The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

If Niles Paul is going to be the #2, he's gotta start catching the ball. Paul looks like it's going to take him a while carrying that extra weight.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

ATX_Skins wrote:Even if ey came back for less money what makes anyone think he would actually play?

He is no good anymore. I understand what he meant to the Redskins and what he did while he was here but man, get over it. He's gone, time to move on.

He's good enough to be a backup, he hasn't fallen that far off the map. Niles still can't catch.

still cant catch....?
How was he ever a Wide Out...???

ATX_Skins wrote:Even if ey came back for less money what makes anyone think he would actually play?

He is no good anymore. I understand what he meant to the Redskins and what he did while he was here but man, get over it. He's gone, time to move on.

If Niles Pauls keeps playing like he has in preseason (a drop for every catch) then ey would most deffinately play!

I do have a question for all.

ey was cut for several reasons. Salary, crowed possition battle, older, injury history, declining performance and not a starter.

Can't all of the above be said for Tim Higtower?

This is off topic, but I would rather have Banks, Robinson, AAA or ey over Hightower! I'm completely fine with a backfield of four backs; Morris, Helu, Royster, and Young. If one gets injured, Hightower would still be unemployed.

I know that is off topic, but I had to vent.

skinsfan#33 wrote:

ATX_Skins wrote:Even if ey came back for less money what makes anyone think he would actually play?

He is no good anymore. I understand what he meant to the Redskins and what he did while he was here but man, get over it. He's gone, time to move on.

If Niles Pauls keeps playing like he has in preseason (a drop for every catch) then ey would most deffinately play!

I do have a question for all.

ey was cut for several reasons. Salary, crowed possition battle, older, injury history, declining performance and not a starter.

Can't all of the above be said for Tim Higtower?

This is off topic, but I would rather have Banks, Robinson, AAA or ey over Hightower! I'm completely fine with a backfield of four backs; Morris, Helu, Royster, and Young. If one gets injured, Hightower would still be unemployed.

I know that is off topic, but I had to vent.

Its a fair question. Hightower is only 26 though and I don't think he has a huge cap number or anything. I'm not sure about him not being a starter either. Week 1 if Hightower is healthy, I bet he starts. Are you prepared to entrust rookie Alfred Morris to pick up the blitz and protect your 1st round QB?

Right, I think Hightower brings more to the table. Younger, costs less, and even with his injury he hasn't lost a step the same way ey has. Maybe if Hightower was turning 30 and worth a few million more this would make for a better comparison.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

ATX_Skins wrote:Even if ey came back for less money what makes anyone think he would actually play?

He is no good anymore. I understand what he meant to the Redskins and what he did while he was here but man, get over it. He's gone, time to move on.

He's good enough to be a backup, he hasn't fallen that far off the map. Niles still can't catch.

I see Paulsen as our #2 and I saw him catching great over the middle passes this pre season.

Irn-Bru wrote:Right, I think Hightower brings more to the table. Younger, costs less, and even with his injury he hasn't lost a step the same way ey has. Maybe if Hightower was turning 30 and worth a few million more this would make for a better comparison.

A 25 year old RB is about the same as a 30 TE. TEs can play well into their mid to late 30s while RBs almost never have a job when they get close to 30. I know HT has low miles, but his running style really doesn't fit this offense. Well at least not as much as Royster, Morris, or Helu.

skinsfan#33 wrote:A 25 year old RB is about the same as a 30 TE. TEs can play well into their mid to late 30s while RBs almost never have a job when they get close to 30.

You are way overstating your case here. Let's define "close to 30" as 29. Do you really want to make that claim? "Almost never"?

Irn-Bru wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:A 25 year old RB is about the same as a 30 TE. TEs can play well into their mid to late 30s while RBs almost never have a job when they get close to 30.

You are way overstating your case here. Let's define "close to 30" as 29. Do you really want to make that claim? "Almost never"?

Would rarely be better? To me the are practiacly the same, but if your more comfortable with rarely I'll go with that.

skinsfan#33 wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:A 25 year old RB is about the same as a 30 TE. TEs can play well into their mid to late 30s while RBs almost never have a job when they get close to 30.

You are way overstating your case here. Let's define "close to 30" as 29. Do you really want to make that claim? "Almost never"?

Would rarely be better? To me the are practiacly the same, but if your more comfortable with rarely I'll go with that.

It depends on how comfortable you are in saying something that is contradicted by plain facts. There are more than a few starting RBs in the NFL who are 29 or older. One or two of them make the Pro Bowl every year.

Irn-Bru wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:A 25 year old RB is about the same as a 30 TE. TEs can play well into their mid to late 30s while RBs almost never have a job when they get close to 30.

