Turn Down For Watkins Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 Smurfs I don't get how Frank Gore is considered a smurf just because he is 5 foot 9 but it is kinda surprising to me that Roscoe isn't on the list Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 Smurfs I don't get how Frank Gore is considered a smurf just because he is 5 foot 9 but it is kinda surprising to me that Roscoe isn't on the list Until Turk figures out a way to use Roscoe in the offense, effectively, it seems that Roscoe will only be considered an NFL factor, amongst some Bills fans. I can envision much more out of him than the Bills are getting, but the offensive coordinator has to be more creative, and Roscoe has to learn to catch the ball...once those two things happen, big things from the little man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cantankerous Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 Because all of those players are leaps and bounds better than Widdle Woscoe. Not at returning punts but overall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uticaclub Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 he is better then leon washington Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLZFAN4LIFE Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 Steve Smith is an easy #1 choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cantankerous Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 he is better then leon washington No, no he isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 Smurfs I don't get how Frank Gore is considered a smurf just because he is 5 foot 9 but it is kinda surprising to me that Roscoe isn't on the list With the exception of Sproles (and possibly Jones Drew), I don't really think RBs belong in a list like this. Height just isn't a big disadvantage for a running back. If you are solidly built and fast, a lack of height can also be a bit of an advantage, if it allows you to hide behind the blockers. I understand including backs if your only point is, "Here are some good short guys". But I tend to think these lists try to make a larger point. By highlighting the accomplishments of "smurfs", aren't you really saying these guys perform well, despite the disadvantage of their size? If so, RBs really don't belong on the list, unless they are dramatically shorter than everyone else at that position. A 5' 9" back isn't all that unusual...is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 A 5' 9" back isn't all that unusual...is it? I think Sproles and Jones-Drew are probably the only ones who are under that height, and considering J-D is built like a fire hydrant I have a small ( ) problem with him on the list as well. Sproles is both short and slight (for his position) and probably should be the only RB included. This may also change as he gets more carries and is subject to more of a pounding than he currently endures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 No, no he isn't. And it isn't even that close. Washington is a very good player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts