Detroit Lions KR/PR duties

[lionstop1]

Should the coaching staff let Golden Tate challenge Jeremy Ross for return duties after Ross gave the Lions a spark last season? And if they did, and Tate wins it, where does that leave Ross with the team?

 

[tpaulus_2]

No. My vote is to leave Ross there and not expose Tate to an unnecessary injury risk. If we had no decent options at the position I'd say go for it, but Ross put up very good averages last year in his half-season of work.

If we're hell-bent on upgrading the position, Trindon Holiday is somehow a free agent. I'm kind of stunned the Broncos let him hit the market. He's strictly a KR/PR (doesn't offer anything on offense), but he might be the best return man in the game right now.

 

[Quackerjacked]

I would let him compete. He'd have to be way better, like Dante Hall versus Logan better for me to want him to take over. If it's anywhere close at all I'd rather have him spend as much time as possible building up his rapport with the rest of the offense.

 

[Kreton]

I'm with tp. Don't risk the injury. Not to mention Ross was a better pr than Tate. That's no knock on Tate but Ross was just better last year.

 

[lionstop1]

I thought Tate was ranked the #1 PR last year? It really didnt stop Seattle from putting him back there, so I wonder if the Lions have the same plan. Ross was good, but he would have to claim a spot among the WR unit to keep his position if you ask me. Personally, if I have several guys that is good at it, I might roll with the hot guy that day.

 

[Old Lion]

I don't mind Tate doing it if Ross gets hurt or is just ineffective on a certain day. I don't want him there full time though unless it is absolutely necessary.

 

[Quackerjacked]

The problem with rolling with the hot guy that guy is the time dedicated to it. I'm worried about practice time, not game time. During the time that returners are doing their returner thing, Tate could be working on timing with Stafford.

 

[themuzzer]

You play the best player at the position, simple as that.......Tough shit if he gets hurt, but if he's better then Ross returning kicks then you play him.

It's flipping football not tittely winks.

 

[tpaulus_2]

There's a bit more strategy involved in the NFL than that. It's definitely a calculated risk and you don't always just automatically put the best guy back there. There's a reason Reggie Bush wasn't our punt returner last season.

 

[themuzzer]

There's a bit more strategy involved in the NFL than that. It's definitely a calculated risk and you don't always just automatically put the best guy back there. There's a reason Reggie Bush wasn't our punt returner last season.

Fine, Start Shaun Hill or Kellen Moore because we don't want Stafford to get hurt......

 

[broncosmitty]

There's a bit more strategy involved in the NFL than that. It's definitely a calculated risk and you don't always just automatically put the best guy back there. There's a reason Reggie Bush wasn't our punt returner last season.

Fumbles.....

 

[tpaulus_2]

Fine, Start Shaun Hill or Kellen Moore because we don't want Stafford to get hurt......

I don't think you're grasping this conversation very well.

 

[themuzzer]

I don't think you're grasping this conversation very well.

I grasp it all too well, You want to play a lesser guy over a better guy because your afraid of a possible injury.

 

[tpaulus_2]

Fumbles.....

Nah, NFL coaches don't get too worked up over 4 fumbles lost. They save that for the media to sell some papers to over-reactionary fans.

Why are QBs given a free pass on "x" amount of INTs per year, but, apparently, the acceptable number of fumbles for a RB is zero?

 

[themuzzer]

Nah, NFL coaches don't get too worked up over 4 fumbles lost. They save that for the media to sell some papers to over-reactionary fans.

Why are QBs given a free pass on "x" amount of INTs per year, but, apparently, the acceptable number of fumbles for a RB is zero?

Maybe because QBs throw the ball a lot more then a running back gets carries?

 

[tpaulus_2]

I grasp it all too well, You want to play a lesser guy over a better guy because your afraid of a possible injury.

On special teams, yes. That way he doesn't get hurt on a play that happens 2 or 3 times a game and have to miss his offensive role where he takes 40 snaps per game. It's just basic common sense that you have to take that into consideration before putting a key offensive player or defensive back deep to return punts and kicks.

 

[themuzzer]

Id rather take the Bears approach by playing their best KR (Hester) and try making him a WR then playing Ross if Tate is better.

 

[tpaulus_2]

Maybe because QBs throw the ball a lot more then a running back gets carries?

Fine, then figure out the ratio of how many times they throw and come up with an acceptable number per pass or per carry on the season.

Some quick math shows that QBs Tom Brady and Drew Brees threw an INT every 56-57 times they threw the ball. By comparison, Bush fumbled every 45 times he ran the ball. If he has one less fumble on the season he's right there where they are for turnovers per carry/possession (at that's without counting each QBs fumbles. Tom Brady had 9 of those last year...).

 

[tpaulus_2]

Id rather take the Bears approach by playing their best KR (Hester) and try making him a WR then playing Ross if Tate is better.

Hester was a return man first, WR second. He wasn't a starting WR.

 

[broncosmitty]

Nah, NFL coaches don't get too worked up over 4 fumbles lost. They save that for the media to sell some papers to over-reactionary fans.

Why are QBs given a free pass on "x" amount of INTs per year, but, apparently, the acceptable number of fumbles for a RB is zero?

Yeah. They do. Schwartz benched his sorry ass, twice.(Monte Ball lost PT because he lays it in the ground also. Fumbles are inexcusable) Guy lost us games because he can't hold into the ball. There is no excuse for it. (You're talking to the wrong guy about giving QBs free passes.). And his inability to handle the ball is why we didn't see back there. Which is fine with me.