Results 1 to 15 of 15
Thread: Packers release S Mark Roman
-
-07-28-2006 #1
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

-
-07-28-2006 #2
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.
Country Roads, Take Them To St. Louis!
-
-07-30-2006 #3
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
-
-07-30-2006 #4
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.
-
-07-30-2006 #5
Re: Packers release S Mark Roman
Thats not great news, Cause if our Great WRs destroy the secondary, the secondary would feel less confident in themselves as a player. Maybe...
Originally Posted by Dr. Defense
-
-07-30-2006 #6
Re: Packers release S Mark Roman
And what about the Whiners secondary feeling less confident about themselves isn't great news?
Originally Posted by RamsFan4ever

Country Roads, Take Them To St. Louis!
-
-07-31-2006 #7
Re: Packers release S Mark Roman
Yeah it did wonders for you last year
Originally Posted by Dr. Defense
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
-
-07-31-2006 #8
Re: Packers release S Mark Roman
Well, it sure didn't hurt us, since the Rams lost those games despite excellent efforts from our receivers.
Originally Posted by Brain Daddy
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.
Country Roads, Take Them To St. Louis!
-
-07-31-2006 #9
Re: Packers release S Mark Roman
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.
Originally Posted by Nick
Your back-up against the aforementioned guys off the street and an injured Shawntae Spencerand then two receivers with 236 total yards and a touchdown with our back-up quarterback the second time they played.
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.Signing Roman is just another subpar attempt by the ***** to try and solve their problems in the secondary without actually making it a priority.
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.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.
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
-
-07-31-2006 #10
Registered User
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Location
- Carson City, Nevada
- Age
- 44
- 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.
-
-07-31-2006 #11
Re: Packers release S Mark Roman
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.
Originally Posted by Brain Daddy
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Brain Daddy
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.
Originally Posted by Brain Daddy
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Brain Daddy
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Longducdong

Country Roads, Take Them To St. Louis!
-
-07-31-2006 #12
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:

-
-08-01-2006 #13
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.

-
-08-02-2006 #14
Re: Packers release S Mark Roman
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."
Originally Posted by Nick
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?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.
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.Also, will Roman directly or indirectly make the secondary better? Calling that a fact is questionable.
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.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.
Point taken.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.
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
-
-08-02-2006 #15
Re: Packers release S Mark Roman
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.
Originally Posted by Brain Daddy
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.
Originally Posted by Brain Daddy
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.
Originally Posted by Brain Daddy

Country Roads, Take Them To St. Louis!




LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote



Bookmarks