Results 49 to 60 of 61
-
01-28-2008, 12:04 AM #49Regular 1st Stringer
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
- Location
- Mesa Arizona
- Posts
- 536
Re: Jim Fassel front runner for Skins job?
Plaxico wouldn't have hurt my feelings any.. Oh wait, we got the great Travis Taylor... never mind... :grbac:
AZRAVEN
[
-
01-28-2008, 10:29 AM #50Regular 1st Stringer
- Join Date
- Oct 2006
- Posts
- 149
Re: Jim Fassel front runner for Skins job?
The fact that you seem to equate the drafting of Jamal Lewis with Brian Billick not using Holmes adequately for the half a season he had to work with him in 1999 is amusing.
Ozzie said that Priest was the 5th best back in the AFC Central. Priest clearly wasn't in the Ravens plans when Billick was hired.
-
01-28-2008, 10:33 AM #51
Re: Jim Fassel front runner for Skins job?
Wow. A debate about Priest Holmes vs. Jamal Lewis, where somebody is complaining it is Billick's fault Priest Holmes did not put up his KC numbers here.
Just. Wow.
Hook we had two RBs on the roster. One was going to start. The other would have to take a huge pay cut to stay. As I recall they were even represented by the same agent, who even *told* the organization only one was going to stay a Raven. We went with Jamal and won the Super Bowl, something the Chiefs never did with Priest.
I was glad for Priest to cash in and have success elsewhere, but each team only gets to have one starting running back, and we did pretty well with #31 for awhile there. Let it go.Festivus
His definitions and arguments were so clear in his own mind that he was unable to understand how any reasonable person could honestly differ with him.
-
01-28-2008, 11:07 AM #52Regular 1st Stringer
- Join Date
- Oct 2006
- Posts
- 149
Re: Jim Fassel front runner for Skins job?
Wow. A debate about Priest Holmes vs. Jamal Lewis, where somebody is complaining it is Billick's fault Priest Holmes did not put up his KC numbers here.
Did Billick get the same production out of Priest as the KC did? The answer is no, so he didnt get the most out of him. Thats all.
We went with Jamal and won the Super Bowl, something the Chiefs never did with Priest.
-
01-28-2008, 11:21 AM #53
Re: Jim Fassel front runner for Skins job?
Meh. Call it want you want, you are whining about Billick.
Priest was on that team in his role as the back up. That was his role. We won the Super Bowl under utilizing him. So I don't see your complaint.
I wish in our new smileys we had one called :shrug:, if we did, I'd put it here.Festivus
His definitions and arguments were so clear in his own mind that he was unable to understand how any reasonable person could honestly differ with him.
-
01-28-2008, 11:30 AM #54
Re: Jim Fassel front runner for Skins job?
Billick had both backs in 2000 and he used Priest quite effectively, but given our talent there is no doubt who the best back FOR US was at the time. Or are you going to claim Priest played better than Jamal in 2000?
In 1999 Priest was used quite well WHEN HE WAS HEALTHY. You can try and ignore his injuries and claim it was Billick's fault he wasn't more productive in 1999 and you might have a point if Billick were the trainer or team doctor.
Beyond that blaming Billick for Priest leaving is idiotic and just oozes Billick hate. Before Billick was even here Ozzie Newsome said Priest was the 5th best back in the AFC Central. He makes the personnel decisions, if you can't put two and two together regarding the signing of Rhett and then the drafting of Jamal let me try and help. OZZIE MISSED ON PRIEST, NOT BILLICK!
-
01-28-2008, 11:32 AM #55Regular 1st Stringer
- Join Date
- Oct 2006
- Posts
- 149
Re: Jim Fassel front runner for Skins job?
I wish in our new smileys we had one called :shrug:, if we did, I'd put it here.
-
01-28-2008, 11:42 AM #56Regular 1st Stringer
- Join Date
- Oct 2006
- Posts
- 149
Re: Jim Fassel front runner for Skins job?
Billick had both backs in 2000 and he used Priest quite effectively, but given our talent there is no doubt who the best back FOR US was at the time. Or are you going to claim Priest played better than Jamal in 2000?
-
01-28-2008, 11:50 AM #57
Re: Jim Fassel front runner for Skins job?
Keep on the bench? He started the first several games while Jamal healed from a separated elbow. He was used as a WR and got plenty of time spelling Jamal. Jamal out-played him, plain and simple.
-
01-28-2008, 11:55 AM #58
Re: Jim Fassel front runner for Skins job?
Greg I wouldn't even go that far. Remember our OL was a bunch of road-grader types, for whom Priest was not well suited as a (McGahee-style) slasher and pass catcher. Nobody "missed" on Priest, we had Jamal instead, whose numbers may not have been as gaudy but who was well suited to our team.
Good god. Most of the Billick haters do not go this far, and point to the Super Bowl winning team as one that was mismanaged by Billick. Seriously, criticizing a SB winning team for its failure to take better advantage of a backup running back is bizarre.Festivus
His definitions and arguments were so clear in his own mind that he was unable to understand how any reasonable person could honestly differ with him.
-
01-28-2008, 12:39 PM #59Regular 1st Stringer
- Join Date
- Jul 2007
- Posts
- 177
-
01-28-2008, 01:05 PM #60
Re: Jim Fassel front runner for Skins job?
If the Ravens missed on Priest, then so did a lot of other teams as well.
KC signed Priest on the first day of the draft (not at the beginning of March when the FA market opened) in 2001, after they didn't select a RB. At one point, the Ravens thought they had a chance to retain him as a back-up because no one wanted to offer him even a shot at a starting gig. He was signed to a small contract and he was sharing carries for the first couple of games - even KC didn't know what they had at that point.
Bookmarks