in case we had forgotten

Only 2 posts and you're starting a thread about how much Lamont bites?:ha: Here, come and sit beside me and I'll share some of my snacks with you. You are my new friend. Unless you are already my friend......

Seriously, Lamont isn't THAT bad. In truth, opposing players shouldn't be making it that far and that wide open once they reach the safeties. You realize that players have to make it past the D-line, then past the linebackers, through the CB's THEN to the safeties. If a player is running as wide open and fast as the Green Bay guy who made the TD and Lamont was trailing him, then there was a breakdown at the line of scrimmage.

 

never thought you'd be defending Lamont again :ha:

 

Well I don't know whether to blame Lamont or the scheme... I'm beginning to think that Schwartz tells his safeties "Just make sure they don't score. A 60, 70 or 80 yard gain is ok, as long as they don't score"... I think he calls it "Bend (over) but don't break"....

If it's not the scheming then Lamont sucks. As Gunny rightly points out it doesn't matter how or why the receiver was allowed into his zone, he HAS to come up on him and defend the pass or make the tackle.

 

LaMont Thompson

Is there any reason why we keep wasting our time with Thompson? He is solely responsible for giving several big plays. In fact 2-3 during this preseason went for scores. Farve burnt him bad last night. Hopefully we will either trade him or flush him completely. Anyone can give us an upgrade at SS. Any ideas guys?

 

The play was a blown coverage by Hill, Did you even Watch the game ? For Christ Sakes !

 

That dude that burned us was Hills' responsibility. But once he broke free, he was Lamonts who did catch him.

 

Regardless Lamont is still a liability and hasn't proven his worth.

 

It doesnt matter who you put back there if they have to babysit Hill the whole game.

 

Lamont sucked before Hill was even playing, get off his nutsac. The guy is crap.