Grading the offensive talent in 2004

GumboBC · 03-19-2005, 11:29 AM

Offense
WR 83 Stallworth, Donte' - C
LT 72 Gandy, Wayne -C
LG 64 Jacox, Kendyl - C
C 65 Bentley, LeCharles - C (due to switching to center)
RG 61 Holland, Montrae -C
RT 68 Riley, Victor -F
TE 82 Williams, Boo -D
WR 87 Horn, Joe -A
QB 2 Brooks, Aaron -C (due to the offensive line and injury to Deuce)
RB 26 McAllister, Deuce -C (because of injury)
FB 44 Karney, Mike - C

[Edited on 19/3/2005 by GumboBC]

JKool · 03-19-2005, 04:58 PM

Hmmm...
Stallworth - C+ (stayed healthy, showed flashes, get him the ball deep... damn it)
Gandy - C+ (toward the downside of his career)
Jacox - C (serviceable)
Bentley - B (started off slow at the new position)
Holland - C+ (pretty athletic for a big boy, still young)
Riley - D- (snap count buddy, snap count)
Williams - C (concentrate on the ball!)
Horn - A- (played hurt, played strong, ... played!)
Brooks - C+ (up, down, up, down, up, down, up...)
McAllister - B (hurt, line sucked, etc.)
Karney - A- (beast, not enough playing time)

spkb25 · 03-19-2005, 06:18 PM

im not so with gumbo on the o line being completely behind brooks\' problems. although he did run for his life at times. but he was as jkool put it up-down-up-down

bayouking318 · 03-20-2005, 02:58 AM

no way will i give McCalister a B. He lost a step running in the hole. He lack the vision for finding the cut back lanes in some games. The outside speed for hit the corner was gone. He never was a elusive back cuz of injury lack of power to break alot of tackles. The guy wasn\'t himself last year but I do expect him play to form like the year after his rookie year cuz this a contract year. The question is how do you keep him motivated after this year?

JKool · 03-20-2005, 03:36 PM

Ok - C+ (hurt, line sucked, coaches told him to get fat...)

bayouking318 · 03-20-2005, 08:04 PM

hurt...that is his fault cuz of his conditioning in the offseason

line sucked...I\'ll give you that. They didn\'t get a great push on DL most of the time but their were a couple of cut back lanes and bounces to the outside he could\'ve ran if he was in better condition

coaches told him to get fat....that is a assumption people made on here. Nowhere could I find truth to that when it 1st pop up on here. I have read alot where the coaches wanted him play at the weight of 220 - 225, that was the main reason they brought in differ conditioning coaches. This year they brought in differ RB coach. The guy need to stay motivated and the only way i see that possible is to put a incentive package in his contract that will have him

03-19-2005, 11:29 AM	#1
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	Grading the offensive talent in 2004 Offense WR 83 Stallworth, Donte' - C LT 72 Gandy, Wayne -C LG 64 Jacox, Kendyl - C C 65 Bentley, LeCharles - C (due to switching to center) RG 61 Holland, Montrae -C RT 68 Riley, Victor -F TE 82 Williams, Boo -D WR 87 Horn, Joe -A QB 2 Brooks, Aaron -C (due to the offensive line and injury to Deuce) RB 26 McAllister, Deuce -C (because of injury) FB 44 Karney, Mike - C [Edited on 19/3/2005 by GumboBC]
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

03-19-2005, 04:58 PM	#2
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Grading the offensive talent in 2004 Hmmm... Stallworth - C+ (stayed healthy, showed flashes, get him the ball deep... damn it) Gandy - C+ (toward the downside of his career) Jacox - C (serviceable) Bentley - B (started off slow at the new position) Holland - C+ (pretty athletic for a big boy, still young) Riley - D- (snap count buddy, snap count) Williams - C (concentrate on the ball!) Horn - A- (played hurt, played strong, ... played!) Brooks - C+ (up, down, up, down, up, down, up...) McAllister - B (hurt, line sucked, etc.) Karney - A- (beast, not enough playing time)

03-19-2005, 06:18 PM	#3
spkb25 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Baltimore, MD Posts: 13,057	Grading the offensive talent in 2004 im not so with gumbo on the o line being completely behind brooks\' problems. although he did run for his life at times. but he was as jkool put it up-down-up-down

03-20-2005, 02:58 AM	#4
bayouking318 100th Post Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monroe, La Posts: 209	Grading the offensive talent in 2004 no way will i give McCalister a B. He lost a step running in the hole. He lack the vision for finding the cut back lanes in some games. The outside speed for hit the corner was gone. He never was a elusive back cuz of injury lack of power to break alot of tackles. The guy wasn\'t himself last year but I do expect him play to form like the year after his rookie year cuz this a contract year. The question is how do you keep him motivated after this year?

03-20-2005, 03:36 PM	#5
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Grading the offensive talent in 2004 Ok - C+ (hurt, line sucked, coaches told him to get fat...)

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

03-20-2005, 08:04 PM	#6
bayouking318 100th Post Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monroe, La Posts: 209	Grading the offensive talent in 2004 hurt...that is his fault cuz of his conditioning in the offseason line sucked...I\'ll give you that. They didn\'t get a great push on DL most of the time but their were a couple of cut back lanes and bounces to the outside he could\'ve ran if he was in better condition coaches told him to get fat....that is a assumption people made on here. Nowhere could I find truth to that when it 1st pop up on here. I have read alot where the coaches wanted him play at the weight of 220 - 225, that was the main reason they brought in differ conditioning coaches. This year they brought in differ RB coach. The guy need to stay motivated and the only way i see that possible is to put a incentive package in his contract that will have him