which would be awesome if there weren't freakly athletic linebackers on every team.
a lot of arizonas trick plays were passes and shit
we cant run the triple option
UNLESS.....TRADE UP FOR CAM NEWTON!!!

Jordy Nelson was not moved to third-string RB.

McCluster's development as a WR just had it's nuts cut off. He's not developing into a player. He's being put into a neat little 30-catch-a-year gimmick box.

Great logic considering there nothing that actually says DMC has been moved.

If Dexter has not been moved I will be patient with his development as a wide receiver.

The point is...it's reeruned to come to any type of conclusion on a player after his first year in the business.

You probably thought Dorsey was a bust after his rookie season.

Nelson is a WR who has always been a WR and is still a WR


he's not a backup RB in the duo named "One really good RB and One midget dude without a position"


but keep making shit up

Well if the story is true.... that means the Chiefs themselves would be coming to that conclusion after his first year... not us.

We're just commenting on the potential impact of this alleged decision.

Hmmm, wasn't Dante Hall in the exact same boat?

Dante Hall was successful the first year he stepped on an NFL football field. He was an outstanding kick returner and contributed as a 4th receiver. He was converted to WR and was never, ever moved back to RB.

in the sense that he had no position and never became a great WR? yes

in the sense that he was the #36 pick in the draft? no

in the sense that he was a truly great kick returner? no

I get that 11 years was a long time ago, so maybe the memory fades, but Dante Hall wasn't much as a rookie. it took 3 years for him to become the X-Factor, and a lot of people were surprised by that. Because early on, he had a bullseye for his blocker's backsides. And he was awful on the field with the offense, at least when we got to see him there...during the preseason. He was behind Mike Cloud on the depth chart, and eventually moved to WR - years later - because he never made it at RB.

Don't want to take my word for it? That's fine. Here's some rookie numbers:

KR: 17 returns for 358 yards (21.1), long of 36
PR: 6 returns for 37 yards (6.2), long of 22
0 rushes. 0 receptions.

Just for shits and giggles, McCluster's rookie numbers:

KR: 26 returns for 527 yards (20.3) long of 36
PR: 13 returns for 202 yards (15.5) long of 94, 1 TD
21 rec for 209 yards (10.0), long of 31T, 1 TD
18 rushes for 71 yards (3.9), long of 20

If anything, Hall should be the poster child for how McCluster could improve, because everything you're saying about McCluster now was said about Hall by people in 2000 and 2001 (although he began to show things as a returner that year, as I recall): at that time he was not elusive, he had very poor vision, hell, he didn't even look fast. And he couldn't do anything on offense (he had a total of 2 rushes in his first two years, and 0 receptions).

I wasn't talking about Dante Hall's rookie year. I was talking about the first year he actually played on offense, which was 2002. That was the first time he really got on a field. He wasn't getting snaps in 00 and 01.

Dante Hall is not the poster child because McCluster showed almost no ability as a return man or receiver last year. Returners don't magically develop over time. They're usually as good as they'll ever be, or very close to it, the first time they step on a field. Devin Hester took back 5 kicks for scores as a rookie.

Trolling 101: when you're shown to be wrong, change the argument.