Wouldn't mind him. But I doubt it happens. Looks like we're going with Sanders, Clement, Scott.

Maybe Duce could suit up too

6 hours ago, Portyansky said:

Wouldn't mind him. But I doubt it happens. Looks like we're going with Sanders, Clement, Scott.

Makes. Me. Shudder. That trio? Yikes.

6 hours ago, greend said:

Maybe Duce could suit up too

He'd stay healthy for longer than Clement...

1 minute ago, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

Makes. Me. Shudder. That trio? Yikes.

He'd stay healthy for longer than Clement...

Maybe, maybe not

Just now, greend said:

Maybe, maybe not

Definitely. Clement will not stay healthy for very long. Going with those 3 is an awful awful decision. 

1 minute ago, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

Definitely. Clement will not stay healthy for very long. Going with those 3 is an awful awful decision. 

You have a crystal ball?  Either way old man Peterson isn't the answer

1 minute ago, greend said:

You have a crystal ball?  Either way old man Peterson isn't the answer

He's a better option as the #3 than Clement.

Just now, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

He's a better option as the #3 than Clement.

So you say

Just now, greend said:

So you say

So say the last 2 years yes. 

1 minute ago, greend said:

So you say

I say, too. Clement gets banged up way too easily.  Sanders might not hold up getting the ball 20+ touches the entire season and already has hammie issues and the season hasn't even started yet.

3 minutes ago, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

So say the last 2 years yes. 

 

2 minutes ago, CaliEagle said:

I say, too. Clement gets banged up way too easily.  Sanders might not hold up getting the ball 20+ touches the entire season and already has hammie issues and the season hasn't even started yet.

great I get it, you two are on board with getting old man Peterson and cutting clement. I'll pass. We'll just disagree

Just now, greend said:

 

great I get it, you two are on board with getting old man Peterson and cutting clement. I'll pass. We'll just disagree

I'm not saying cut Clement. But, as of now, we have a RB who is having hamstring issues who might not be able to handle a 16 game workload. We have a backup RB that is more of a change of pace RB that isn't going to be a feature back with Scott. Then, we have oft injured Clement. That's not enough depth.

3 minutes ago, greend said:

 

great I get it, you two are on board with getting old man Peterson and cutting clement. I'll pass. We'll just disagree

I'm not necessarily big on bringing in Peterson to be honest. I just think he's a better option than Corey cLAMEnt.

3 minutes ago, CaliEagle said:

I'm not saying cut Clement. But, as of now, we have a RB who is having hamstring issues who might not be able to handle a 16 game workload. We have a backup RB that is more of a change of pace RB that isn't going to be a feature back with Scott. Then, we have oft injured Clement. That's not enough depth.

Duly noted. I'm saying I don't want Clement cut for old man Peterson. What's more is I'm saying I don't want old man Peterson on the team. If you want to add another running back for depth I wouldn't argue against that. Fair enough?

Just now, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

I'm not necessarily big on bringing in Peterson to be honest. I just think he's a better option than Corey cLAMEnt.

Normally I'm not big on bringing in big name aging players. But, we could use some more vet influence on the offensive side of the ball with the skill positions. We have young RBs and several young WRs, too. I think we could use some vet influence. We have Jeffery and Jackson (although some of their influence is questionable at times).

2 minutes ago, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

I'm not necessarily big on bringing in Peterson to be honest. I just think he's a better option than Corey cLAMEnt.

I disagree that Peterson is a better option

Just now, greend said:

I disagree that Peterson is a better option

And that's fine. And I'd argue that Peterson being healthy for a few snaps a game is better than Clement being on IR. Again. 

1 hour ago, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

And that's fine. And I'd argue that Peterson being healthy for a few snaps a game is better than Clement being on IR. Again. 

so we will disagree.

1 hour ago, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

I'm not necessarily big on bringing in Peterson to be honest. I just think he's a better option than Corey cLAMEnt.

I get not being a fan, but to insult the guy who had 100 yds in LII?  Yeah he had bad luck with injuries the last two years. Clearly he’s looked good enough to beat out the other three in camp. 

Wouldn't be a bad goal line back to have. With Clement's durability questions I feel like we will bring in someone.

10 hours ago, Outlaw said:

I get not being a fan, but to insult the guy who had 100 yds in LII?  Yeah he had bad luck with injuries the last two years. Clearly he’s looked good enough to beat out the other three in camp. 

He was incredible in the SB I don't disagree. Lots of players were though, doesn't mean they are legitimately good players though. He's ended the last 2 years on IR and when he has played since he's just not been that good. I want him to do well i really do... But we can't rely on him to be a reliable and decent back up and so it is, in my opinion, a major risk. 

Signed with the Lions. Crowded backfield there with Kerryon Johnson,  DeAndre Swift, and now Adrian Peterson?

On 9/6/2020 at 11:14 AM, eaglesfan0075 said:

Signed with the Lions. Crowded backfield there with Kerryon Johnson,  DeAndre Swift, and now Adrian Peterson?

Kerryon Johnson has injury problems