Interesting stat per Reiss

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: Interesting stat per Reiss

    In response to PatsEng's comment:


    We are paying Hooman more than Myer, Chandler, and Daniels got paid




    No we're not.  The only player on a comparable deal is Daniels who is old and coming off a pretty severe injury.  Myers and Chandler are getting like 2x as much as Hooman.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Interesting stat per Reiss

    In response to pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    We are paying Hooman more than Myer, Chandler, and Daniels got paid

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    No we're not.  The only player on a comparable deal is Daniels who is old and coming off a pretty severe injury.  Myers and Chandler are getting like 2x as much as Hooman.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    You are correct. I was reading per yer on the other two and total on Hooman, you are correct. The difference is about $1 mil per year. Not exactly a big chunk of change but I was wrong.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronk1. Show ronk1's posts

    Re: Interesting stat per Reiss

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    When injuries deplete your team sometimes you have to play Troy Brown or Edelmen at cornerback, sometimes you have to improvise... I curse the football gods first for ripping our team apart with injuries before I blame the GM who has us in contention every year.

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Some of us knew those guys would be injured. BB wasn't in the know. 

    I just wish somebody would tell him who will be injured this year. It would be so helpful down the road.

    [/QUOTE]

    Lol!

    [/QUOTE]

    I cant see anywhere on these threads that anyone, including the OP, mentions BB?

    I am not reading any of this as BB should have known or BB is a bum, I am reading it that the Pats might be inclined to carry 2 true TE's and an extra OL that could line up as an inline blocking TE.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: Interesting stat per Reiss

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    One receiving TE and one or two blockers who catch the odd pass, and a FB who might be the best FB on this team since Sam Gash, and we're set at TE/HB/FB. As someone said above (OG, maybe?), they aren't going to lose the SB because the third TE wasn't a stud.

    Quick, who is SF's third TE, or even their second? How about Seattle? How about Denver? Has Pittsburgh ever had a second or third TE? It's Heath Miller and ...?  

    These are the receptions/TDs for the top TE on the last five SB champs:

    2013: 33/5, Zach Miller

    2012: 61/7, Dennis Pitta

    2011: 38/4, the great Jake Ballard

    2010: 21/1, Jermichael Finley

    2009: 48/3, Jeremy Shockey

    There are more important concerns.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Come on, really?  That is not even a good justification,  The Patriots offense is totally different then those teams.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: Interesting stat per Reiss

    In response to crazy-world-of-troybrown's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Usually mismatches with TE's are about 5-10 yards down the field, not 20+. They usually can out run a Linebacker, then the mismatch is their size advantage over DB's. Mistackles, are usually the biggest reason, why TE's do good. You don't need 20 yards for this. 5 will do it.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Exactly, 5-10 yard mismatches are exactly what this Patriots offense is designed for. 

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: Interesting stat per Reiss

    In response to TFB12's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    One receiving TE and one or two blockers who catch the odd pass, and a FB who might be the best FB on this team since Sam Gash, and we're set at TE/HB/FB. As someone said above (OG, maybe?), they aren't going to lose the SB because the third TE wasn't a stud.

    Quick, who is SF's third TE, or even their second? How about Seattle? How about Denver? Has Pittsburgh ever had a second or third TE? It's Heath Miller and ...?  

    These are the receptions/TDs for the top TE on the last five SB champs:

    2013: 33/5, Zach Miller

    2012: 61/7, Dennis Pitta

    2011: 38/4, the great Jake Ballard

    2010: 21/1, Jermichael Finley

    2009: 48/3, Jeremy Shockey

    There are more important concerns.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Come on, really?  That is not even a good justification,  The Patriots offense is totally different then those teams.

    [/QUOTE]

    How so? They were more TE oriented from '10 to '12 when they had Hern, but that's over and it's not coming back. Now, they're just like those teams, just like they used to be, and just like most of the rest of the NFL with one receiving threat at TE. I can think of San Diego, Philly, Detroit, Cinci and there might be a couple more I'm forgetting that have more than one TE that can get downfield.

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Interesting stat per Reiss

    People maybe get too fixated on a particular position.  What you need is the right combination of skills to run an effective offense.  TEs catch passes and block.  If you don't have enough TEs, you can make up for their pass catching with better WRs or better receiving backs and you can make up for their blocking with an extra OL or a FB or maybe a big WR.   The key is to look at the whole team and not any single position. 

