Wesson44 Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/footb...story?track=rss Well anything that can help us score more in the red zone is fine with me. He played fullback in high school and at Texas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 Hate the idea. First of all, he needs to focus on playing his assigned role on defense better before being used elsewhere. Until he shows major improvement he should not be focusing energy or effort elsewhere. Secondly, if the Bears want/need a FB, they damn-well should have drafted/signed one they like enough to play ahead of a DT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesson44 Posted June 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 Hate the idea. First of all, he needs to focus on playing his assigned role on defense better before being used elsewhere. Until he shows major improvement he should not be focusing energy or effort elsewhere. Secondly, if the Bears want/need a FB, they damn-well should have drafted/signed one they like enough to play ahead of a DT. Well I understand your point, but drafting another fullback would seem like a waste when you have a guy that already played the position in high school and college already on the team.Its like the Patriots using their WR Brown and Edelman to play DB over the years....you get a two for one situation saving a roster spot also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger226 Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 Well I understand your point, but drafting another fullback would seem like a waste when you have a guy that already played the position in high school and college already on the team.Its like the Patriots using their WR Brown and Edelman to play DB over the years....you get a two for one situation saving a roster spot also. I think we have Bush for the goalline, but maybe a handful of carries over the course of the year, just wont matter. If it fires him up and works with his carries, no big deal. I dont think it will be much of a distraction, give me the ball and run straight ahead,not much to think about . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesson44 Posted June 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 I think we have Bush for the goalline, but maybe a handful of carries over the course of the year, just wont matter. If it fires him up and works with his carries, no big deal. I dont think it will be much of a distraction, give me the ball and run straight ahead,not much to think about . Yes and also would you try as a LB or DB try to tackle or block this 295lb guy coming at you full speed????? Back in the day who really tackling the fridge....I remember against Green Bay where he wiped one of their LB of the map at the goalline. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 Well I understand your point, but drafting another fullback would seem like a waste when you have a guy that already played the position in high school and college already on the team.Its like the Patriots using their WR Brown and Edelman to play DB over the years....you get a two for one situation saving a roster spot also. Forte, Bush, Clutts. If Forte isn't big or strong enough, or doesn't run hard enough, or doesn't run with enough forward push, then the Bears have Bush. If Bush can't fit the bill with his extra 20 or so pounds, then Klutz is a battering ram with 20 or so more pounds than Bush. Melton has no business in the backfield. I don't care where he played part-time in high school or college. Most of the guys in the NFL were superstars at multiple positions at the lower levels of football. As far as Brown and Edelman at DB, that's apples and oranges, or a bad idea, for multiple reasons. First of all, the Bears are not the Patriots. Second, Lovie is not Belichick. Third, Edelman got beat like a rented mule on more than one occasion. Hell, Edelman was a QB in high school AND college. If scouted today he would be labelled "athlete," which is why his position change makes slightly more sense than Melton's. And, last but not least, the most important difference: both Brown and Edelman were used as emergency options, which is not what's being discussed with Melton. Clutts is 6'2", 260lbs FB. Melton is 6'3", 295lbs DT. Give me the shorter guy, with the lower center of gravity, the faster guy with a history of dishing out snot-bubbles, the bull in a China shop with a penchant for head-on collisions, over the guy who is still trying to figure out how to excel at his chosen position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 Disagree. Melton has done it before. It's not like switching Hester to O. Anything that could help us get in the end zone easier is fine by me. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. If it works, keep it up. If not, scrap it and move along. It's not a big enough gamble/risk to not try it. yes, the law of averages dictate that it probably won't work well enough... But, I'm just not really seeing that much of a downside to trying it. Hate the idea. First of all, he needs to focus on playing his assigned role on defense better before being used elsewhere. Until he shows major improvement he should not be focusing energy or effort elsewhere. Secondly, if the Bears want/need a FB, they damn-well should have drafted/signed one they like enough to play ahead of a DT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesson44 Posted June 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 Forte, Bush, Clutts. If Forte isn't big or strong enough, or doesn't run hard enough, or doesn't run with enough forward push, then the Bears have Bush. If Bush can't fit the bill with his extra 20 or so pounds, then Klutz is a battering ram with 20 or so more pounds than Bush. Melton has no business in the backfield. I don't care where he played part-time in high school or college. Most of the guys in the NFL were superstars at multiple positions at the lower levels of football. As far as Brown and Edelman at DB, that's apples and oranges, or a bad idea, for multiple reasons. First of all, the Bears are not the Patriots. Second, Lovie is not Belichick. Third, Edelman got beat like a rented mule on more than one occasion. Hell, Edelman was a QB in high school AND college. If scouted today he would be labelled "athlete," which is why his position change makes slightly more sense than Melton's. And, last but not least, the most important difference: both Brown and Edelman were used as emergency options, which is not what's being discussed with Melton. Clutts is 6'2", 260lbs FB. Melton is 6'3", 295lbs DT. Give me the shorter guy, with the lower center of gravity, the faster guy with a history of dishing out snot-bubbles, the bull in a China shop with a penchant for head-on collisions, over the guy who is still trying to figure out how to excel at his chosen position. So where is your point??? If the Bears want melton to play fullback then no matter what you say it will happen ..if you like it or not. But still a 295lb guy blocking is better than one at 260 more power and force behind the blocks. Yes we have Forte, Bush and Clutts but lets give one of them the ball running behind a blocking Melton and you will get results as Walter did running behind Mr. Perry. Now your point about position change is rather silly because its done everyday in the NFL; QB to WR, WR to DB, DB to WR, DT to DE ,Garza to center Williams to guard and on and on........and its done to take advantage of size, speed and qualities a player has that can help the team in better situations.The Bears did it with the Fridge, the Falcons did it with Sanders and the Jets did it with Smith even the Steelers used Stewart as a WR. You are right the Bears are not the Patriots and Lovie is not Belichick but they are both playing to win and doing what they think can push their teams over the edge. So what makes you think that Clutts is faster than melton in the first place? What makes you think that he is a better blocker? You need to look at the bigger picture here. Anything that can make your team better should and will be used. Like someone also said how hard can it be...."Melton line up in the backfield on two run to the left and flatten any guy you see is the wrong color". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xvflutop Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 I think we have Bush for the goalline, but maybe a handful of carries over the course of the year, just wont matter. If it fires him up and works with his carries, no big deal. I dont think it will be much of a distraction, give me the ball and run straight ahead,not much to think about . Not to mention that this is in OTAs. Who knows the real reason he is lining up there. Maybe they want to get a look at him and maybe they needed someone to stand in at FB for a couple of plays and he volunteered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 So where is your point??? If the Bears want melton to play fullback then no matter what you say it will happen ..if you like it or not. But still a 295lb guy blocking is better than one at 260 more power and force behind the blocks. Yes we have Forte, Bush and Clutts but lets give one of them the ball running behind a blocking Melton and you will get results as Walter did running behind Mr. Perry. Now your point about position change is rather silly because its done everyday in the NFL; QB to WR, WR to DB, DB to WR, DT to DE ,Garza to center Williams to guard and on and on........and its done to take advantage of size, speed and qualities a player has that can help the team in better situations.The Bears did it with the Fridge, the Falcons did it with Sanders and the Jets did it with Smith even the Steelers used Stewart as a WR. You are right the Bears are not the Patriots and Lovie is not Belichick but they are both playing to win and doing what they think can push their teams over the edge. So what makes you think that Clutts is faster than melton in the first place? What makes you think that he is a better blocker? You need to look at the bigger picture here. Anything that can make your team better should and will be used. Like someone also said how hard can it be...."Melton line up in the backfield on two run to the left and flatten any guy you see is the wrong color". No matter what ANY of us say, the Bears will do what they want. But, then, what the hell is the point of this message board?! It's to put out our individual opinions. Period. Also, it's a complete fallacy to say a 295lb guy is better than a 260lb guy blocking. That's just ridiculous on numerous levels, the first of which is physics (i.e. Newton's second law). I think you're only looking at the "mass" part of the formula. Regarding position changes, they happen every day, but this one is not common. Among the OL or DL, this is common and the players are widely regarded as somewhat interchangeable. Even WR/DB is fairly similar, requiring the same movements, bursts, athletic ability, knowledge of the game. But changing from DT to FB is completely different. Not only that, but the primary job of a FB is to block. The primary job of a DT is to tackle. Unless you're stating that the coaching Clutts has received in his efforts to be a FB are almost completely moot, then it stands to reason he'd be a better blocker. This is a guy who has made it into the NFL by saying, "I will hurl my body at another player so that someone else can get the glory." He was not highly thought of, had to battle his way into the NFL with that sacrificial attitude, and it is not something to take lightly. That's why he's a better blocker. Well, that, speed (see above physics thought), and human kinetics (i.e. lower to the ground causes greater stability). You're saying I'm not looking at the big picture, but that is really where I think you're failing. All you're seeing is "bigger person = better blocker," which isn't terribly surprising considering your infatuation with tall WRs. My debate is not about doing anything to make the Bears better. Utilizing unorthodox ideas is obviously not something I'm against, otherwise I wouldn't have been one of the few people in favor of Martz. If this were all about lining up a bigger guy in the backfield and saying "run to the left and flatten any guy you see is the wrong color" every team in the NFL would have wanted to draft Javorskie Lane out of Texas A&M, or grabbed some other near-300-pounder in the 7th round as a potential FB. Unfortunately for that flawed line of reasoning, this is not something NFL teams do. My point is about the Bears running the team in the mold of how Vince Lombardi coached, running a play so perfectly that it doesn't matter what the opponent does. And at this current point, Melton is nowhere near that execution. Aside from that, if the Bears plan to use Melton as one of their primary rotational DTs - which is obvious - then utilizing him elsewhere only increases fatigue and decreases potential defensive impact. It's the same argument that has been made against Hester since he started playing WR. Bad idea unless this is just OTA goofing off or fill-in duty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesson44 Posted June 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 No matter what ANY of us say, the Bears will do what they want. But, then, what the hell is the point of this message board?! It's to put out our individual opinions. Period. Also, it's a complete fallacy to say a 295lb guy is better than a 260lb guy blocking. That's just ridiculous on numerous levels, the first of which is physics (i.e. Newton's second law). I think you're only looking at the "mass" part of the formula. Regarding position changes, they happen every day, but this one is not common. Among the OL or DL, this is common and the players are widely regarded as somewhat interchangeable. Even WR/DB is fairly similar, requiring the same movements, bursts, athletic ability, knowledge of the game. But changing from DT to FB is completely different. Not only that, but the primary job of a FB is to block. The primary job of a DT is to tackle. Unless you're stating that the coaching Clutts has received in his efforts to be a FB are almost completely moot, then it stands to reason he'd be a better blocker. This is a guy who has made it into the NFL by saying, "I will hurl my body at another player so that someone else can get the glory." He was not highly thought of, had to battle his way into the NFL with that sacrificial attitude, and it is not something to take lightly. That's why he's a better blocker. Well, that, speed (see above physics thought), and human kinetics (i.e. lower to the ground causes greater stability). You're saying I'm not looking at the big picture, but that is really where I think you're failing. All you're seeing is "bigger person = better blocker," which isn't terribly surprising considering your infatuation with tall WRs. My debate is not about doing anything to make the Bears better. Utilizing unorthodox ideas is obviously not something I'm against, otherwise I wouldn't have been one of the few people in favor of Martz. If this were all about lining up a bigger guy in the backfield and saying "run to the left and flatten any guy you see is the wrong color" every team in the NFL would have wanted to draft Javorskie Lane out of Texas A&M, or grabbed some other