There are 222 users in the forums
Tukuafu a possibility LB?
- 1 2
Aug 25, 2010 at 8:45 PM
- DonnieDarko
- Veteran
- Posts: 62,491
wtf? isn't he as big as soap?
Aug 25, 2010 at 9:32 PM
- DaveWilcox
- Veteran
- Posts: 3,717
Practice squad is a more likely possibility.
Aug 25, 2010 at 9:37 PM
- okdkid
- Veteran
- Posts: 22,883
God damn it. I fell for it again.
Aug 25, 2010 at 9:49 PM
- kidash98
- Hall of Fame
- Posts: 26,621
Originally posted by okdkid:
God damn it. I fell for it again.
Aug 25, 2010 at 10:26 PM
- Kolohe
- Hall of Fame
- Posts: 59,829
Originally posted by WestCoast:
wtf? isn't he as big as soap?
He was 265 in college, but I think a Ducks fan on here said hes now up to 280 pounds.
Aug 25, 2010 at 10:40 PM
- BasharCali49
- Veteran
- Posts: 378
Originally posted by SanFranAddic:Originally posted by bret:Originally posted by Kilgore_Trout:Originally posted by BasharCali49:Originally posted by solidg2000:
hes playing good at DE why change him
Exactly it makes no sense when we have plenty of LBs already. On top of that we need depth at DE and he looks like he's a great fill in so far. Is Seattle really that stupid to cut that guy? He looks way more productive than Balmer ever was.
He is too small for Seattle's DL. Seattle was enthralled to get Balmer because of his size and if he can stay healthy, I expect to see him playing a lot for Seattle, if not starting.
Isn't he only about 265? I thought it was strange they weren't auditioning him at LB, since the 3-4 linemen tend to be bigger. He's definitely looked more active than Balmer.
From Oregon Scouting Report: Height: 6-4 | Weight: 272 | 40-Time: 5.15
Slow as molasses when timed.
Must play faster and take good angles cause he sure seems to get to the ball.
Damn he looks way faster in the games thats' for sure. I would have guessed 4.8 . Joe Staley supposedly ran a 4.9 at the combine.
Aug 25, 2010 at 10:42 PM
- BasharCali49
- Veteran
- Posts: 378
Originally posted by Kilgore_Trout:Originally posted by BasharCali49:Originally posted by solidg2000:
hes playing good at DE why change him
Exactly it makes no sense when we have plenty of LBs already. On top of that we need depth at DE and he looks like he's a great fill in so far. Is Seattle really that stupid to cut that guy? He looks way more productive than Balmer ever was.
He is too small for Seattle's DL. Seattle was enthralled to get Balmer because of his size and if he can stay healthy, I expect to see him playing a lot for Seattle, if not starting.
That's music to my ears then. What you said totally made my day? If Balmer starts on the Seattle Defensive line we'll have a field day when we play them. He's a Bum and a half.
Aug 26, 2010 at 5:47 PM
- BuZzB28
- Member
- Posts: 2,917
Originally posted by solidg2000:
hes playing good at DE why change him
Aug 26, 2010 at 6:03 PM
- 49ERSAM
- Veteran
- Posts: 2,119
Originally posted by BasharCali49:Originally posted by Kilgore_Trout:Originally posted by BasharCali49:Originally posted by solidg2000:
hes playing good at DE why change him
Exactly it makes no sense when we have plenty of LBs already. On top of that we need depth at DE and he looks like he's a great fill in so far. Is Seattle really that stupid to cut that guy? He looks way more productive than Balmer ever was.
He is too small for Seattle's DL. Seattle was enthralled to get Balmer because of his size and if he can stay healthy, I expect to see him playing a lot for Seattle, if not starting.
That's music to my ears then. What you said totally made my day? If Balmer starts on the Seattle Defensive line we'll have a field day when we play them. He's a Bum and a half.
A news article indicated Balmer allegedly hurt his legs last weekend against the Packers, now he's not even listed on their roster.
http://www.seahawks.com/team/depth-chart.html
Aug 26, 2010 at 6:53 PM
- SanFranAddic
- Veteran
- Posts: 3,418
Originally posted by 49ERSAM:Originally posted by BasharCali49:Originally posted by Kilgore_Trout:Originally posted by BasharCali49:Originally posted by solidg2000:
hes playing good at DE why change him
Exactly it makes no sense when we have plenty of LBs already. On top of that we need depth at DE and he looks like he's a great fill in so far. Is Seattle really that stupid to cut that guy? He looks way more productive than Balmer ever was.
He is too small for Seattle's DL. Seattle was enthralled to get Balmer because of his size and if he can stay healthy, I expect to see him playing a lot for Seattle, if not starting.
That's music to my ears then. What you said totally made my day? If Balmer starts on the Seattle Defensive line we'll have a field day when we play them. He's a Bum and a half.
A news article indicated Balmer allegedly hurt his legs last weekend against the Packers, now he's not even listed on their roster.
http://www.seahawks.com/team/depth-chart.html
Both him and Jones show on the roster at NFL.com, but neither have a number yet.
http://www.nfl.com/teams/seattleseahawks/roster?team=SEA
Aug 26, 2010 at 7:25 PM
- TheXFactor
- Veteran
- Posts: 25,566
Originally posted by solidg2000:
hes playing good at DE why change him
exactly Balmers replacement
- 1 2