Could Seymour win the starting job this weekend?

[Jeremy Igo]

Let's say Worley is inactive due to injury and Seymour plays a hell of a game against the Patriots passing attack.

 

Do you then bench Worley when he is healthy again in favor Seymour?

[Car123]

Yes.

[therealmjl]

Without a doubt.

[KillerKat]

Yes. Worley is a liability. 


btw ur title and post are asking opposite questions. I'm responding to post.

[LinvilleGorge]

Yes.

*Edited to clarify, stick with Seymour in that case. 

[Jeremy Igo]

4 minutes ago, KillerKat said:

No. Worley is a liability. 


btw ur title and post are asking opposite questions. I'm responding to post.

My fault. Fixed.it.

[Peppers90 NC]

Not with RRvat the helm. Will take us to be at 2-6 before a move like that were to happen.

[mikeholiday]

22 minutes ago, Jeremy Igo said:

Let's say Worley is inactive due to injury and Seymour plays a hell of a game against the Patriots passing attack.

 

Do you then bench Worley when he is healthy again in favor Seymour?

Worley was always better off at SS. Never liked him at corner. 

[UncleWillie]

21 minutes ago, Jeremy Igo said:

Let's say Worley is inactive due to injury and Seymour plays a hell of a game against the Patriots passing attack.

 

Do you then bench Worley when he is healthy again in favor Seymour?

Dude you just read my mind. I was checking out Seymour's profile and he appears to have a higher ceiling than Worley based on combine results, I know 40 times don't mean everything (Josh Norman) but I believe he will.

[Saca312]

hate to break it to you guys, but Bradberry had the worse game against the Saints rather than Worley.

And as far as on our defense, Seymour has a ways to go in zone coverage before he gets a big role.

[uncfan888]

Rivera does loves his vets.. Even one year liabilities. Seymour could ball out and Worley will still start next week, unfortunately 

[mikeholiday]

2 minutes ago, Saca312 said:

hate to break it to you guys, but Bradberry had the worse game against the Saints rather than Worley.

And as far as on our defense, Seymour has a ways to go in zone coverage before he gets a big role.

At least Bradberry wasn't also horrible the previous year.

Also, Seymour is perfectly suited to be a cover 3 zone corner. Basically would be a man to man corner in the scheme. 

[TheSpecialJuan]

29 minutes ago, Jeremy Igo said:

Let's say Worley is inactive due to injury and Seymour plays a hell of a game against the Patriots passing attack.

 

Do you then bench Worley when he is healthy again in favor Seymour?

What a good looking question

 

no, absolutely not

[iamhubby1]

32 minutes ago, Jeremy Igo said:

Let's say Worley is inactive due to injury and Seymour plays a hell of a game against the Patriots passing attack.

 

Do you then bench Worley when he is healthy again in favor Seymour?

 

    I don't think we can underscore the importance of Seymour playing well. Whether he can supplant Worley, or not. If he can play well enough to earn some trust. It makes us that much better. After all, isn't that the main idea? To get better?

 

    That said. If Seymour absolutely balls out in both coverage, and run support, he should defiantly earn more playing time. Whether that is ahead of Worley or not, should not make a yuge difference. 

 

   Best case, he balls out and we have a third viable CB. Worse case, I don't want to go there.