    Right now this team is definitely thinner at TE, though if they utilize one TE in most formations and Gronk is playing, it's not a weak position.  (Hoomanawanui is even an adequate back-up and occasional second TE.)

    However, with a quality second TE not in the mix, you need to make up for his absence in some other position.  Having a guy like LaFell (who is big for a receiver and a good blocker) could be enough if he's the third receiver and we have two other WRs who are effective.  Another way to make up for the missing second TE is to run more two-back formations.  And with Develin, Vereen, Ridley, and White this is looking like something the Pats may actually be able to do this year. 

    Don't get me wrong--you do need quality, depth and diversity in your running/receiving positions (WR, TE, RB, FB), but you don't necessarily need depth in all those positions.  You just need a good mix of running, receiving, and blocking skills in the aggregate across those positions.

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Section136. Show Section136's posts

    Re: Interesting stat per Reiss

    In response to ronk1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [/QUOTE]

    [/QUOTE]

    [/QUOTE]

    I cant see anywhere on these threads that anyone, including the OP, mentions BB?

    I am not reading any of this as BB should have known or BB is a bum, I am reading it that the Pats might be inclined to carry 2 true TE's and an extra OL that could line up as an inline blocking TE.

    [/QUOTE]

    BB makes all personnel decisions for the Patriots. Any woulda, coulda, shoulda would be directed at him, hope this helps.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Interesting stat per Reiss

    In response to Section136's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    BB makes all personnel decisions for the Patriots. Any woulda, coulda, shoulda would be directed at him, hope this helps.

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    So if there was an apparent weakness would it also be fair to put it on him? At times it seems like that isn't allowed

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Interesting stat per Reiss

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    People maybe get too fixated on a particular position.  What you need is the right combination of skills to run an effective offense.  TEs catch passes and block.  If you don't have enough TEs, you can make up for their pass catching with better WRs or better receiving backs and you can make up for their blocking with an extra OL or a FB or maybe a big WR.   The key is to look at the whole team and not any single position. 

    Right now this team is definitely thinner at TE, though if they utilize one TE in most formations and Gronk is playing, it's not a weak position.  (Hoomanawanui is even an adequate back-up and occasional second TE.)

    However, with a quality second TE not in the mix, you need to make up for his absence in some other position.  Having a guy like LaFell (who is big for a receiver and a good blocker) could be enough if he's the third receiver and we have two other WRs who are effective.  Another way to make up for the missing second TE is to run more two-back formations.  And with Develin, Vereen, Ridley, and White this is looking like something the Pats may actually be able to do this year. 

    Don't get me wrong--you do need quality, depth and diversity in your running/receiving positions (WR, TE, RB, FB), but you don't necessarily need depth in all those positions.  You just need a good mix of running, receiving, and blocking skills in the aggregate across those positions.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    I agree Pro. The reason I look at TE in particular is because this O revolves around Gronk. Looking at these WR's Edelman is a good WR but short of him you got a hodge podge of mix and match parts that scares no teams. So in your scenario I don't see the WR's picking up the slack for the lose of Gronk. Then looking at the RB position, I'm not confident Vereen can stay healthy enough to make a difference, not sure BB has the confidence in Ridley to hold on to the ball when it matters most, so that puts it all into White's hands. Now because the WR group is on the weaker side this allows teams (like they did last year) to load up the box making even harder on the RB group. To me, and this is just my opinion, unless Gronk stays 100% all year the lack of top end talent in the WR group will hinder you example and prevent the other groups from stepping up. If we had a go to WR you could count on week in and week out to not be beat up on the line that would be a different story but in todays NFL you need 2 of your 3 groups to be able to carry the team at any point. The RB's might be one of those groups and Gronk could be the other but I don't have confidence the WR's can be that type of group if Gronk goes down.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Paul_K. Show Paul_K's posts

    Re: Interesting stat per Reiss

    Occasionally BB and staff find a guy whose quarterback couldn't ever see him.  The QB has one main target, maybe an outlet target and three other guys who are inexplicably running loose and waving their hands in the air.  The guy comes here and he becomes more of a target.

    If BB solely wanted an extra tackle at the goal line he could make Cannon an eligible tight end for a play.  Actually, he's experimenting with Chandler Jones as an extra tight end.  Huge long guy, great leap, occasionally he has to intercept a ball, what's not to like?

