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

Posted: **Wed Nov 02, 2005 11:50 am**

Did u all see him lately, we definetly should have drafted him with the 25th pick, he is a beast.

Posted: **Wed Nov 02, 2005 11:54 am**

No doubt he is playing well for the Steelers this year, but you can't just automatically assume that he'd do the same in Washington. Who knows how he'd have handled trying to rebuild a losing team.

Perhaps you should focus on Cool

ey and not covet "tighter ends" on other teams. My 2 cents

Posted: **Wed Nov 02, 2005 2:15 pm**

. . .if

ey was a TE, Red, then maybe that'd be an option. I myself don't find Royal to be all that great.

I wish we could have done something about our TE's this past offseason but I'm optimistic for this year.

Posted: **Wed Nov 02, 2005 3:08 pm**

FanfromAnnapolis wrote:. . .if ey was a TE, Red, then maybe that'd be an option. I myself don't find Royal to be all that great.

I wish we could have done something about our TE's this past offseason but I'm optimistic for this year.

That's the second time today you catch my mistakes. You're gooooood.

And, yes, you're right; Miller would be so much better than ROyal at this point.

Posted: **Thu Nov 03, 2005 4:24 pm**

FanfromAnnapolis wrote:. . .if ey was a TE, Red, then maybe that'd be an option. I myself don't find Royal to be all that great.

I wish we could have done something about our TE's this past offseason but I'm optimistic for this year.

He is a Te

Posted: **Thu Nov 03, 2005 7:52 pm**

John Manfreda wrote:
FanfromAnnapolis wrote:. . .if ey was a TE, Red, then maybe that'd be an option. I myself don't find Royal to be all that great.

I wish we could have done something about our TE's this past offseason but I'm optimistic for this year.

He is a Te

No, he is a H-back

Posted: **Sun Nov 06, 2005 1:35 am**

Miller has been good but would you really trade a 1,3, and 4 to get a TE?

Campbell is our QB of the future. We aren't seeing any immediate return on that investment, but I trust Joe Gibbs enough to know that someday we will be very happy with that move.

Posted: **Sun Nov 06, 2005 2:23 am**

JPM36 wrote:Miller has been good but would you really trade a 1,3, and 4 to get a TE?

Good point.

I mean I remember on draft day I was so sad that we didn't get Heath Miller because I thought Patrick was the QB of the future. But obviously Gibbs knows best and made the right choice.

Patrick looks as if won't be a part of our picture in the long haul so while Brunell plays out this year, and maybe next year, he will give JC plenty of time to study and progress as an NFL QB.

Plus next year there are tons of great TEs (Dominique Byrd, Mercedes Lewis, that guy named Mills on LA Tech...)

Posted: **Wed Nov 09, 2005 2:44 am**

ejay183 wrote:
John Manfreda wrote:
FanfromAnnapolis wrote:. . .if ey was a TE, Red, then maybe that'd be an option. I myself don't find Royal to be all that great.

I wish we could have done something about our TE's this past offseason but I'm optimistic for this year.

He is a Te

No, he is a H-back

Heath Miller plays te, did you see any of the Pittsburg games, obviously not. They don't have an H-back, they have a full back, and I know for a fact Heath starts and is not a full back. Well maybe he is a running back or an offensive lineman.

Posted: **Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:39 am**

John Manfreda wrote:
ejay183 wrote:
John Manfreda wrote:
FanfromAnnapolis wrote:. . .if ey was a TE, Red, then maybe that'd be an option. I myself don't find Royal to be all that great.

I wish we could have done something about our TE's this past offseason but I'm optimistic for this year.

He is a Te

No, he is a H-back

Heath Miller plays te, did you see any of the Pittsburg games, obviously not. They don't have an H-back, they have a full back, and I know for a fact Heath starts and is not a full back. Well maybe he is a running back or an offensive lineman.

I think the "he"'s in all of these posts were getting confused. Manfreda was only stating the obvious (that Heath Miller is a TE) but it looked like he was correcting me for saying that Cool

ey wasn't a TE (a very common mistake on this website). Ejay183 believed the "he" to refer to Cool

ey, and 'corrected' Manfreda.

Anyway. . .now for something more interesting. . .

Posted: **Wed Nov 09, 2005 2:33 pm**

FanfromAnnapolis wrote:
John Manfreda wrote:
ejay183 wrote:
John Manfreda wrote:
FanfromAnnapolis wrote:. . .if ey was a TE, Red, then maybe that'd be an option. I myself don't find Royal to be all that great.

I wish we could have done something about our TE's this past offseason but I'm optimistic for this year.

He is a Te

No, he is a H-back

Heath Miller plays te, did you see any of the Pittsburg games, obviously not. They don't have an H-back, they have a full back, and I know for a fact Heath starts and is not a full back. Well maybe he is a running back or an offensive lineman.

I think the "he"'s in all of these posts were getting confused. Manfreda was only stating the obvious (that Heath Miller is a TE) but it looked like he was correcting me for saying that ey wasn't a TE (a very common mistake on this website). Ejay183 believed the "he" to refer to ey, and 'corrected' Manfreda.

Anyway. . .now for something more interesting. . .

Yeah, because FanfromAnnapolis said ". . .if Cool

ey was a TE, Red, then maybe that'd be an option. I myself don't find Royal to be all that great." and then Manfreda responsed with "He is a Te", so I thought he was talking about what FanfromAnnapolis said. Also all this quoting just adds more chaos.