|
Title: I probably needed this. Post by: Clockwork Orange on August 23, 2012, 06:03:17 EDT My head was about to explode in anticipation, and now it's pretty likely to remain intact for the next week. There's no way I'll try to listen to sports radio this afternoon on the drive home . . . also a good thing. If the latest rumor that it has something to do with an agent is true, better to say goodbye to Da'Rick now and save the program from something even worse.
From a football standpoint it hurts, but is not the end of the world as long as there are no further losses at WR. We had a pretty good passing attack early last year with less than this. The running game sounded better, the defense should be improved . . . there is the question of the psychological effect, but better now than in a week or two weeks or three weeks. There's some time to acclimate. Title: Re: I probably needed this. Post by: BanditVol on August 23, 2012, 07:38:33 EDT From a football standpoint it hurts, but is not the end of the world as long as there are no further losses at WR. We had a pretty good passing attack early last year with less than this. I assume you mean after Hunter got injured? A bit confusing, because that was the third game, but I don't know if I agree completely. Da'Rick had 3 games under his belt. Hunter is back, but coming off an injury. Patterson has yet to play a down. I think we are a bit more challenged than last year right after Hunter was injured. We do have a lot more potential though, and I do agree it probably isn't nearly as big a hit in the long run. It does make the first game a lot tougher though, IMO. :doh: Title: Re: I probably needed this. Post by: Clockwork Orange on August 23, 2012, 07:53:10 EDT I assume you mean after Hunter got injured? A bit confusing, because that was the third game, but I don't know if I agree completely. Da'Rick had 3 games under his belt. Hunter is back, but coming off an injury. Patterson has yet to play a down. I think we are a bit more challenged than last year right after Hunter was injured. We do have a lot more potential though, and I do agree it probably isn't nearly as big a hit in the long run. It does make the first game a lot tougher though, IMO. :doh: Yes, after Hunter's injury. Think about the depth chart last year after that . . . Da'Rick was, at that time, clearly not as good as Hunter, and who was after Da'Rick? Rivera was also unproven at TE at that time. As far as known and unknown commodities, we are in no worse shape-- probably a bit better. Title: Re: I probably needed this. Post by: BanditVol on August 24, 2012, 05:14:30 EDT Yes, after Hunter's injury. Think about the depth chart last year after that . . . Da'Rick was, at that time, clearly not as good as Hunter, and who was after Da'Rick? Rivera was also unproven at TE at that time. As far as known the time and unknown commodities, we are in no worse shape-- probably a bit better. I thought da rick was really proven by the time hunter was injured. I would agree if hunter was not coming off an injury. Good point about rivera though. We can only hope hunter is close to 100% |