Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Daryl Worley: ‘I Was Very Unimpressed With the Way I Played’


Ron Burgandy

Recommended Posts

LOOOL... at everybody claiming all world status for the rookie corners and one lack luster pre season game now their doubting Worley. Everybody takes there lumps in the  league and eventually Bradberry will get his too, better pre season than regular season. The play calls wasnt helping him either we wont be that soft in games that count.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, KSpan said:

The rest of his comment:

 "I was playing a little bit not as aggressive as I'm used to because of some of the calls and not being able to challenge balls and routes the way I would've liked."

 

sounds familiar. they did the same thing to Norman too for his first season+. it made people think he sucked, but the coaches refused to trust him to play closer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CPF4LIFE said:

LOOOL... at everybody claiming all world status for the rookie corners and one lack luster pre season game now their doubting Worley. Everybody takes there lumps in the  league and eventually Bradberry will get his too, better pre season than regular season. The play calls wasnt helping him either we wont be that soft in games that count.

He said he was unimpressed, I too was unimpressed.  Not really a big deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SIGCHI222 said:

He said he was unimpressed, I too was unimpressed.  Not really a big deal.

Did you expect him to say he played well or something?? He gave up quick slants on all his completions when he was 20 yards off the ball hence why he said the play calling didnt help. Hard to impress in that situation for any corner thats why its not a big deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This defense plays a zone scheme.  I don't care how good you are as a corner, if the opposing QB has time and is a good QB mind you, he will find holes to exploit in the scheme.  Rarely do our corners bump and press receivers. (Pretty much the whole game the Titan receivers were playing with free releases)  So to be a great corner here, you need fast reaction times and hope the pass rush is getting home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, CPF4LIFE said:

Did you expect him to say he played well or something?? He gave up quick slants on all his completions when he was 20 yards off the ball hence why he said the play calling didnt help. Hard to impress in that situation for any corner thats why its not a big deal.

giphy.gif

I wasn't impressed.  Neither was he.  Why does this bother you if you already have an explanation/excuse in your head?

Let it go dude, we pull for the same team.  You telling me it's not a big deal is exactly what I said at the end of my post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, SIGCHI222 said:

giphy.gif

I wasn't impressed.  Neither was he.  Why does this bother you if you already have an explanation/excuse in your head?

Let it go dude, we pull for the same team.  You telling me it's not a big deal is exactly what I said at the end of my post.

There it is, the classic " why are you bothered?" response when you responded to me initially LOL. Have a great night buddy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Strange, every news article and tweet I just searched all mentioned waivers. It is definitely his sixth year of at least 6 games. All I was trying to think of earlier was at the vet min could he beat out Bryce in camp next year lol. He's kinda got the old Darnold issue where he can obviously launch deep balls and qb run at a level Bryce will never achieve, but it sounds like he would be content being like a Josh Allen backup who doesn't throw the whole game plan out the window if he has to come in for a series or two. If we had him and for some reason still wanted to start Bryce he would kinda do what Justin Fields was doing the other night with Dangeruss, coming in for designed runs and maybe some play action/triple option rpo things to go deep. That would be so obvious and sad though. At least Russ can still sling it 40 yards in the air with a flick of the wrist
    • Too late to edit above but the quote is from this Diane Russini article in the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5941684/2024/11/23/russinis-what-im-hearing-the-day-the-jets-fell-apart-and-the-broncos-rallied-belichick-best-fits/ Okay.. there you have sorry I left that out the first post.  Also waivers keep the contract intact. That is the major difference in released and waived. It's all in that link from the other post.
    • Okay so I am reading something in The Athletic and it says that Jones had to pass through waivers. So I don't know. I looked this stuff up when we were number one there all offseason and I thought it said 4 years in the league got you vested, as they call it.  Vested gets you out of waivers as I understood it. I probably got something wrong, but when I think about the slack quality of journalism these days I wonder about that. So I went and looked, again. Well, well.  For everyone: "When a player has accrued at least four seasons in the NFL, they are considered a vested veteran. When these vested veterans get cut, they are released and their contract is terminated. When a vested veteran is released, they are an unrestricted free agent that can sign with any NFL team, and the team that released them doesn’t need to provide any additional compensation." It runs it all down here, where the quotes came from: https://www.profootballnetwork.com/waived-vs-released-nfl/ As far as Jones, the team turned down his 5th year option so I knew that meant he had 4 years in, because they re-signed him anyway, after turning down the much cheaper extra year.  The Athletic is owned by the New York Times so I shouldn't be surprised. That paper was an institution once upon a time but they let their standards go.
×
×
  • Create New...