Morgan Extends!!!

The one INT was Pinkston's fault, but one was a tip and the other was just a great play by Manning. I don't even really remember Dan much from that game, perhaps because the Eagles didn't try to run it all that often. Speaking of, I looked it up and Dan had only 8 tackles in that game and one PD. Most of them were after allowing a receiver to catch the ball as well. His tackles came on plays in which we gave up 4, 5, 10, 5, 7, 8, 2, and 6 yards.


And marleycat, what is your major malfunction? To date your most productive post on this board has been about how you're a big fan of Sylvester Stallone's TV career.

 

You truly are a total tool and a fucking retard to boot. I am laughing my ass off reading your ignorant posts TRYING, no, feebley attempting to make yourself look good and all the while you are making yourself look like a total ass.

So in your infinite wisdom we would be a better team without Morgan? When we win games he has nothing to do with the win, but if we lose it is all his fault?

Come on genius, can't wait to hear this one after reading your crybaby post about people saying you are wrong when you are not.

 

I notice you are still avoiding her questions there skippy.

 

So, the DL let's the ball carriers into the his area and it is HIS fault that they gained all those yards? How about his Super Bowl performance? How about the fact that he had 109 tackles in practically 11 games compared to Spoon's 110 in 16 games? What excuses do you have for those?

 

Try actually reading what I write.

Then again, to have married what you did, you can't be all that intelligent. And I have no idea what "questions" you're even talking about.

 

At least I have a woman and don't get rejected by my hand everynight like you do tool. Funny, avoiding the PM I sent you? Most loudmouth cowards like you do LOL!

 

His area isn't supposed to be 5+ yards down the field. He's no deeper than that at the snap, which means he's making tackles further down the field rather than what good middle linebackers do, and plug a hole. Then the pass receptions are partly a matter of him being bad in coverage, which we've known all along.

What about it? Again Morgan didn't fill gaps or stop the run, he made tackles downfield from his initial position. Plus he gave up far too many completions in coverage. He did have eighteen tackles in that game, but again most of them were after significant gains.

Try actually reading the thread. We've already agreed that Morgan was more productive per game than Witherspoon in '04, but also that 'Spoon was more productive than Morgan per game in '03.

 

I agree, it's doubtful that either would be playing under that deal.

I do wish, however, the team had put that $4 mil bonus into the 2007 year rather than next year - next year they'll basically have to keep him anyway, and next year would be a bit early to make such a bold move.

Undoubtedly, Morgan's an asset. Undoubtedly, we're better with him. Would I have shelled out $12 mil in potential guarantees? No. Do I wish, for our money, that he could be more of a leader, or be a top notch coverage player, or be an effective blitzer? Sure. Any of those three, and more.

 

Morgan did not dominate in that game, but he did look pretty good. Our whole defense looked pretty good against a questionable Eagles offense.

But how many games can you honestly think of in which a linebacker has taken over? Can anybody name a classic LaVar Arrington game, or a game that Brian Urlacher single-handedly won?

It's a subjective discussion to begin with.

 

Again I agree with you. I think it was a tad high myself, but obviously Fox and Hurney saw something that we did not see. What some folks need to understand is we do not know everything that is going on. I trust in what Fox and Hurney do because they have yet to disapoint me.