Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1
    RamsFan16's Avatar
    RamsFan16 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Cedar Rapids, Iowa
    Age
    24
    Posts
    5,072
    Rep Power
    38

    Packers release S Mark Roman

    Just came across ESPNEWS Bottomline.


    Wow, I'd love to see us make a run at him!

    Last season he had TACK 90.0 | FF 0 | INT 2, Him and Chavous would be good back there together, also each would be good mentors for our young ones!

    RamsFan16

  2. #2
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    18,931
    Rep Power
    147

    Re: Packers release S Mark Roman

    Yet another example of a player becoming available and you immediately wanting to go after him.

    Plain and simple, Roman is just not a very good defensive back. His two interceptions from last season matched his career total prior to that. He's a CB/S 'tweener who hasn't developed into more than a marginal starter despite six seasons and 82 games of experience.

    And apparently the Packers were so impressed by Roman in his two years in Green Bay that they went out and signed Marquand Manuel to replace him, an act which prompted Roman to skip his team's offseason workout in protest.

    No thanks.

  3. #3
    Large_Ant's Avatar
    Large_Ant is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Age
    43
    Posts
    200
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Packers release S Mark Roman

    Well that job search was over quick. From KFFL...


    ***** | Roman agrees to a contract
    Fri, 28 Jul 2006 23:13:33 -0700

    ESPN.com's Len Pasquarelli reports the San Francisco ***** have agreed to an undisclosed contract with free agent S Mark Roman (Packers). Since he also has started at free safety in the past, there is a chance Roman could challenge S Mike Adams for the starting job there. Roman can also be insurance for injured SS Tony Parrish, who is still recovering from a broken left leg.
    ----------------------------------------------------
    Seattle Seahawks - 2004 & 2005 NFC West Champions

  4. #4
    Dr. Defense's Avatar
    Dr. Defense is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    RI
    Age
    23
    Posts
    495
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Packers release S Mark Roman

    This is great. Now Holt, Bruce, and Curtis can have an easier time to rip apart that sub-par secondary.

  5. #5
    RamsFan4ever's Avatar
    RamsFan4ever is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    GA
    Age
    21
    Posts
    1,346
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Packers release S Mark Roman

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Defense
    This is great. Now Holt, Bruce, and Curtis can have an easier time to rip apart that sub-par secondary.
    Thats not great news, Cause if our Great WRs destroy the secondary, the secondary would feel less confident in themselves as a player. Maybe...

  6. #6
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    18,931
    Rep Power
    147

    Re: Packers release S Mark Roman

    Quote Originally Posted by RamsFan4ever
    Thats not great news, Cause if our Great WRs destroy the secondary, the secondary would feel less confident in themselves as a player. Maybe...
    And what about the Whiners secondary feeling less confident about themselves isn't great news?

  7. #7
    Brain Daddy's Avatar
    Brain Daddy is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Portsmouth, Virginia
    Age
    31
    Posts
    265
    Rep Power
    9

    Exclamation Re: Packers release S Mark Roman

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Defense
    This is great. Now Holt, Bruce, and Curtis can have an easier time to rip apart that sub-par secondary.
    Yeah it did wonders for you last year

    But seriously, you're acting if the secondary somehow just got worse Considering that we've been starting defensive backs off the street the last two years, the addition of a veteran player, even one who isn't all that great, is still a decent pick-up. Roman will do one of two things:

    a) Earn the starting spot, in which case he's better than anyone back there already

    or

    b) Push whoever starts to get better and provide depth in time of injury.

    Either way, it's a win-win situation for the Niners and improves the secondary overall.

    I didn't buy him as a quarterback. He's just so stiff, especially when he drops back to pass. Really stiff. He reminds me of Kurt Warner.
    -- Kevan Barlow on Adam Sandler's performance in The Longest Yard

  8. #8
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    18,931
    Rep Power
    147

    Re: Packers release S Mark Roman

    Quote Originally Posted by Brain Daddy
    Yeah it did wonders for you last year
    Well, it sure didn't hurt us, since the Rams lost those games despite excellent efforts from our receivers.

    Four receivers with 322 total receiving yards and two total touchdowns against San Fran in Week One, and then two receivers with 236 total yards and a touchdown with our back-up quarterback the second time they played. In two games, that's 554 yards and three TDs against your defensive backfield. Yikes.

    Signing Roman is just another subpar attempt by the ***** to try and solve their problems in the secondary without actually making it a priority. Because you're not going to convince me that bringing in Roman, Walt Harris, Sammy Davis, and Chad Williams is an effective strategy toward stopping the Rams from putting another 550+ yards on your defense through the air.

