TN05

Derrick Rose injured his right meniscus again and will have surgery to fix it. No timetable for return at this point.

He's started a new religion, Bellslam. He is Jesus and thus eschews the violence of football.

But D-Wil is cancer HAIL GETTLEMAN BURN THE TRAITOR

It beats Dave Gettleman being the GM that talks crap about every long-time player in his franchise

I seriously doubt he'll be in the NFL after the two more years of the Baltimore contract are up. I'm not even sure he will play the third year TBH. I said this before in a topic I made, but next year Steve will be 36. Only 11 WRs of that age have finished with more than 700 yards and only 15 have had more than 50 receptions. In 2016, Steve will be 37, and only seven WRs of that age have finished with more than 500 yards and only six have finished with more than 40 receptions. I love Steve as much as anyone but do you seriously think he'll have anything left in the tank at 38 years old?

lolno

As long as we get rid of Cotchery that would be great.

That's moot considering he was going to retire this year.

A Kelvin Benjamin-Greg Olsen-Ted Ginn-Corey Brown receiving group would be pretty decent. We could focus a bit more on solving line problems and the like.

I call bullsh*t. Saying this: "Steve's had a great career," Gettleman told reporters in Indianapolis. "He really has. None of us are here forever." Is NOT the same as saying "everyone is evaluated". He talked about Steve in past tense. He left it in limbo for weeks. That's Gettleman's fault. Saying otherwise is a complete lie, and the fact Gettleman hasn't done that with DeAngelo pretty much proves that.

No, they won't. The reason people were pissed over the Steve Smith cut was because Gettleman bungled the whole thing and it lasted for months. That has not happened here.

Now that we just have Stew and Tolbert, what do we call that? Smash and Smash?

Being backup to Matt Forte wouldn't be a bad job. With Forte beating them up the whole game, it wouldn't be that difficult to see him getting decent yards fighting past beat-up defenses.

Pretty much nothing. I think we might even lose a bit of cap room. We've got about $6.6 million in dead money left on his contract. Us cutting him is not to save money, it is to open up a roster spot for someone who can produce better. Update: My bad, looks like we do save money.

Stephen Curry weighs in: https://twitter.com/StephenCurry30/status/569951482465923072

She and DeAngelo (and Keith Larson, for that matter) are fairly close. They all do a lot of work with cancer patients and the like.

Two pieces from the article: "We sat down and he told me 'The fact of the matter is we're going to have to release you'," Williams told Molly Grantham during a sit down conversation. "I said you know, 'Why?' and he said, 'because we don't run the ball enough. Just like you said back before the season started, we don't run the ball enough to keep you and both [Jonathan Stewart], so we're going to release you'." "I don't feel bitter at all. [stewart] had the hot hand at the end of the season. He's a great running back, obviously, uh, I don't feel bitter at all. It's a business," Williams said. "And that business comes back and reminds us year after year - whether it be Steve Smith, whether it be Jordan Gross, whether it be myself - it's going to happen to every guy in that locker room, so it doesn't bother me at all."

Best of luck DeAngelo. Hope you can find use on another team.

Think about it this way... If we had drafted him just a year earlier, we would have payed him a rookie contract of somewhere around 80-90 million overall. We had a bargain with him, he's played well, and now it's time to pay him.

The problem with that analogy is that, during the first nine games (the ones where he received 90% of his carries), he averaged 18 carries a game for 54 yards (3 yards per carry). Over that same period, DeShaun Foster averaged only 9 carries a game for 35 yards (3.9 yards per carry). His performance would be more akin to if we made Mike Tolbert our starting back and fed him the ball repeatedly despite getting no results (aside from gimmie goal-line touchdowns) and having a clearly superior back behind him. Anyway I was wrong to rank him on this list even as one season. I just thought this was a particularly bad season. I mean, averaging three yards per carry while starting more than half the season is really, really bad.

The injury did not impact his play or workload. Two of his three best games were 81 and 77 yard efforts to start the season. Davis did not get better throughout the season, as one would expect from one recovering from injury, but worse. Davis only had one game as starter over 5 yards per carry - week 1. In every single game after, he had 4 YPC or worse - normally between 2.5 and 3 yards per carry. Late in the season (the last four games, where he totaled around 60 yards) he was indeed hampered by injury, but he also lost workload due to DeShaun Foster being much, much better. Basically, injuries really had no statistical impact on his season.

Nope.

Only 2005 Stephen Davis.

Eh, he at least had that really good TD to David Gettis. I can't remember a single good play Jimmy Clausen had.

Lamar Smith could be fair enough, sure. It's just the YPC is so bad. 2005 Stephen Davis was not just a short-yardage back. He and DeShaun Foster were a tandem, yes, but Davis started 11 games out of 13 played, and averaged about 18 carries through the first 9 games. His carries did not drop below 10 until week 10 against Chicago, and even the two games where he and Foster both had 10 carries (Minnesota and Tampa), Davis either had more carries (Minnesota) or was by far the more effective back (Tampa, with a 2.4 YPC vs. Foster's 1.4). Foster did not become starter until Davis was injured. In regards to first downs, Davis had a 1st-down percentage of 17%. That's only marginally better than Foster and the lowest of his career. Hackett did indeed start two games - weeks 1 and 2. He sucked in both of them, hence why he is listed. Mare had a a full season to suck, but actually only directly influenced two games - the 29-34 loss to Chicago (where he missed two kicks) and the 21-24 loss to Minnesota (where he missed one kick). The other games he missed kicks in (Tennessee, Indianapolis, and Atlanta) finished with scores that could not have been influenced by a single kick. In Tennessee, we lost 3-30. In Indianapolis, we won 27-19. In Atlanta, we lost 23-31. In none of these would a field goal have really helped us (aside from Atlanta where it would have meant a TD would have won). Mare never missed field goals in consecutive games, and was also fairly consistent in kickoffs. Medlock, on the other hand, missed a field goal in three consecutive games (each game having only one attempt), and was abysmal in kickoffs even with them being at the 35. I think a full season of Medlock would have been worse than Mare. Ron Edwards barely played due to injury, and when he did I really don't think he was that useful.