You are way overstating your case here. Let's define "close to 30" as 29. Do you really want to make that claim? "Almost never"?

Would rarely be better? To me the are practiacly the same, but if your more comfortable with rarely I'll go with that.

It depends on how comfortable you are in saying something that is contradicted by plain facts. There are more than a few starting RBs in the NFL who are 29 or older. One or two of them make the Pro Bowl every year.

REALLY... list them. I bet the list of good RBs that never play after 29 or 30 FAR exceeds that list.

IB, I think you are off on this one. I i'm wrong I will admit it, but I find it highly doubtfull that 30 year old RB are common. I bet they are much closer to rare than common and you make it sound like they are common.

Either way, my point is TEs play longer and 30 is not that big of an age for a TE. 30 is the end of the line sign for RB. sure some exceed it, but most don't.

tribeofjudah wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

ATX_Skins wrote:Even if ey came back for less money what makes anyone think he would actually play?

He is no good anymore. I understand what he meant to the Redskins and what he did while he was here but man, get over it. He's gone, time to move on.

He's good enough to be a backup, he hasn't fallen that far off the map. Niles still can't catch.

still cant catch....?
How was he ever a Wide Out...???

He's had more drops than catches this preseason. If its a "what have you don't for me lately" league for ey, it's the same for Niles. I don't care what he did at WR. At TE he lOoks like a fat Carlos Rogers.

skinsfan#33 wrote:REALLY... list them.

How is this even controversial? OK, RBs from the last 3 Pro Bowls who still had/have a job at 29: Willis McGahee, Frank Gore, Michael Turner, Steven Jackson, DeAgngelo Williams.

That's just the Pro Bowl players. Off the top of my head, from this past year, you also have players like Ladanian Tomlison, Ryan Grant, Cedric Benson, and Fred Jackson who are good to varying degrees.

I bet the list of good RBs that never play after 29 or 30 FAR exceeds that list.

The average tenure in the NFL is something like 4 years. The number of good TEs that never play after 32 will also FAR exceed the list of TEs that play "into their mid-to-late thirties" (let's define that as 35-37). That doesn't mean that TEs "almost never" play to that age. (Or maybe, using your logic, it does! But then you'd be wrong for a different reason.)

IB, I think you are off on this one. I i'm wrong I will admit it, but I find it highly doubtfull that 30 year old RB are common.

That's not what's at question. You said they "almost never have a job when they get close" to 30." Do you see how the quoted section above is shifting definitions?

Either way, my point is TEs play longer and 30 is not that big of an age for a TE. 30 is the end of the line sign for RB. sure some exceed it, but most don't.

Your point is wrong. 30 is a big age for injured players who have lost a step. Aside from pointing out that you are contradicting facts, my other point in this discussion would be that ages are a bit relative. Sometimes TEs are toast at 30, just like sometimes RBs are toast at 26. It all depends on how hard the game has been on them.

Irn-Bru wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:REALLY... list them.

How is this even controversial? OK, RBs from the last 3 Pro Bowls who still had/have a job at 29: Willis McGahee, Frank Gore, Michael Turner, Steven Jackson, DeAgngelo Williams.

That's just the Pro Bowl players. Off the top of my head, from this past year, you also have players like Ladanian Tomlison, Ryan Grant, Cedric Benson, and Fred Jackson who are good to varying degrees.

I bet the list of good RBs that never play after 29 or 30 FAR exceeds that list.

The average tenure in the NFL is something like 4 years. The number of good TEs that never play after 32 will also FAR exceed the list of TEs that play "into their mid-to-late thirties" (let's define that as 35-37). That doesn't mean that TEs "almost never" play to that age. (Or maybe, using your logic, it does! But then you'd be wrong for a different reason.)

IB, I think you are off on this one. I i'm wrong I will admit it, but I find it highly doubtfull that 30 year old RB are common.

That's not what's at question. You said they "almost never have a job when they get close" to 30." Do you see how the quoted section above is shifting definitions?

Either way, my point is TEs play longer and 30 is not that big of an age for a TE. 30 is the end of the line sign for RB. sure some exceed it, but most don't.

Your point is wrong. 30 is a big age for injured players who have lost a step. Aside from pointing out that you are contradicting facts, my other point in this discussion would be that ages are a bit relative. Sometimes TEs are toast at 30, just like sometimes RBs are toast at 26. It all depends on how hard the game has been on them.

You know what IB, you win. Based on what I actually said, you are correct.

However, you knew what I was saying was an exaggeration to make a point, a point that I maintain is factual and I'm sure if you weren't trying to bust my b(posts)alls you would agree too.

