Thomas

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

    Thomas

    Good ridence to this guy, he tanked it all year. This team was trying to transition to the 43 this year and sounds like Bill wanted him on the strong side backer position. On paper this probrably would of been a good idea until this guy put himself ahead of the team and hurt the defense. Take the money you save on this bum and sign some people that will fit what you want and need to do. He looked to slow to pass rush and to stiff to make plays on the perimeter. Good luck at the Jets!!
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Pats7393. Show Pats7393's posts

    Re: Thomas

    Where did you get this team was trying to transition to a 43?  that is not a fact, if it was Burgess would have been playing DE instead of OLB and VW would have been lined up as a DT not a NT. 

    The use a mix but their base is a 34
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Thomas

    Bruschi over the summer said that the 43 was something they were going to be doing a little more than just experimenting with after he was released ( I mean retired). But your right they were in the 34 most of the time, I just think that certain players (Thomas) maybe kept that from happening.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: Thomas

    can you guys think of a player coming coming back from a major injury? one who might pose a big risk to his org now, but might have some upside? preferrably of course he would have a big contract (even not as big as AT's)? i think he's more tradable than i am implying here, but here's a last resort scenario.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Thomas

    I don't think he's tradable at all; age, production, contract, zero leverage, etc. Maybe to Kansas City or Denver for just about nothing to keep him away from the Jets. 
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share