near-300-pounder in the 7th round as a potential FB. Unfortunately for that flawed line of reasoning, this is not something NFL teams do. My point is about the Bears running the team in the mold of how Vince Lombardi coached, running a play so perfectly that it doesn't matter what the opponent does. And at this current point, Melton is nowhere near that execution. Aside from that, if the Bears plan to use Melton as one of their primary rotational DTs - which is obvious - then utilizing him elsewhere only increases fatigue and decreases potential defensive impact. It's the same argument that has been made against Hester since he started playing WR. Bad idea unless this is just OTA goofing off or fill-in duty. Good points but read this about Melton and correction he played tailback instead of fullback in college. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/categ...or-mill/page/2/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scs787 Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 I dont see how this would hurt at all. talk about a "snot buster" or whatever Jason called it He looks to have some skills as well, no surprise there. Its not like Texas is a small school. And Im pretty sure running 1-3 yards once or twice a game isn't going to fatigue him to the point where it's going to effect him on D. I was too young to really remember the Fridge (born in 87)..How often was he used as a blocking fullback?? All I've seen was him actually getting the ball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesson44 Posted June 8, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 No matter what ANY of us say, the Bears will do what they want. But, then, what the hell is the point of this message board?! It's to put out our individual opinions. Period. Also, it's a complete fallacy to say a 295lb guy is better than a 260lb guy blocking. That's just ridiculous on numerous levels, the first of which is physics (i.e. Newton's second law). I think you're only looking at the "mass" part of the formula. Regarding position changes, they happen every day, but this one is not common. Among the OL or DL, this is common and the players are widely regarded as somewhat interchangeable. Even WR/DB is fairly similar, requiring the same movements, bursts, athletic ability, knowledge of the game. But changing from DT to FB is completely different. Not only that, but the primary job of a FB is to block. The primary job of a DT is to tackle. Unless you're stating that the coaching Clutts has received in his efforts to be a FB are almost completely moot, then it stands to reason he'd be a better blocker. This is a guy who has made it into the NFL by saying, "I will hurl my body at another player so that someone else can get the glory." He was not highly thought of, had to battle his way into the NFL with that sacrificial attitude, and it is not something to take lightly. That's why he's a better blocker. Well, that, speed (see above physics thought), and human kinetics (i.e. lower to the ground causes greater stability). You're saying I'm not looking at the big picture, but that is really where I think you're failing. All you're seeing is "bigger person = better blocker," which isn't terribly surprising considering your infatuation with tall WRs. My debate is not about doing anything to make the Bears better. Utilizing unorthodox ideas is obviously not something I'm against, otherwise I wouldn't have been one of the few people in favor of Martz. If this were all about lining up a bigger guy in the backfield and saying "run to the left and flatten any guy you see is the wrong color" every team in the NFL would have wanted to draft Javorskie Lane out of Texas A&M, or grabbed some other near-300-pounder in the 7th round as a potential FB. Unfortunately for that flawed line of reasoning, this is not something NFL teams do. My point is about the Bears running the team in the mold of how Vince Lombardi coached, running a play so perfectly that it doesn't matter what the opponent does. And at this current point, Melton is nowhere near that execution. Aside from that, if the Bears plan to use Melton as one of their primary rotational DTs - which is obvious - then utilizing him elsewhere only increases fatigue and decreases potential defensive impact. It's the same argument that has been made against Hester since he started playing WR. Bad idea unless this is just OTA goofing off or fill-in duty. Bad idea you say but just watch and tell me how this can hurt if we use him maybe two or three times a game? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 Bad idea you say but just watch and tell me how this can hurt if we use him maybe two or three times a game? Way to completely ignore the post I made that has some very valid points. It's not so much "can this hurt" as it is "do the Bears have a better option." Since the Chicago Bears don't play college football, and Melton didn't make it into the NFL as a FB, and Clutts actually did make it into the NFL as a FB, I'm believe the Bears have a better option at FB. As for the videos, the first one is a gaping hole that you or I could have gone through with ease. The second one, who the hell is ULL? Louisiana Lafayette? Yeah, because that's totally the same as the NFL. The one thing I will say is, he appears to have some skill running the ball. But it just makes much more sense to have an NFL FB playing FB for a team in the NFL. Otherwise we need to go to the well and see what hidden talents the current roster has so we can maximize their production. I know Briggs played some RB/K and Urlacher played some RB/WR in HS, and Urlacher got some reps as WR in college, maybe we should let them each carry the rock a couple times, Briggs can attempt a chippy FG, and Urlacher can go out for a bubble screen or two. How can it hurt? Right?! Isn't that the logic being used? College NFL College Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesson44 Posted June 8, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 Way to completely ignore the post I made that has some very valid points. It's not so much "can this hurt" as it is "do the Bears have a better option." Since the Chicago Bears don't play college football, and Melton didn't make it into the NFL as a FB, and Clutts actually did make it into the NFL as a FB, I'm believe the Bears have a better option at FB. As for the videos, the first one is a gaping hole that you or I could have gone through with ease. The second one, who the hell is ULL? Louisiana Lafayette? Yeah, because that's totally the same as the NFL. The one thing I will say is, he appears to have some skill running the ball. But it just makes much more sense to have an NFL FB playing FB for a team in the NFL. Otherwise we need to go to the well and see what hidden talents the current roster has so we can maximize their production. I know Briggs played some RB/K and Urlacher played some RB/WR in HS, and Urlacher got some reps as WR in college, maybe we should let them each carry the rock a couple times, Briggs can attempt a chippy FG, and Urlacher can go out for a bubble screen or two. How can it hurt? Right?! Isn't that the logic being used? College NFL College I understand your points very well....did you know that Urlacher was a saftey in college and also returned punts? LOL Now you mentioned that we need to see what hidden talents are on the roster so we can maximize their production.....I think that is what they are doing with melton. Now you know ULL i s not the same as the NFL and neither was the school that D.Manning and Knox came from but those two and Melton are in the NFL. Heck Sweetness came from the powerhouse school Jackson State but you saw what he did. Now if Texas had left metlon at RB he would have been a late round pick because of his size...like Jacobs from the Giants....oops 49ers . Now here is something that you might not know since you are promoting Clutts....he was a DE in college not a FB!!He didnt get drafted out of college he switched to FB to make it in the Canadian league, after two year there he went to the Arena league, then the Browns and now the Bears. So lets try him at DE for the Bears huh what do you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scs787 Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 Green Bay has Tyler Kuhn but they still use BJ Raji like I assume the Bears would use Melton. It's just an added element to the goal line package. Can't see how one could frown upon this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted June 9, 2012 Report Share Posted June 9, 2012 Would have loved to have seen that with Ted Washington, back in the day... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesson44 Posted June 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 9, 2012 Would have loved to have seen that with Ted Washington, back in the day... LOL Ted Washington might not have worked....he was maybe too big!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted June 9, 2012 Report Share Posted June 9, 2012 LOL Ted Washington might not have worked....he was maybe too big!! Would have been fun though... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'TD' Posted June 9, 2012 Report Share Posted June 9, 2012 The problem is not the size of the runners in short yardage situations. It's the line. I don't see how a bigger guy getting to the line slower and trying to fit through nonexistant holes that a smaller rb can't make it through will help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted June 9, 2012 Report Share Posted June 9, 2012 The problem is not the size of the runners in short yardage situations. It's the line. I don't see how a bigger guy getting to the line slower and trying to fit through nonexistant holes that a smaller rb can't make it through will help. One thing that saying this, and doing it in the preseason does...it makes it where teams have to defend against Melton as an option if he's put in there as a FB. can make the playfake or the 2nd back more effective if the LB's take a half second to see if Melton has the ball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted June 10, 2012 Report Share Posted June 10, 2012 I understand your points very well....did you know that