Page 4 of 7

Re: We got em

Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2016 2:49 pm
by JasonIsDaMan [enjin:7981157]
Is there an anti-"We got em" thread for when a guys like Wallace sign elsewhere?

Re: We got em

Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2016 6:52 pm
by TAFKASP
JasonIsDaMan wrote:Is there an anti-"We got em" thread for when a guys like Wallace sign elsewhere?


Sure, but understand, Boom is for gets, Bam is for losses, sooooo:

BAM

Mike Wallace signs with Baltimore because he needs an "established quarterback".

Re: We got em

Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2016 7:33 pm
by Monster
TheSP wrote:
JasonIsDaMan wrote:Is there an anti-"We got em" thread for when a guys like Wallace sign elsewhere?


Sure, but understand, Boom is for gets, Bam is for losses, sooooo:

BAM

Mike Wallace signs with Baltimore because he needs an "established quarterback".


I'll say this about Wallace that if he can still play (and I think can) a QB that can really bomb the ball down the field seems like a good thing for him and that wasn't his QB situation in Miami or with the Vikes. Big Ben would have been fun but Flacco is another good fit. The Ravens could have a fun bunch of Steve Smith gets healthy and Wallace finds some of his old magic.

Re: We got em

Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 11:31 am
by bleedspeed
Here is who is left after a week.

http://www.vikings.com/news/article-1/Whos-Left-After-Week-1-of-Free-Agency/283061d6-8f71-41d3-8c54-1e0ce821b09f?campaign=sf22625466+sf22625466

Re: We got em

Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 3:57 pm
by JasonIsDaMan [enjin:7981157]
monsterpile wrote:
TheSP wrote:
JasonIsDaMan wrote:Is there an anti-"We got em" thread for when a guys like Wallace sign elsewhere?


Sure, but understand, Boom is for gets, Bam is for losses, sooooo:

BAM

Mike Wallace signs with Baltimore because he needs an "established quarterback".


I'll say this about Wallace that if he can still play (and I think can) a QB that can really bomb the ball down the field seems like a good thing for him and that wasn't his QB situation in Miami or with the Vikes. Big Ben would have been fun but Flacco is another good fit. The Ravens could have a fun bunch of Steve Smith gets healthy and Wallace finds some of his old magic.



I have to complement you, Monster. I could have sworn that Smith retired. I was way off.

Re: We got em

Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2016 12:17 am
by Monster
JasonIsDaMan wrote:
monsterpile wrote:
TheSP wrote:
JasonIsDaMan wrote:Is there an anti-"We got em" thread for when a guys like Wallace sign elsewhere?


Sure, but understand, Boom is for gets, Bam is for losses, sooooo:

BAM

Mike Wallace signs with Baltimore because he needs an "established quarterback".


I'll say this about Wallace that if he can still play (and I think can) a QB that can really bomb the ball down the field seems like a good thing for him and that wasn't his QB situation in Miami or with the Vikes. Big Ben would have been fun but Flacco is another good fit. The Ravens could have a fun bunch of Steve Smith gets healthy and Wallace finds some of his old magic.



I have to complement you, Monster. I could have sworn that Smith retired. I was way off.


He was going to retire after last season but then he got hurt and didn't want to go out like that so he is planning to come back and prove the doubters and haters wrong again. Lol I like to keep up with what he is doing I've really enjoyed watching him over his career. He is a terrific talent that NEVER lost the chip on his shoulder. He is a small but freak athlete that wants to crush you. It's a fun thing to see especially compared to other diva recievers out there. I hope he can come back and have another good season and go out the way he wants to.

Re: We got em

Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2016 6:43 am
by bleedspeed
BOOM

Matt Asiata - http://www.startribune.com/asiata-re-signs-on-a-one-year-deal/372283471/

Re: We got em

Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2016 11:31 am
by TAFKASP
BOOM

Andre Smith - http://www.dailynorseman.com/2016/3/17/11254276/former-bengals-t-andre-smith-joins-vikings-on-a-one-year-deal

One year $4.5M, hasn't been a great player, inconsistent, but has all the tools. Can Sparano bring it out? The lines depth is many times over better than last season! Last year with injuries to Loadholt and Sullivan they were in bad shape by week one, this year if Load and Sully can play they have damn near two O-Lines.

Re: We got em

Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2016 11:50 am
by bleedspeed
I like it.

I fucked up my L5-S1 doing deadlifts a few weeks ago. It has been a bitch. Since Sully needed surgery. I wouldn't have much faith in him coming back.

Re: We got em

Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2016 1:41 pm
by JasonIsDaMan [enjin:7981157]
bleedspeed177 wrote:I like it.

I fucked up my L5-S1 doing deadlifts a few weeks ago. It has been a bitch. Since Sully needed surgery. I wouldn't have much faith in him coming back.



Ouch. I messed mine up playing hockey in H/S by landing on it funny. Never really got back to 100%. Messed it up again about 10 years ago bouncing up and down in a spin class. God speed.

I have to say, I have really enjoyed the Viking's F/A moves. I am not livid about any of them, but I feel like Sherrells' spot should have gone to a more cover-corner with Diggs or CP doing the punts. And I feel like Line could do a better job than Asiata, but they may like Line playing Ellison's snaps.

One again, not livid, just think those moves could have gone better.