Stokes signing not significant

Discuss your favorite team: the Atlanta Falcons. As well as all NFL and pro football-related topics, including fantasy football.

Moderators: Capologist, dirtybirdnw, thescout

User avatar
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Posts: 26397
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 1:03 pm
Location: North Carolina

Stokes signing not significant

Postby Pudge » Sun Apr 10, 2005 3:45 am

Stokes is a guy that can play multiple positions on the OL, but at this point I don't see this signing as significant.

Yes, he started 29 games in Cleveland in '02 and '03, but you must remember that Cleveland has historically over recent years had one of the worst offensive lines in the league, ever since their return to the league in 1999. Stokes starting for them is really not a feather in his cap.

Also remember that it was just a bit over 2 weeks ago that he was released by the Giants. Why? Because they didn't think he would be able to play this year because of the herniated disc in his back.

Obviously if the Falcons signed him he passed their physical, but at this point, Stokes IMO is no better option than Steve Herndon, and considering he's coming off injury and there are legitimate questions if he's 100%, then I really don't see his addition to the roster as significant.

This seems to be a signing that McKay has made in order to cover his bases in case the right OT doesn't land here in the draft.
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.

User avatar
Cap Guru
Cap Guru
Posts: 2084
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:28 pm
Location: Macon, GA

Postby Capologist » Tue Apr 26, 2005 10:15 pm

I don't think it's totally insignificant but it's not a blockbuster move either. What Stokes gives us is a respectable and experienced backup tackle that can play both sides of the line and that's something we sorely needed last year...

Return to “The Huddle”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest