Tukuafu a possibility LB? | Page 2

SanFranAddic · 2010-08-25T02:00:03-07:00

That may be a ridiculous thought, but could it work? He's only a rookie so he has time to learn. Watching his highlight reel and the way he runs made me think of Levon Kirkland from the Steelers. He was huge and fast and played LB, so why couldn't Tukuafu could be used the same way? Could he play in the middle on running downs and outside on passing downs? Does he have the wheels to cover a TE or RB? How hard is it to learn? You may proceed with the flamings.

Aug 25, 2010 at 8:45 PM

#16

DonnieDarko
Veteran
Posts: 66,770

wtf? isn't he as big as soap?

Aug 25, 2010 at 9:32 PM

#17

DaveWilcox
Veteran
Posts: 3,717

Practice squad is a more likely possibility.

Aug 25, 2010 at 9:37 PM

#18

okdkid
Veteran
Posts: 23,726

God damn it. I fell for it again.

Aug 25, 2010 at 9:49 PM

#19

kidash98
Hall of Fame
Posts: 26,660

Originally posted by okdkid:
God damn it. I fell for it again.

Aug 25, 2010 at 10:26 PM

#20

Kolohe
Hall of Fame
Posts: 67,023

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

#21

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

#22

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

#23

BuZzB28
Member
Posts: 2,917

Originally posted by solidg2000:
hes playing good at DE why change him

Aug 26, 2010 at 6:03 PM

#24

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

#25

SanFranAddic
Veteran
Posts: 3,419

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

#26

TheXFactor
Veteran
Posts: 25,990

Originally posted by solidg2000:
hes playing good at DE why change him

exactly Balmers replacement