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: Interesting stat per Reiss

    In response to PatsEng's comment:


    I agree Pro. The reason I look at TE in particular is because this O revolves around Gronk. Looking at these WR's Edelman is a good WR but short of him you got a hodge podge of mix and match parts that scares no teams. So in your scenario I don't see the WR's picking up the slack for the lose of Gronk. Then looking at the RB position, I'm not confident Vereen can stay healthy enough to make a difference, not sure BB has the confidence in Ridley to hold on to the ball when it matters most, so that puts it all into White's hands. Now because the WR group is on the weaker side this allows teams (like they did last year) to load up the box making even harder on the RB group. To me, and this is just my opinion, unless Gronk stays 100% all year the lack of top end talent in the WR group will hinder you example and prevent the other groups from stepping up. If we had a go to WR you could count on week in and week out to not be beat up on the line that would be a different story but in todays NFL you need 2 of your 3 groups to be able to carry the team at any point. The RB's might be one of those groups and Gronk could be the other but I don't have confidence the WR's can be that type of group if Gronk goes down.



    Do you think one of the FA TEs you were talking about before (Myers, Chandler, Daniels) somehow makes the TE group "one of the groups that can carry the team" if Gronk goes down?  I don't personally.  I guess I have more confidence in the WR group we currently have than any TE that was available in FA.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from TripleOG. Show TripleOG's posts

    Re: Interesting stat per Reiss

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    People maybe get too fixated on a particular position.  What you need is the right combination of skills to run an effective offense.  TEs catch passes and block.  If you don't have enough TEs, you can make up for their pass catching with better WRs or better receiving backs and you can make up for their blocking with an extra OL or a FB or maybe a big WR.   The key is to look at the whole team and not any single position. 

    Right now this team is definitely thinner at TE, though if they utilize one TE in most formations and Gronk is playing, it's not a weak position.  (Hoomanawanui is even an adequate back-up and occasional second TE.)

    However, with a quality second TE not in the mix, you need to make up for his absence in some other position.  Having a guy like LaFell (who is big for a receiver and a good blocker) could be enough if he's the third receiver and we have two other WRs who are effective.  Another way to make up for the missing second TE is to run more two-back formations.  And with Develin, Vereen, Ridley, and White this is looking like something the Pats may actually be able to do this year. 

    Don't get me wrong--you do need quality, depth and diversity in your running/receiving positions (WR, TE, RB, FB), but you don't necessarily need depth in all those positions.  You just need a good mix of running, receiving, and blocking skills in the aggregate across those positions.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    IMO It only means that instead of running a two tight end most times., now you reserve that to goal line and short yardage. Obviously we all agree Hooman is nothing special. Soo, Instead of putting Hooman out in 12 personnel, they replace the TE with a WR or even with a Fb and go I formation. Thats something no one is mentioning. We stopped carrying fullbacks in the 2 tight end era. Only last year a FB was kept on 53 man roster again. So we will go with FB, where we can run playaction, pass to FB in flat. Or we can go 1 back, 1 tight with 3 WR sets(Ideal formation for this personnel) because Obviously Lafell is a better WR than Hooman is a TE. This is why the Pats didnt mind being redundant w/Edleman, Amendola, Boyce, and to an extent Vareen.

    They will play a lot so its good to have backups. Hooman is likely not going to see the field much in anticipation of a possible Gronk injury, they need him healthy. I suspect if something happens midseason then we may see a Keller brought in when his injury is better.  I for one dont need to see the 2 TE set. We have plenty of options who work in the middle. I am excited to see what Lafell can bring with his skillset.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Interesting stat per Reiss

    In response to pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Do you think one of the FA TEs you were talking about before (Myers, Chandler, Daniels) somehow makes the TE group "one of the groups that can carry the team" if Gronk goes down?  I don't personally.  I guess I have more confidence in the WR group we currently have than any TE that was available in FA.

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Nope but, I don't think if a team does have someone they have to worry about putting up decent numbers at the TE position it does help take the stress of the RB group and does help the receiver group to the point where maybe if Dobson develops having a Dobson and Edelman might be enough. But, if the other team doesn't even have to care about the TE position at all they can lock down the RB's and box out the WR's. It's one piece of a puzzle and completely removing that piece from the equation opens up the chance for the D to basically remove another full piece and force the Pats to be 1 dimensional. At least if you have that piece is presents some options. As I said I don't expect another Gronk, that's extremist, but something between a Gronk and Hooman? Someone with average-good blocking that can give you 3-6 recs a game and at least give the D something to think about?