So whatever, you win.

I was going to throw the BS card on Fred Jackson since it seems like he just got into the league. He is in fact 31 and had been in the NFL for only six years. If you do the math he came in at 25 (24 at the oldest).

Frank Gore just turned 29 and I'm assuming he still has a job so he is another that is an outlier.

Irn-Bru wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:REALLY... list them.

How is this even controversial? OK, RBs from the last 3 Pro Bowls who still had/have a job at 29: Willis McGahee, Frank Gore, Michael Turner, Steven Jackson, DeAgngelo Williams.

That's just the Pro Bowl players. Off the top of my head, from this past year, you also have players like Ladanian Tomlison, Ryan Grant, Cedric Benson, and Fred Jackson who are good to varying degrees.

I bet the list of good RBs that never play after 29 or 30 FAR exceeds that list.

The average tenure in the NFL is something like 4 years. The number of good TEs that never play after 32 will also FAR exceed the list of TEs that play "into their mid-to-late thirties" (let's define that as 35-37). That doesn't mean that TEs "almost never" play to that age. (Or maybe, using your logic, it does! But then you'd be wrong for a different reason.)

IB, I think you are off on this one. I i'm wrong I will admit it, but I find it highly doubtfull that 30 year old RB are common.

That's not what's at question. You said they "almost never have a job when they get close" to 30." Do you see how the quoted section above is shifting definitions?

Either way, my point is TEs play longer and 30 is not that big of an age for a TE. 30 is the end of the line sign for RB. sure some exceed it, but most don't.

Your point is wrong. 30 is a big age for injured players who have lost a step. Aside from pointing out that you are contradicting facts, my other point in this discussion would be that ages are a bit relative. Sometimes TEs are toast at 30, just like sometimes RBs are toast at 26. It all depends on how hard the game has been on them.

You know what IB, you win. Based on what I actually said, you are correct.

However, you knew what I was saying was an exaggeration to make a point, a point that I maintain is factual and I'm sure if you weren't trying to bust my b(posts)alls you would agree too.

So whatever, you win.

I was going to throw the BS card on Fred Jackson since it seems like he just got into the league. He is in fact 31 and had been in the NFL for only six years. If you do the math he came in at 25 (24 at the oldest).

Frank Gore just turned 29 and I'm assuming he still has a job so he is another that is an outlier.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

tribeofjudah wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

ATX_Skins wrote:Even if ey came back for less money what makes anyone think he would actually play?

He is no good anymore. I understand what he meant to the Redskins and what he did while he was here but man, get over it. He's gone, time to move on.

He's good enough to be a backup, he hasn't fallen that far off the map. Niles still can't catch.

still cant catch....?
How was he ever a Wide Out...???

He's had more drops than catches this preseason. If its a "what have you don't for me lately" league for ey, it's the same for Niles. I don't care what he did at WR. At TE he lOoks like a fat Carlos Rogers.

If its any consolation, I think he caught both his passes last year...but seriously, I think Paul will phase out the droppies and contribute in real games this year.

skinsfan#33 wrote:You know what IB, you win. Based on what I actually said, you are correct.

However, you knew what I was saying was an exaggeration to make a point, a point that I maintain is factual and I'm sure if you weren't trying to bust my b(posts)alls you would agree too.

Well, what you were arguing was supposed to support the idea that Hightower is basically in the same stage of his career, physically, that ey is. I strongly disagree with that POV. Running backs do tend to take a nosedive toward the end of their 20s and certainly by the time they are into their 30s. But it's not the case that they have a long, steady decline — the kind you might see in, e.g., a tight end who sticks around a few years past 30. So the analogy really doesn't work, IMO.

But to be fair to me, when I asked if your initial claim was really what you meant, you didn't back down, you doubled down. Because I actually wasn't sure whether you were being serious or not, I thought it was worth pursuing.

skinsfan#33 wrote:

ATX_Skins wrote:Even if ey came back for less money what makes anyone think he would actually play?

He is no good anymore. I understand what he meant to the Redskins and what he did while he was here but man, get over it. He's gone, time to move on.

If Niles Pauls keeps playing like he has in preseason (a drop for every catch) then ey would most deffinately play!

I do have a question for all.

ey was cut for several reasons. Salary, crowed possition battle, older, injury history, declining performance and not a starter.

Can't all of the above be said for Tim Higtower?

This is off topic, but I would rather have Banks, Robinson, AAA or ey over Hightower! I'm completely fine with a backfield of four backs; Morris, Helu, Royster, and Young. If one gets injured, Hightower would still be unemployed.

I know that is off topic, but I had to vent.

You'll be happy to know that Hightower got cut as well.