1 minute ago, Bleedinggreen93 said:

Again how is this Sermons fault? Sermon doesn’t effect us brining in P for workouts that’s a coaching decision 100% blame Siri for not brining in more P competition doesn’t change anything on guy #53 

I do blame for not getting P competition. But if we rostered a young P maybe we developed him to not completely suck by the time of the SB. It’s possible. But just one scenario of many endless 

Just now, joemas6 said:

So why direct this at Sermon.  Why not direct this same anger to Greg Ward and or the rest of the guys who took up a roster spot but didn't play?

Apparently you think someone would have climbed the ranks over all those guys to play and win us the SB?

You don't see where the rest of us are not seeing why it's directed 100% on Sermon...and seems like from left field?

IDK he has it in for Sermon,it's almost eerie lol

Young P was worse. I was hoping to bring more in,but we got what we got

4 minutes ago, Bleedinggreen93 said:

Mmmmm you claimed a guy who you didn’t feel was going to pass waivers initially why would you then risk him to waivers a 2nd time? 
 

you make no sense and I’m still waiting on the 53rd guy that was going to change our season 

He passed waivers of more than half the league to get to us

3 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

I do blame for not getting P competition. But if we rostered a young P maybe we developed him to not completely suck by the time of the SB. It’s possible. But just one scenario of many endless 

Guy 53, Sermon or a young punter to "develop"(IDK that they need developing????)

Im blaming Greg Ward.  Now that I understand that you can't have guys on the roster and be fortunate enough that the guys in front of them don't get hurt..  Greg Ward is my reason we lost.  Come on Siri acknowledge the mistake thar cost us... Ham saw it.. now I finally see it.   Come on ...we can't lose another SB because of this...especially losing such a clutch irreplaceable guy like Mr. Reliable himself...Miles Sanders. 

And please stop getting into the habit of getting a 20 point lead.  

Marvelous day on the board here.

1 minute ago, cunninghamtheman said:

He passed waivers of more than half the league to get to us

We ran right out to claim him,no waiting. Other teams would have had to beat our offer. Doesn't mean they wouldn't have claimed him for less

3 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

I do blame for not getting P competition. But if we rostered a young P maybe we developed him to not completely suck by the time of the SB. It’s possible. But just one scenario of many endless 

So why didn’t we put a young P on PS lol 😂 if Sermon comes in this year and becomes our lead back 1k+ yard guy does that alter the fact we used a roster spot on him last year? 
 

There is millions of different scenarios you can make in hindsight but realistically Sermon as guy #53 didn’t cost us a SB 

4 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

So why direct this at Sermon.  Why not direct this same anger to Greg Ward and or the rest of the guys who took up a roster spot but didn't play?

Apparently you think someone would have climbed the ranks over all those guys to play and win us the SB?

You don't see where the rest of us are not seeing why it's directed 100% on Sermon...and seems like from left field?

Because you guys don’t value the RB position. Yet feel it so important to roster a RB that doesn’t play. That’s where you let the low priority RB go. PS him. You need two quality starting RBs. Don’t need the bum in street clothes on your 53.

I never heard of a team rostering a P to develop. That's a new one for me

2 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

He passed waivers of more than half the league to get to us

Does he clear the other half again if you are willing to claim a guy off waivers KNOWING you have to put him on the 53 why would you then turn around and risk him passing through waivers? 

10 minutes ago, Bleedinggreen93 said:

But even still you have given nothing as to who replaces Sermon as guy #53 that changes the SB outcome 

Sermon wasn't active... so he didn't prevent anyone from playing in the SB.   Not that facts matter.

Just now, cunninghamtheman said:

Because you guys don’t value the RB position. Yet feel it so important to roster a RB that doesn’t play. That’s where you let the low priority RB go. PS him. You need two quality starting RBs. Don’t need the bum in street clothes on your 53.

No no of care that guy #53 used a roster spot because none of us believe guy #53 was changing the outcome of the SB there a good chance in majority of your scenarios who ever we got to replace Sermon as guy #53 never sees the field either 

3 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Because you guys don’t value the RB position. Yet feel it so important to roster a RB that doesn’t play. That’s where you let the low priority RB go. PS him. You need two quality starting RBs. Don’t need the bum in street clothes on your 53.

Maybe we value the RB position enough to have an ins policy? I'm glad we have 4 RB's that are better. Still I would have NP putting Sermon in if we lost 2

1 minute ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Because you guys don’t value the RB position. Yet feel it so important to roster a RB that doesn’t play. That’s where you let the low priority RB go. PS him. You need two quality starting RBs. Don’t need the bum in street clothes on your 53.

No... because you are saying last year was a mistake...mentioning Sermon as someone whose roster spot cost us a SB.  

The rest of us think he was irrelevant.   He was the last RB that didn't need to play.   

3 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

I never heard of a team rostering a P to develop. That's a new one for me

I never heard of the term...." rostering"  lol.   

 

2 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

Maybe we value the RB position enough to have an ins policy? I'm glad we have 4 RB's that are better. Still I would have NP putting Sermon in if we lost 2

I think it's a long shot Sermon makes the team... but apparently they are trying him on all the ST units to try to find a place for him.  They are really trying.

2 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

I never heard of the term...." rostering"  lol.   

 

Rostering-verb. Putting a player on the roster list

1 minute ago, joemas6 said:

I think it's a long shot Sermon makes the team... but apparently they are trying him on all the ST units to try to find a place for him.  They are really trying.

Yeah they did,he didn't do too well

7 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Because you guys don’t value the RB position. Yet feel it so important to roster a RB that doesn’t play. That’s where you let the low priority RB go. PS him. You need two quality starting RBs. Don’t need the bum in street clothes on your 53.

It's funny....because SF seems " rostering"   or whatever the term... they seem to keep a lot of RBs.   

The organization you use as the model... even though they don't win as much...have the draft picks or cap space ...like the Eagles.   

I hope we get Taylor,then we can cut Sermon and Scott and WR 8 and the BU punter

We really need that developmental P as #53(I still don't know how you develop a P)

BTW what ever happened to the "punt god"?

https://ohiostatebuckeyes.com/sports/football/roster/trey-sermon/2599  3rd round pick we got for peanuts

Just now, GreenbleedinNC said:

https://ohiostatebuckeyes.com/sports/football/roster/trey-sermon/2599  3rd round pick we got for peanuts

BTW he played with some unknown QB at Oklahoma LOL