Commanders Post at The Warpath - View Single Post

DragoJT87 · 03-25-2005, 01:56 PM

Unfortunately for us, we held on to Gardner one year too long. In 2003, Coles had a great year(82 rec. 1200 yds) and hid Gardner's decent(for a #2) 59 rec. 600 yd. numbers. It also hid the fact that his routes are terrible and that he was not aggressive to the ball. I understand that the play call is more conservative now than in 2003, but for a receiver who is 6' 3" 220 lbs., conservative = short to intermediate routes, possession receiver, 80-90 receptions, etc. The Seahawks are complimenting this guy for even considering him as a fall back. I'm waiting for him to fall ON his back.

03-25-2005, 01:56 PM	#2
DragoJT87 Camp Scrub Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: So. Md. Age: 45 Posts: 32	Re: Gardner not going to Seattle??? Unfortunately for us, we held on to Gardner one year too long. In 2003, Coles had a great year(82 rec. 1200 yds) and hid Gardner's decent(for a #2) 59 rec. 600 yd. numbers. It also hid the fact that his routes are terrible and that he was not aggressive to the ball. I understand that the play call is more conservative now than in 2003, but for a receiver who is 6' 3" 220 lbs., conservative = short to intermediate routes, possession receiver, 80-90 receptions, etc. The Seahawks are complimenting this guy for even considering him as a fall back. I'm waiting for him to fall ON his back.