  9. #9
    Brain Daddy's Avatar
    Brain Daddy is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Portsmouth, Virginia
    Age
    31
    Posts
    265
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Packers release S Mark Roman

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick
    Four receivers with 322 total receiving yards and two total touchdowns against San Fran in Week One
    Which isn't as impressive as it sounds, given that Bulger had to nickel and dime it up the field and was sacked several times due to coverage. Given the number of pass attempts (wasn't it near 60?), any decent QB should rack up that kind of yardage.

    and then two receivers with 236 total yards and a touchdown with our back-up quarterback the second time they played.
    Your back-up against the aforementioned guys off the street and an injured Shawntae Spencer

    Signing Roman is just another subpar attempt by the ***** to try and solve their problems in the secondary without actually making it a priority.
    OK then, who else was available? With the new CBA, teams have more salary cap room and don't have to release quality players. Roman may not be very good, but the fact is that either directly or indirectly, he'll make the secondary better.

    Because you're not going to convince me that bringing in Roman, Walt Harris, Sammy Davis, and Chad Williams is an effective strategy toward stopping the Rams from putting another 550+ yards on your defense through the air.
    No, improving their pass rush will take care of that. The DBs should play alot better when the QB doesn't have all day to throw.

    I didn't buy him as a quarterback. He's just so stiff, especially when he drops back to pass. Really stiff. He reminds me of Kurt Warner.
    -- Kevan Barlow on Adam Sandler's performance in The Longest Yard

  10. #10
    Longducdong is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Carson City, Nevada
    Age
    45
    Posts
    1
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Packers release S Mark Roman

    Wasn't just Spencer out. For much of the year we had stints where all 4 d backs were out.

    I know. It hurts. Niners leading the NFL with starter games lost to injury, and even still we swept the Rams.

  11. #11
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    18,931
    Rep Power
    147

    Re: Packers release S Mark Roman

    Quote Originally Posted by Brain Daddy
    Which isn't as impressive as it sounds, given that Bulger had to nickel and dime it up the field and was sacked several times due to coverage. Given the number of pass attempts (wasn't it near 60?), any decent QB should rack up that kind of yardage.
    While I'll be the first to concede there were short passes made that day, I don't think Torry Holt's long reception of 44 yards and Isaac Bruce's long reception of 29 combined with his 20+ yard per catch average supports your theory that the Rams simply nickel and dimed it up the field.

    Furthermore, when you cite the fact that Bulger was sacked several times (should be noted it was due as much to our line's own problems as coverage), that works toward the notion that passing successfully should NOT have been easy. So I don't see why you'd bring up a point that helps my argument.


    Quote Originally Posted by Brain Daddy
    Your back-up against the aforementioned guys off the street and an injured Shawntae Spencer
    Fair enough, though I seem to remember Adams, Lewis, Thornton, and Johnson all playing at least portions of that game alongside Spencer. That being said, I didn't respond so we could nitpick the means in which the yardage was achieved.


    Quote Originally Posted by Brain Daddy
    OK then, who else was available? With the new CBA, teams have more salary cap room and don't have to release quality players. Roman may not be very good, but the fact is that either directly or indirectly, he'll make the secondary better.
    Well for one, Lance Schulters. You could also throw in Jerome Woods, Ifeanyi Ohalete, and Keion Carpenter on the list of possibilities, IMO. Would I take these guys over Roman? Probably two of them if not three, but that's not the point. What I'm saying is that the ***** were hardly backed into a corner with no one else to look at, as you make them sound.

    Also, will Roman directly or indirectly make the secondary better? Calling that a fact is questionable. He hasn't been much of a player when he's been on the field, and that combined with him being bobbled from CB to S makes me wonder how much veteran leadership and knowledge he'll bring to the table.


    Quote Originally Posted by Brain Daddy
    No, improving their pass rush will take care of that. The DBs should play alot better when the QB doesn't have all day to throw.
    As we've established, Marc Bulger was on the receiving end of quite a bit of pressure during the Week One contest, yet still boasted a 90+ QB rating prior to the game-sealing interception.

    Point being, don't overestimate what the pass rush will do. Yes, it's going to take some pressure off of your defensive backs. But it's not going to make marginal guys look like All Pros.

    Consider that Washington had a third ranked pass defense (when ranked by opposing QB rating) that had nothing to do with Walt Harris and his marginal play, and that San Diego being tied for fifth in the league in sacks made didn't help Sammy Davis put up great performances either.

    Just food for thought.


    Quote Originally Posted by Longducdong
    I know. It hurts. Niners leading the NFL with starter games lost to injury, and even still we swept the Rams.
    This is borderline smack. We have a forum if that's what you want to do. If not, let's stick to some calm debate.

