Register

Board index » Stillers Talk » Wallace is an upgrade over Nate "Crisco" Washington.

Anything and everything about the Pittsburgh Steelers
Seasoned Veteran
 
Posts: 177
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 8:23 am

Wallace is an upgrade over Nate "Crisco" Washington.

Postby LambertoCincoOcho » Mon Apr 27, 2009 5:17 pm

He will contribute as a rookie by running deep routes with that 4.33 speed to stretch the coverage. What I like about Wallace is he has more reliable hands than Nate Washington. He also is an effective return man where as Nate was afraid to get hit. Wallace, Hood, Summers and Keenan will all contribute as rookies.

Grizzled Veteran
User avatar
Posts: 267
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 1:34 pm

Re: Wallace is an upgrade over Nate "Crisco" Washington.

Postby PSUPERCY » Mon Apr 27, 2009 6:05 pm

I respectfully disagree with your assessment of Washington. He came up with huge catches (and drops) last year. Actually in our house we used to call him "Sir Drops-A-Lot". However, he never - to my knowledge - shortarmed a pass the way Plaxico used to.

Grizzled Veteran
 
Posts: 363
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 10:00 am

Re: Wallace is an upgrade over Nate "Crisco" Washington.

Postby indysteel » Mon Apr 27, 2009 7:36 pm

Whether he short armed it or not, Crisco dropped a fair number of passes. For every catch, he had a drop it seemed like.

Well, Crisco, don't let the door hit you in your skinny ass. TN will realize they were robbed. Crisco is a servicable WR but will never be much more than what he is right now.

Plex? Head case. 'Nuf said.

.

Seasoned Veteran
User avatar
Posts: 205
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 10:21 pm

Re: Wallace is an upgrade over Nate "Crisco" Washington.

Postby toomuchmerrilhoge » Mon Apr 27, 2009 10:09 pm

I can never get too excited about any draft pick that hasn't played one snap of pro football. I'd be surprised if he gets any significant playing time beyond special teams.

Return to Stillers Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

Don't be stingy, share: