The Shutdown Corner Podcast: Greg Cosell on the NFC South Draft
- BREAKING: Tim Tebow did not become a great quarterback today
- Jerry Jones says Cowboys championship window is closing; Tony Romo disagrees
- Lawrence Taylor was told his Super Bowl ring was bought by Charlie Sheen
- Chad Ochocinco gets robbed, mourns loss of Starbucks gold card