  12. #12
    laram0's Avatar
    laram0 is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Age
    57
    Posts
    9,083
    Rep Power
    106

    Re: Packers release S Mark Roman

    Took the words right out of my mouth ( Borderline Smack ).

    The secondary of the whiners will have their hands full this season vs the Rams especially if Roman is a guy they are relying on to solidfy the secondary.
    Bulger and the receivers will prevail with even larger numbers than last season with our improved O-line and the fact that Bulger will be healthy for both games.

    :ramlogo:

  13. #13
    Bruce=GOAT's Avatar
    Bruce=GOAT is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Kentucky
    Age
    37
    Posts
    1,110
    Rep Power
    20

    Re: Packers release S Mark Roman

    I would assume that Roman's 90 tackles were more a product of his playing on a porous defense rather than his having much talent. I can't wait to see Bruce and Holt juke by him several times this season.

  14. #14
    Brain Daddy's Avatar
    Brain Daddy is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Portsmouth, Virginia
    Age
    31
    Posts
    265
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Packers release S Mark Roman

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick
    While I'll be the first to concede there were short passes made that day, I don't think Torry Holt's long reception of 44 yards and Isaac Bruce's long reception of 29 combined with his 20+ yard per catch average supports your theory that the Rams simply nickel and dimed it up the field.
    The play-by-play (sorry, can't post URLs yet) does that for me. Of Bulger's 34 completions, 25 (nearly 3/4) were completed 10 yards or less downfield, and of those 25 completions, 16 (nearly half) were completed 5 yards or less downfield. "Only three of Bulger's franchise-record 56 passing attempts resulted in completions of 20-plus yards."

    Well for one, Lance Schulters. You could also throw in Jerome Woods, Ifeanyi Ohalete, and Keion Carpenter on the list of possibilities, IMO. Would I take these guys over Roman? Probably two of them if not three, but that's not the point. What I'm saying is that the ***** were hardly backed into a corner with no one else to look at, as you make them sound.
    The team can't sign a player who doesn't want to come to them. Schulters is reportedly looking to join the team that has the best chance to win now. I think it's safe to say the Niners aren't in that category. Some of the other guys really aren't all that much better than Roman. And there's the possibility that, like Schulters, they may not have had any interest in going out to SF, or wanted too much money, or whatever. Who knows?

    Also, will Roman directly or indirectly make the secondary better? Calling that a fact is questionable.
    Not at all. Don't misunderstand me here; I'm not saying he's a great or even good player. I'm simply saying he's better than alot of the guys who were back there last year. I think you're on the money with your assesment of the guy. Roman wasn't brought in to be a mentor, but to compete. If he actually wins (and to be honest, I'm hoping Adams gets it), then whoever is the #2 is worse than he is. If he isn't good enough to take the job, he'll at least push the starter to be a better player through competition. And he'll be a better backup than the guys last year. Like I initially said, adding Roman isn't really a step backwards, as some seem to think.

    Point being, don't overestimate what the pass rush will do. Yes, it's going to take some pressure off of your defensive backs. But it's not going to make marginal guys look like All Pros.
    True, but the DBs were out there far too long last year. A good pass rush isn't going to make them look like all-pros, will certainly help.

    Consider that Washington had a third ranked pass defense (when ranked by opposing QB rating) that had nothing to do with Walt Harris and his marginal play, and that San Diego being tied for fifth in the league in sacks made didn't help Sammy Davis put up great performances either.
    Point taken.

    I didn't buy him as a quarterback. He's just so stiff, especially when he drops back to pass. Really stiff. He reminds me of Kurt Warner.
    -- Kevan Barlow on Adam Sandler's performance in The Longest Yard

  15. #15
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    18,931
    Rep Power
    147

    Re: Packers release S Mark Roman

    Quote Originally Posted by Brain Daddy
    The play-by-play (sorry, can't post URLs yet) does that for me.
    Fair enough, though my point was to illustrate that it wasn't solely dink and dunk, which is what I thought you were claiming in your original statement. There were deep passes both attempted and completed, and I was trying to show that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Brain Daddy
    The team can't sign a player who doesn't want to come to them.
    That wasn't what you asked though. You asked who else was available, and I told you a handful of names. Whether or not they want to play for the *****, who knows? Somehow I doubt being unemployed for six months is a more appealing option than competing for a starting safety job.


    Quote Originally Posted by Brain Daddy
    Like I initially said, adding Roman isn't really a step backwards, as some seem to think.
    Agreed, since there realistically are probably very few players a team could add and actually get worse. However, I just don't agree with you that it's a fact that adding Roman is a step forward. It might be, but it's no guarantee, IMO.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •