I don't think this thread exists yet? Close it if does. 

Edited June 15, 20223 yr by JCon

11 minutes ago, Tracker said:

It seems to me that the receivers who run crisp routes and have good hands last longer than the speed merchants.

Probably because 5 years later a guy whose game relies on speed alone has probably lost a step whereas a guy whose game relies on understanding and good fundamentals has probably improved those elements from experience.

Ellingson still is fairly fast as well . Hasn't really lost a step..and is like Denmark and can make his moves and cuts fluidly without having to gear down...and also be in control of things when doing so ..many guys cant and have to gear right down to do so

2 hours ago, do or die said:

Not sure why the Ellingson signing was received in such tepid fashion. 
He was very effective against us, and had over 1000 yards receiving 5 straight years (2015-19)

Adarius Bowman, Chris Matthews 2, Romby Bryant 2.....

4 minutes ago, Fatty Liver said:

Adarius Bowman, Chris Matthews 2, Romby Bryant 2.....

Pretty much. We saw disappointment after disappointment from formerly great receivers who came here and were busts. Ellingson has thankfully broken that mold but it was hard to get excited until we actually got to see how good he still is.

8 minutes ago, Fatty Liver said:

Adarius Bowman, Chris Matthews 2, Romby Bryant 2.....

Crappy hands, disinterested,  old AF.... hardly a true representation. 

27 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Crappy hands, disinterested,  old AF.... hardly a true representation. 

There was definitely concern that he would show continued decline (if that's what you think last year was) especially with our history of signing veteran FA receivers. There is/was a lot of PTSD... 

12 hours ago, Noeller said:

There was definitely concern that he would show continued decline (if that's what you think last year was) especially with our history of signing veteran FA receivers. There is/was a lot of PTSD... 

Guy with an impeccable history went to shitty team and had a down year.... yeah he must have been washed up.

Just to play devil's advocate, if Ellingson is in and out of the lineup and misses 50% of the games from here on out, do we still feel awesome about his signing? I love what he's done so far, but when you are signing a player that is getting up there you need to also get value out of his contract from being on the field. Look at Nick Moore as an example. Guy was an elite receiver but no one shed a tear when he left because he was in the tub more than he was on the field. I'm not saying that's going to happen with Ellingson, but at what point do we become concerned about the amount of time he is missing? Just an honest question, not passing judgement on the guy. I love what he has done so far. Just saying that if we found out tomorrow he is done for the year, how does everyone here feel about potentially bringing him back next year for the same contract?

Edited August 4, 20223 yr by GCn20

If this is a concern, then maybe never sign "older" free agents, because you can never tell if they might get injured during the season.  Come to think about it, younger players can get injured too, so we might as well bypass the draft.  And the players currently under contract could get hurt too, so they're a problem too.  Damn, maybe we need to replace half the roster each week to try and make sure we have a good chance of playing non injured players.  Edmonton is doing that and it sure seems to be working out great for them...

15 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

Just to play devil's advocate, if Ellingson is in and out of the lineup and misses 50% of the games from here on out, do we still feel awesome about his signing? I love what he's done so far, but when you are signing a player that is getting up there you need to also get value out of his contract from being on the field. Look at Nick Moore as an example. Guy was an elite receiver but no one shed a tear when he left because he was in the tub more than he was on the field. I'm not saying that's going to happen with Ellingson, but at what point do we become concerned about the amount of time he is missing? Just an honest question, not passing judgement on the guy. I love what he has done so far. Just saying that if we found out tomorrow he is done for the year, how does everyone here feel about potentially bringing him back next year for the same contract?

At the current moment, there are only 2 points at which I get concerned:

1. We start losing multiple games in a row directly attributed to his absence

2. The first playoff game and he is still not back

Even then, both of those things are out of my control as a fan, so I would classify it more as disappointment rather than concern, no point fretting about what you can’t alter. Next man up, go 1-0, etc. 
As for injuries making signings bad, it is a risk with every contract signing, but Ellingson has not shown signs of being chronically injured in the past, so still a good signing to me. And as we’ve seen with Collaros, even signing a historically injured player can turn out great. 

30 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

Just to play devil's advocate, if Ellingson is in and out of the lineup and misses 50% of the games from here on out, do we still feel awesome about his signing? I love what he's done so far, but when you are signing a player that is getting up there you need to also get value out of his contract from being on the field. Look at Nick Moore as an example. Guy was an elite receiver but no one shed a tear when he left because he was in the tub more than he was on the field. I'm not saying that's going to happen with Ellingson, but at what point do we become concerned about the amount of time he is missing? Just an honest question, not passing judgement on the guy. I love what he has done so far. Just saying that if we found out tomorrow he is done for the year, how does everyone here feel about potentially bringing him back next year for the same contract?

To play double devil's advocate... if Agudosi is in and our of the line up and continues to miss over 50% of the games... do we still bother signing new un heard of guys who may get hurt?

1 hour ago, GCn20 said:

Just to play devil's advocate, if Ellingson is in and out of the lineup and misses 50% of the games from here on out, do we still feel awesome about his signing? I love what he's done so far, but when you are signing a player that is getting up there you need to also get value out of his contract from being on the field. Look at Nick Moore as an example. Guy was an elite receiver but no one shed a tear when he left because he was in the tub more than he was on the field. I'm not saying that's going to happen with Ellingson, but at what point do we become concerned about the amount of time he is missing? Just an honest question, not passing judgement on the guy. I love what he has done so far. Just saying that if we found out tomorrow he is done for the year, how does everyone here feel about potentially bringing him back next year for the same contract?

There is still a ton of football to be played this year. I’m gonna take a wild guess, go out on a limb and sorry to say, maybe Walters and Miller and that coach guy have an idea what to do. 

Edited August 4, 20223 yr by Rod Black

1 hour ago, WBBFanWest said:

If this is a concern, then maybe never sign "older" free agents, because you can never tell if they might get injured during the season.  Come to think about it, younger players can get injured too, so we might as well bypass the draft.  And the players currently under contract could get hurt too, so they're a problem too.  Damn, maybe we need to replace half the roster each week to try and make sure we have a good chance of playing non injured players.  Edmonton is doing that and it sure seems to be working out great for them...

You're belittling the reality that many players do amass chronic injuries during their careers and the longer they play the worse they get and the more they become an obstacle to overcome.  Neufeld is a good example, he's been wearing some kind of bracing on his right arm almost his entire career, it delayed him starting for the Bombers for almost 2 years and has put him on the  I.R. numerous times, including missing practices often on a weekly basis.  He does not often let this chronic injury effect his game play, but it could eventually be the factor that ends his football career earlier than anticipated.

 

2 hours ago, GCn20 said:

Just to play devil's advocate, if Ellingson is in and out of the lineup and misses 50% of the games from here on out, do we still feel awesome about his signing? I love what he's done so far, but when you are signing a player that is getting up there you need to also get value out of his contract from being on the field. Look at Nick Moore as an example. Guy was an elite receiver but no one shed a tear when he left because he was in the tub more than he was on the field. I'm not saying that's going to happen with Ellingson, but at what point do we become concerned about the amount of time he is missing? Just an honest question, not passing judgement on the guy. I love what he has done so far. Just saying that if we found out tomorrow he is done for the year, how does everyone here feel about potentially bringing him back next year for the same contract?

Difference between Moore and Ellingson is that back then we had no one but Moore, now we have depth and imo the veteran presence is worthwhile even if he has some injury troubles.

2 minutes ago, Geebrr said:

 

Hardly recognize Danny Mac, he's looking "solid".

Just now, Fatty Liver said:

Hardly recognize Danny Mac, he's looking "solid".

Bet you he still throws better than CoFaj

3 minutes ago, Geebrr said:

Bet you he still throws better than CoFaj

Low bar.

6 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Low bar.

Apparently enough to make him a “star”

14 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Low bar.

Cross bar...?

24 minutes ago, Fatty Liver said:

Hardly recognize Danny Mac, he's looking "solid".

Wudduya lookin at my gut for?

17 minutes ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

Wudduya lookin at my gut for?

Not that he was ever slim.

3 hours ago, WBBFanWest said:

If this is a concern, then maybe never sign "older" free agents, because you can never tell if they might get injured during the season.  Come to think about it, younger players can get injured too, so we might as well bypass the draft.  And the players currently under contract could get hurt too, so they're a problem too.  Damn, maybe we need to replace half the roster each week to try and make sure we have a good chance of playing non injured players.  Edmonton is doing that and it sure seems to be working out great for them...

Quite the leap of logic you are taking there. I am not unhappy with Ellingson in any way, shape, or form. Just playing devil's advocate to spark intelligent conversation about where fans draw the line on value of a signing or contract. Apparently, that was a failed idea.

57 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Difference between Moore and Ellingson is that back then we had no one but Moore, now we have depth and imo the veteran presence is worthwhile even if he has some injury troubles.

Agreed. Just seeing where everyone sat on when a good signing becomes a bust. I'm certainly not even remotely there with Ellingson and probably wouldn't be even if it turned out he couldn't come back this year. If that happened, I would re-sign him next year with a lower base and higher bonus prove it kind of contract.

1 hour ago, Fatty Liver said:

You're belittling the reality that many players do amass chronic injuries during their careers and the longer they play the worse they get and the more they become an obstacle to overcome.  Neufeld is a good example, he's been wearing some kind of bracing on his right arm almost his entire career, it delayed him starting for the Bombers for almost 2 years and has put him on the  I.R. numerous times, including missing practices often on a weekly basis.  He does not often let this chronic injury effect his game play, but it could eventually be the factor that ends his football career earlier than anticipated.

Agreed. One would have to be oblivious of reality to think that a rookie or young player has a much better chance of returning as a highly productive player than a player in his mid-thirties with the same injury. It's not an apt comparison at all.

Edited August 4, 20223 yr by GCn20

1 hour ago, Fatty Liver said:

Hardly recognize Danny Mac, he's looking "solid".

Wasn’t that his playing days shape? 

3 hours ago, GCn20 said:

Just to play devil's advocate, if Ellingson is in and out of the lineup and misses 50% of the games from here on out, do we still feel awesome about his signing? I love what he's done so far, but when you are signing a player that is getting up there you need to also get value out of his contract from being on the field. Look at Nick Moore as an example. Guy was an elite receiver but no one shed a tear when he left because he was in the tub more than he was on the field. I'm not saying that's going to happen with Ellingson, but at what point do we become concerned about the amount of time he is missing? Just an honest question, not passing judgement on the guy. I love what he has done so far. Just saying that if we found out tomorrow he is done for the year, how does everyone here feel about potentially bringing him back next year for the same contract?

Won't really be able to answer this until the season is done. IF he only plays 50% of the games but puts up the numbers he has been, I see that as a win. But like I said there is still way to much football left to answer this question one way or the other.