Re: Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

[quote=mmil12;314235]I am so tired of Chris Cooley not getting the respect that he deserves. Every year you look up and his top 5 (TE) in yards, receptions, and TD's. Two years ago he should have gone to the pro bowl and didn't because he was listed as a fullback. We all know that Cooley is a Tight End not a fullback or H-back. Sellers is the H-Back. Forget about what this clown says.

Bottom line Cooley needs more respect then he deserves. His whole career with the Redskins he has been there most consistent receiver and definitely the number two option for the QB. Anyone disagree?[/quote]

I'd rather him not get that respect so that it won't reflect in his price tag when we resign him. :ibiggthump

Re: Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

Good point with the salary cap. If I was him a would get pissed after a while being looked over by Alge Crumpler (who drops alot of passes), Jason Witten, and Jeremey Shockey. Lets agree Cooley is as good as Crumpler and better/more consistent then Witten and Shockey. It's just not right.

Re: Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

Shockey has been on his way down for a while now. Witten is good, but not as good as Cooley. Crumpler gets the stats because he is Vick's ONLY reliable target. Honestly, I think long and hard and really I can only see Gonzo as a better overall TE than Cooley.

Re: Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

Shockey is very overrated because of his mouth and because of where he played in college.

I like Crumpler, the guy is a load and can move.

Witten is very good, perhaps a bit overrated because of the star on his helmet but he's a player regardless.

Re: Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;314266]Shockey has been on his way down for a while now. Witten is good, but not as good as Cooley. Crumpler gets the stats because he is Vick's ONLY reliable target. Honestly, I think long and hard and really I can only see Gonzo as a better overall TE than Cooley.[/quote]

Gonzo and Gates are the top 2

Re: Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

Honestly, I wouldn't put Gates over Cooley as the best OVERALL TE. Gates is a great receiver, but not the best blocker or after the catch.

Re: Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

Gonzo, Gates, Crumpler and Cooley should go to the pro bowl every year! There is no doubt in my mind.

On another note, this just goes to show why we shouldn't trade away our second round draft picks. After all thats where we got Betts and Cooley! To great players for us.

Re: Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

[quote=mmil12;314275]Gonzo, Gates, Crumpler and Cooley should go to the pro bowl every year! There is no doubt in my mind.

On another note, this just goes to show why we shouldn't trade away our second round draft picks. After all thats where we got Betts and Cooley! To great players for us.[/quote]

Actually, we got Cooley in the 3rd round

[URL]http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-draft.htm[/URL]

But yeah, point taken about trading picks away.

Re: Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

Your right, my mistake. I just hope that Loyd plays well to open him and Moss up some more. If not, he needs to get benched for ARE who showed signs toward the end of last year!

Re: Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

Cooley is the man. And yes he's a blocking ,catching,running and of course hard hitting TE, TD machine.

He will get his due respect this year at contract time.

Re: Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

[quote=Mattyk72;314251]A FB can also be involved with the passing game.

Saunders' offense doesn't use a true H-Back.[/quote]


Sellers is the Fullback and Cooley is the H-Back.

Under Gibbs before Al Cooley was more of a TE than ever. He used to line up at the line of scrimmage much more often.

Under Al Cooley is split out flexed more and seems to me that its just what an H-back is. Not a Fullback, Not a TE, Not a receiver.....H-BACK!!!

Sorry AL, you use an H-BACK!!

Re: Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

[quote=JDALY27;314297]Sellers is the Fullback and Cooley is the H-Back.

Under Gibbs before Al Cooley was more of a TE than ever. He used to line up at the line of scrimmage much more often.

Under Al Cooley is split out flexed more and seems to me that its just what an H-back is. Not a Fullback, Not a TE, Not a receiver.....H-BACK!!!

Sorry AL, you use an H-BACK!![/quote]

I guess that will be news to Saunders.

:doh:

Re: Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

[quote=JDALY27;314297]Sellers is the Fullback and Cooley is the H-Back.

Under Gibbs before Al Cooley was more of a TE than ever. He used to line up at the line of scrimmage much more often.

Under Al Cooley is split out flexed more and seems to me that its just what an H-back is. Not a Fullback, Not a TE, Not a receiver.....H-BACK!!!

Sorry AL, you use an H-BACK!![/quote]

Glad you just schooled Al.......he's a TE

Re: Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

[quote=skinsfan_nn;314300]Glad you just schooled Al.......he's a TE[/quote]

He's a Joe Gibbs H-back. That's what he was drafted for and that's what he is. AL Saunders can call him whatever he wants......

Re: Is Cooley Still Considered an H-Back?
 

[quote=JDALY27;314323]He's a Joe Gibbs H-back. That's what he was drafted for and that's what he is. AL Saunders can call him whatever he wants......[/quote]


Well daly let me tell you something. I was very lucky to play golf with CC 2 weeks ago.

HIS EXACT WORDS AND I QUOTE, "THE SKINS WANT TO PAY ME LIKE AN AVERAGE TIGHT END"!

Now that's NOT Joe or Al words. THAT WAS CC EXACT WORDS!

SO IS HE STILL AN H-BACK IN YOUR MIND.....?