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Interesting stat per Reiss

    Eng and I have agreed in the past that both of us woud have liked to have seen at least one more high-impact offensive weapon to complement Gronk.  In the last few years, when Gronk has been out (too often at the end of the season) there hasn't been another dominant offensive player to challenge defenses.  We've had to play with a lot of average quality offensive players and often that hasn't been enough.

    Still, I think the top priority for the team has been improving the defense and it looks like that's where BB has focused.  I don't mind that.  I just think there are still some legitimate questions about the overall quality and depth of the skill positions.  If Amendola and Dobson both play well, Gronk stays healthy, LaFell and Thompkins are good third and fourth receivers, and our backs give us some versatility, I think we'll be a very good offense.  There are a fair number if "ifs" there, though, and if Gronk does get hurt again, those ifs loom a bit larger because the other guys--while they may have potential--haven't really shown themselves to be impact players yet.


     


     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Interesting stat per Reiss

    In response to Paul_K's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Occasionally BB and staff find a guy whose quarterback couldn't ever see him.  The QB has one main target, maybe an outlet target and three other guys who are inexplicably running loose and waving their hands in the air.  The guy comes here and he becomes more of a target.

    If BB solely wanted an extra tackle at the goal line he could make Cannon an eligible tight end for a play.  Actually, he's experimenting with Chandler Jones as an extra tight end.  Huge long guy, great leap, occasionally he has to intercept a ball, what's not to like?

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Potentially getting your best edge rusher hurt in a situation he's not use to playing in?

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from carawaydj. Show carawaydj's posts

    Re: Interesting stat per Reiss

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    When injuries deplete your team sometimes you have to play Troy Brown or Edelmen at cornerback, sometimes you have to improvise... I curse the football gods first for ripping our team apart with injuries before I blame the GM who has us in contention every year.

    [/QUOTE]
    +1

    It is so nice to be in contention each and every year.  I've almost forgotten how it felt to be the laughing stock of the NFL.....almost.  That lingering memory makes me appreciate how good we have it.

    This is what being level-headed sounds like.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Section136. Show Section136's posts

    Re: Interesting stat per Reiss

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Section136's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    BB makes all personnel decisions for the Patriots. Any woulda, coulda, shoulda would be directed at him, hope this helps.

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    So if there was an apparent weakness would it also be fair to put it on him? At times it seems like that isn't allowed

    [/QUOTE]


    Absolutely, but I do think that the usual suspects use sarcasm and name calling, while the majority that disagree with you are just disagreeing with you. My problem with some of your stuff is that it seems like things like the salary cap and what's available isn't taken into consideration. I wouldn't let the suspects get to you - you're entitled to your opinion.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from carawaydj. Show carawaydj's posts

    Re: Interesting stat per Reiss

    I guess I find that stat less interesting.  He's a blocking TE.  Here is an article about him. http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/01/11/4602438/blocking-specialist-has-made-playoffs.html#.U-krI1Z8D0A" rel="nofollow">http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/01/11/4602438/blocking-specialist-has-made-playoffs.html#.U-krI1Z8D0A


    Note the article headline: Panthers’ blocking specialist...


    Note a sentence near the end: Whatever team signs Hartsock will be getting a good blocker and a better talisman.



    This is what being level-headed sounds like.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Interesting stat per Reiss

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Eng and I have agreed in the past I think that both of use woud have liked to have seen at least one more high-impact offensive weapon to complement Gronk.  In the ast few years, when Gronk has been out (too often at the end of the season) there hasn't been another dominant offensive player to challenge defenses.  We've had to play with a lot of average quality offensive players and often that hasn't been enough.