Urlacher was a saftey in college and also returned punts? LOL Now you mentioned that we need to see what hidden talents are on the roster so we can maximize their production.....I think that is what they are doing with melton. Now you know ULL i s not the same as the NFL and neither was the school that D.Manning and Knox came from but those two and Melton are in the NFL. Heck Sweetness came from the powerhouse school Jackson State but you saw what he did. Now if Texas had left metlon at RB he would have been a late round pick because of his size...like Jacobs from the Giants....oops 49ers . Now here is something that you might not know since you are promoting Clutts....he was a DE in college not a FB!!He didnt get drafted out of college he switched to FB to make it in the Canadian league, after two year there he went to the Arena league, then the Browns and now the Bears. So lets try him at DE for the Bears huh what do you think? I don't think you recognized my sarcasm. I think the player switches are bad ideas. Players who make the NFL should play at the position in which they made or were scouted favorably for the NFL. Clutts wasn't good enough at his college position to make the NFL. His subsequent efforts at FB were good enough to get him into the NFL. That's where he should play, and Melton should play DT. The Bears didn't draft Melton because he used to play RB. IF that were the reason, this board would have collectively seizured. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesson44 Posted June 10, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 10, 2012 I don't think you recognized my sarcasm. I think the player switches are bad ideas. Players who make the NFL should play at the position in which they made or were scouted favorably for the NFL. Clutts wasn't good enough at his college position to make the NFL. His subsequent efforts at FB were good enough to get him into the NFL. That's where he should play, and Melton should play DT. The Bears didn't draft Melton because he used to play RB. IF that were the reason, this board would have collectively seizured. Actually yes i do and agree with you on some of your points........but as you well know this is the NFL and teams do what they feel will make their teams better. But was switching Urlacher from saftey to LB a bad idea? Some work and others don't Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted June 11, 2012 Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 Actually yes i do and agree with you on some of your points........but as you well know this is the NFL and teams do what they feel will make their teams better. But was switching Urlacher from saftey to LB a bad idea? Some work and others don't You're confusing "what a player did in college" with "what a player was scouted to do in the pros." Urlacher was scouted to be a NFL LB. It's possible for someone to play, get scouted, and get drafted for the same position, but that's not the case with Urlacher. Nor is it the same for Clutts. Which is why neither comparison works. Melton played, was scouted, and was drafted to play DT. As for "teams do what they feel will make their teams better," the key word is "feel." It's far from a certainty that their decisions will lead to successes. And in terms of the Bears and their last decade of data, it's hard to be very confident with what they "feel." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesson44 Posted June 11, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 You're confusing "what a player did in college" with "what a player was scouted to do in the pros." Urlacher was scouted to be a NFL LB. It's possible for someone to play, get scouted, and get drafted for the same position, but that's not the case with Urlacher. Nor is it the same for Clutts. Which is why neither comparison works. Melton played, was scouted, and was drafted to play DT. As for "teams do what they feel will make their teams better," the key word is "feel." It's far from a certainty that their decisions will lead to successes. And in terms of the Bears and their last decade of data, it's hard to be very confident with what they "feel." No Im not at all confused, my post was that Melton was being used as a FB to help the team, your point was this was a bad idea to switch positions. Then we started to compare apples to grapes. Yes i agree with you that Melton was drafted to play DT/DE, but Clutts was not drafted and had to make a team anyway he could(FB) since he was a DE in college. My point was that since Melton had played RB/RB in college before he could do it with the Bears for a few plays....not all year without hurting the team at DT. And as you can see you have a DT thats bigger and faster than Clutts and ran a fourty time in the 4.5 area that played in the backfield ....why not try it for a few plays . http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/sha...vations_fr.html Tyler Clutts, Fresno State Height: 6-2. Weight: 245. 40 Time: 4.67. Projected Round: FA. A tweener who made the All-WAC Conference Second Team with five sacks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.