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!

     

Is Ed Dickson really better than Scott Simonson?


B.BERSIN

Recommended Posts

Ed was looking pretty good last week. If he were our first string TE he wouldn't be much to praise or complain about, he'd be probably middle of the pack. But let's face it, there aren't many TEs who compare well up against Greg Olsen. Ed's good and he has a lot of experience in our system.

Simonson might be good, but he apparently needs more work. Moving him down to the practice squad is a good move. TE just isn't a place of worry for us right now. We're pretty blessed there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I look at them both as JAG right now. Simonson is unproven, and likely needs the practice to before he's actually prepared to be a pro. Dickson, though below average for a TE1, probably falls in line with most of the other TE2s in the league. Given that Dickson has the experience over a youngster who really hasn't proven to be anything special, he logically gets the nod.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ludwig51 said:

Simonson sucks he has done nothing Ed shown some flashes

Shown some flashes? I like dickson but he is older and on the tail end of his career most likely. I know you're new but try to go against the grain and have some sense and reasoning when you comment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wundrbread33 said:

Dickson is lackluster overall, but Simonson has done nothing and shown nothing.

Regarding replacing Dickson: the answer is not on the roster.

The only TE that did show something (Lucas) was cut because we value strong blockers (Such as Mike Tolbert.......)

Seems like we could have worked with Lucas. Just another thing I don't get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • The difference is that Sanders has the work ethic and does work. Johnny didn't. Bad comp.
    • I explained that I was old school and I realize that others have a different opinion.  Being Deion's son is a bit different.   It suggests that his focus is on the money and not football--It is not just the diamonds--it is the dollar sign on the shirt.  Telling a reporter from the Raiders "I ain't going sixth."  Asking another reporter, "Do you know who my dad is?"  When asked what sets him apart from the others, he said that he is mentally more prepared.  Meanwhile, Dad as recently as March Deion, implied he would advise Shedeur to avoid certain franchises--later to retract that position during an interview with Skip Bayless.  You can't take the fact that he is probably a late first, early second round talent and ignore the fact that his comments, jewelry, $ on his shirts and uniform towels might suggest a feeling of entitlement, a person focused on the return more than the opportunity. As I said very clearly--this is my opinion about one person who was raised as a great player's son and how it might rub some the wrong way.  It comes off as entitled.  Fine if he lives up to it, but to me, it suggests that his mind might not be in the right place.  Perhaps he should be focused on humility, his work ethic, and how he is going to earn it--instead, this comes off as someone who thinks this is his reward.  I am sure that others feel the same way, but if I am the GM, I do not want the circus.  Remember Johnny?  I commented at the time that his money gesture would backfire.  It tells me that his mind was not in the right place.  Same thing.
×
×
  • Create New...