my only concern @ this point is the OffensiveLine fix the big uglies & everything else will fall into place
Don't get me wrong. I don't believe in taking a reactionary approach to this signing. But nothing you wrote above so thoroughly refutes the opposing argument as to suggest it "doesn't follow reality." Tony's meritocratic attitude could very well have changed. He just gave an interview about changing his approach on offense. Also, our running back situation could specifically warrant a different approach, considering they know what they have with the only other power back on the roster. It's a bit of a different situation than, say, on the line. And not everyone thinks Daniel Thomas played well on Friday. I wasn't particularly wowed. He took advantage of some huge holes on a handful of plays. At other times, he looked timid and indecisive. And he certainly hasn't been tearing up camp, by any accounts. Add to that the fact that many people, including myself, speculated after the draft that he wasn't their first choice, and that we had to trade up because he was their last choice, and I think there's a very plausible reason to express some concern. We don't have all the facts. None of us has seen Daniel Thomas as much as the staff has. We can speculate all we want about the implications of this signing. But I don't see how the facts we have lean in one direction or another, much less suggest that one interpretation is beyond the bounds of reality.
To a point 23rd, the difference is a Vet back knows how to avoid negative plays, this is one of the reasons why I've long been in favor of adding some experience to the Rb Corps. ATM: -Reggie Bush -DThomas -Larry Johnson -Lex Hilliard -Lou Polite Top 2 guys are not well tested, logic dictates we add someone who they know they can count on in some situations.
Everything you said could be true, and Thomas could be an absolute bust. But going by the facts as a fan is exposed to I don't see how there is anything to suggest that there is a problem. And I'm not saying Thomas lit the world on fire by any means. He did acceptably well. He's shown signs of pretty much everything. He's made big plays, he's made hard runs, and he's made good decisions in preseason. Not as consistently as you want to be an excellent starter, but I don't see how you can suggest he's potentially a bust or disappointment from anything he's done.
Hypothetical for you Disgutipate: 1st and goal at the 4 yd line vs the Bucs this Saturday, does Thomas get the same 3 carries he got last week to try and punch it in? Does Johnson get one of them?
I personally wouldn't pull him. I dunno if I'd run him three times straight(Or any single back for that matter), but if you're expecting he cannot do it based on once you're convincing yourself it is a problem rather than letting his play convince you.
Fair enough, to me you'd have to see Johnson in that situation, at least 1 carry, 2 would be better, just to have a feel if he can be the guy who can fill that role, detractors will say "that means Thomas is a BUST!", from a coaching standpoint though, the move makes good football sense. 3 headed monster at Rb, Bush the lead dog, then Thomas with Johnson as the situation player like Ward in Texas. And on a more cynical note, "if" they know what they have in Bush and Thomas, they will need a back who they can waive to soak up carries in gm #3 and #4, use Johnson and Grigsby like they would Bush and Thomas.
Of all those you named, Hilliard is the best special teams player, covering punts and kicks. That should help him stick as the 3rd or 4th RB. IMO, we should keep 3 TEs if we want to list Clay there. Otherwise, 2 TEs and 6 RB/FBs including Clay.
I would not be surprised if Clay is listed as a TE but is really more of an HBack and Move Te occasional running back. We may go with only 2 Te's this yr.
