Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 176

Thread: Decker **merged post signing discussion**

  1. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by detjetsfan View Post
    Well if you take into consideration Knowshon Moreno, Montee Ball and Jacob Tamme then Decker was the 6th or 7th option in Denver's offense.
    Tell me this was written in jest

  2. #82
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    In Morris Co., N.J. at the right end of a Browning 12 gauge, with Nick to my left n Rex to my right.
    Posts
    17,381
    Quote Originally Posted by detjetsfan View Post
    Well if you take into consideration Knowshon Moreno, Montee Ball and Jacob Tamme then Decker was the 6th or 7th option in Denver's offense.
    Options are nice, we finally got one in here.

  3. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by Apache 51 View Post
    Options are nice, we finally got one in here.
    Yup. Can never have too many options!

  4. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmiekid91 View Post
    Tell me this was written in jest
    No it wasn't if you really take into consideration all the facts ESPN has laid out Eric Decker was the 10th 0r 11th option in Denver's offense.

  5. #85
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Upper East Side
    Posts
    6,853
    Quote Originally Posted by detjetsfan View Post
    Well if you take into consideration Knowshon Moreno, Montee Ball and Jacob Tamme then Decker was the 6th or 7th option in Denver's offense.
    Obvious trolling is obvious.

    Get a life.

  6. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by detjetsfan View Post
    No it wasn't if you really take into consideration all the facts ESPN has laid out Eric Decker was the 10th 0r 11th option in Denver's offense.
    This is a sincere question. Do you have Down Syndrome? Because I don't like ripping on someone if they can't help it.

  7. #87
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Jets Stadium Section 246
    Posts
    37,082
    TheJessicaJames: Don't miss the baby-bumping season premiere of "Eric & Jessie: Game On," March 30 at 10|9c only on E! http://t.co/AkVQ16qDcF
    Jessie is ready to pop, move to NY and start her reality show! This can only mean good things for the focus of our new WR! lol

    New city, new baby, new contract....I really hope his eyes will be on the ball.

  8. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by jetstream23 View Post
    Jessie is ready to pop, move to NY and start her reality show! This can only mean good things for the focus of our new WR! lol

    New city, new baby, new contract....I really hope his eyes will be on the ball.
    GET USED TO IT!! It's the way of entertainment in 2014


  9. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by JETFAN1 View Post
    I don't see Decker as a deep threat and his 40 time was close to 5.0. In any case we could disagree all we want. Decker was a solid transaction.

    Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
    If by "close to 5.0" you mean one tenth of a second off four and a half, then yeah he was close to 5.0...just like cherbet was "close to" 6'2"

  10. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by detjetsfan View Post
    No it wasn't if you really take into consideration all the facts ESPN has laid out Eric Decker was the 10th 0r 11th option in Denver's offense.
    You do know that there are only 11 men on each side of the ball, so either the ineligible linemen were all better receiving options, or you as can't count very well...either way you know nothing about football.

  11. #91
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Manalapan, NJ/Boca Raton, Fl
    Posts
    15,569
    Quote Originally Posted by SBIII View Post
    People keep saying "He's a product of Peyton" I cant stand that. He still has to catch the damn ball..right?
    He gets open, runs great routes, catches everything and scores. But it's Manning? How did he catch 40+, 600+ yards and 8 TDs with Tebow as a young WR?

  12. #92
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    2,194
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegi5894 View Post
    If by "close to 5.0" you mean one tenth of a second off four and a half, then yeah he was close to 5.0...just like cherbet was "close to" 6'2"
    Thanks for such an insightful reply. Yeap 4.54 40 time should be good enough to outrun some of the slower LB's...



    Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

  13. #93
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    7,000
    Decker is definitely not a burner, but he has decent speed for his size. He has caught quite a number of deep passes in his 4 year career where he got behind the CB (not LB). Receiving in the NFL is not all about straight line speed measured on a track in no pads. Decker is a good route runner who can create separation consistently. The tape doesn't lie.

  14. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by parafly View Post
    Decker is definitely not a burner, but he has decent speed for his size. He has caught quite a number of deep passes in his 4 year career where he got behind the CB (not LB). Receiving in the NFL is not all about straight line speed measured on a track in no pads. Decker is a good route runner who can create separation consistently. The tape doesn't lie.
    We had three burners last season: Stephen Hill, Clyde Gates, and Saalim Hakim. Given how much emphasis some people are putting on speed, we should've had the most explosive offense around last season.

    Decker's got the height, quickness, hands, and other intangibles that I'll take any day over a speedster.

  15. #95
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Manalapan, NJ/Boca Raton, Fl
    Posts
    15,569
    Quote Originally Posted by JETFAN1 View Post
    I don't see Decker as a deep threat and his 40 time was close to 5.0. In any case we could disagree all we want. Decker was a solid transaction.

    Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
    Close to 5?

    Ran a 4.54 40, high of 4.6 and low of 4.45. Find a different argument, this is pointless, he's fast enough and has the size to put up impressive numbers.

  16. #96
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    2,194
    Quote Originally Posted by Jet Nut View Post
    Close to 5?

    Ran a 4.54 40, high of 4.6 and low of 4.45. Find a different argument, this is pointless, he's fast enough and has the size to put up impressive numbers.
    To stay on my argument Wayne ran a 4.53......

    Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

  17. #97
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    7,000
    Quote Originally Posted by Refuel View Post
    We had three burners last season: Stephen Hill, Clyde Gates, and Saalim Hakim. Given how much emphasis some people are putting on speed, we should've had the most explosive offense around last season.

    Decker's got the height, quickness, hands, and other intangibles that I'll take any day over a speedster.
    Agreed.

    He also uses his body very well when making a catch in traffic. Former college basketball player.

  18. #98
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Manalapan, NJ/Boca Raton, Fl
    Posts
    15,569
    Quote Originally Posted by JETFAN1 View Post
    To stay on my argument Wayne ran a 4.53......

    Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
    Guess to your point they're similar in that neither one ran close to a 5.0

    And similar 40 times doesn't make two completely different WRs similar.

  19. #99
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The swamp via LI
    Posts
    2,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegi5894 View Post
    You do know that there are only 11 men on each side of the ball, so either the ineligible linemen were all better receiving options, or you as can't count very well...either way you know nothing about football.
    Tackle eligible....get with the program. How he brought down 87 balls for almost 1300 yards I have no clue. I better go check the receiving stats for their LT.

  20. #100
    people who argue this signing just dont understand football unfortunately. You need guys to run routes and catch the ball, they dont have to be number 1's or number 2's you just need guys. he is a guy. could you have gotten a younger, healthier, better skilled guy for less? NO are you hampered by his salary? no. are you still going to draft another guy in hopes of developing a true game changer? yes...

    its that simple, if he comes in, gets open and catches whats thrown to him he would have paid off in spades.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us