    Still, I think the top priority for the team has been improving the defense and it looks like that's where BB has focused.  I don't mind that.  I just think there are still some legitimate questions about the overall quality and depth of the skill positions.  If Amendola and Dobson both play well, Gronk stays healthy, LaFell and Thompkins are good third and fourth receivers, and our backs give us some versatility, I think we'll be a very good offense.  There are a fair number if "ifs" there, though, and if Gronk does get hurt again, those ifs loom a bit larger because the other guys--while they may have potential--haven't really shown themselves to be impact players yet.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    I think your second paragraph is where most of the divide is with most people. I see Gronk, Vereen, and Amendola as likely to be injured, even Edelman in that role. 3 out of the 4 are most likely to miss time and not be 100% for a good portion of games in my mind so that's where it falls apart for me. If all are healthy yes this O should be very good but I just can't see them all staying healthy. Unlike some I don't believe it's just bad voodoo but that it's a history of injures you can gauge a probability on. Knowing this I'd like 1 more player, either less of a dramatic drop from Gronk to next one down from him or a better impact player at WR. Others just don't see it that way and think all will remain healthy this year so there is no need to add anyone else. Sometimes I think BB thinks this also. Time will tell which is right but I just can't stand when injures pill up I still get jumped on for saying we need to better protect ourselves. I mean I made the same argument last year, got jumped on, injures piled up and people still jumped on me saying there was no one to know when I warned of it prior to the season.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Section136. Show Section136's posts

    Re: Interesting stat per Reiss

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Paul_K's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Occasionally BB and staff find a guy whose quarterback couldn't ever see him.  The QB has one main target, maybe an outlet target and three other guys who are inexplicably running loose and waving their hands in the air.  The guy comes here and he becomes more of a target.

    If BB solely wanted an extra tackle at the goal line he could make Cannon an eligible tight end for a play.  Actually, he's experimenting with Chandler Jones as an extra tight end.  Huge long guy, great leap, occasionally he has to intercept a ball, what's not to like?

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Potentially getting your best edge rusher hurt in a situation he's not use to playing in?

    [/QUOTE]


    Actually, I think he's more likely to get hurt trying to get around a 300lb tackle than filling a Vrabel type role.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Interesting stat per Reiss

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Paul_K's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Occasionally BB and staff find a guy whose quarterback couldn't ever see him.  The QB has one main target, maybe an outlet target and three other guys who are inexplicably running loose and waving their hands in the air.  The guy comes here and he becomes more of a target.

    If BB solely wanted an extra tackle at the goal line he could make Cannon an eligible tight end for a play.  Actually, he's experimenting with Chandler Jones as an extra tight end.  Huge long guy, great leap, occasionally he has to intercept a ball, what's not to like?

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Potentially getting your best edge rusher hurt in a situation he's not use to playing in?

    [/QUOTE]


    I guess I wouldn't mind Jones being another Vrabel.  Vrabel had 10 career receptions from the TE position, all 10 for TDs.  Amazing really. 

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: Interesting stat per Reiss

    In response to PatsEng's comment:


    Others just don't see it that way and think all will remain healthy this year so there is no need to add anyone else. Sometimes I think BB thinks this also.




    I think this is slightly incorrect.  Others think that injuries are unpredictable.  Reiss has alluded to BB thinking this way in a mailbag he put up a few months ago (I'll try and find it).  As far as I can tell there has never been any research that has demonstrated that "injury proneness" is actually a thing.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Interesting stat per Reiss

    In response to Section136's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Absolutely, but I do think that the usual suspects use sarcasm and name calling, while the majority that disagree with you are just disagreeing with you. My problem with some of your stuff is that it seems like things like the salary cap and what's available isn't taken into consideration. I wouldn't let the suspects get to you - you're entitled to your opinion.

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Thank you, and I do take salary cap and available players into consideration. I'm not one who calls for every big name on the market. Most of the time I like 1 big impact FA in a major weakness but for the most part I look for players that fit in our cap range and aren't name chasers. For example I liked Browner this year, I wanted Chandler or Myers, last year there were a couple CB's I liked that fell in the $3-4 mil range for short term deals, I liked Nicks among others but none were cap breakers and most of the time when I talk FA's I include cap numbers and what I think they would take for contracts to explain the cap structure. Trust me I do take that into consideration. We had plenty of room to add another TE to the group. Not a top end WR obviously that others wanted but I never said I wanted a Fitz, Johnson, or Decker either because they wouldn't work with our cap structure.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from mellymel3. Show mellymel3's posts

    Re: Interesting stat per Reiss

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I will be at practice this afternoon and will do my best to follow the TE position 

    I was not at practice yesterday, but heard Manieri did not show well

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Didn't we already have Manieri as a UDFA TE at one point and lost him on waivers? I could be thinking of someone else but for some reason I remember his name.

    [/QUOTE]

    Maneri was an OT here...think KC picked him up when Pioli was their GM...they may have been the ones who converted him to TE but he was never anything more than a blocking TE there.

     

Share