jshawaii22 wrote:It does look like Russell's finger is healing... pretty much the length of time the doctors first predicted he should be out. And does it really matter to the greater scheme of things if we are 4-8 or 3-9? I think giving the players the psychological bounce of life is the better choice and so was the fake punt... Homer again!
That's an excellent point about the prognosis on Russ' finger, and if his doctors are right, then Russ' improved throws on Sunday make a lot of sense.
jshawaii22 wrote:It does look like Russell's finger is healing... pretty much the length of time the doctors first predicted he should be out. And does it really matter to the greater scheme of things if we are 4-8 or 3-9? I think giving the players the psychological bounce of life is the better choice and so was the fake punt... Homer again!
I-5 wrote:That's an excellent point about the prognosis on Russ' finger, and if his doctors are right, then Russ' improved throws on Sunday make a lot of sense.
jshawaii22 wrote:It does look like Russell's finger is healing... pretty much the length of time the doctors first predicted he should be out. And does it really matter to the greater scheme of things if we are 4-8 or 3-9? I think giving the players the psychological bounce of life is the better choice and so was the fake punt... Homer again!
I-5 wrote:That's an excellent point about the prognosis on Russ' finger, and if his doctors are right, then Russ' improved throws on Sunday make a lot of sense.
RiverDog wrote:Of course, that raises a thorny question: Did Russell's starting against the Packers and Cards give us the best chance of winning? Why wasn't Russell able to be objective about his health and admit that he wasn't able to perform? Did we sacrifice our season just to satisfy our starting quarterback's ego?
Maybe it's true and maybe it's not, but it is a legitimate question.
RiverDog wrote:Of course, that raises a thorny question: Did Russell's starting against the Packers and Cards give us the best chance of winning? Why wasn't Russell able to be objective about his health and admit that he wasn't able to perform? Did we sacrifice our season just to satisfy our starting quarterback's ego?
Maybe it's true and maybe it's not, but it is a legitimate question.
c_hawkbob wrote:That's not "a" question it's 3 distinct questions.
The answer to the first I'd say is a definite maybe, but I certainly wasn't getting a warm fuzzy about the chances of success our backup was giving us.
As for the second, that's not Russell's job. We have a Head Coach and medical staff responsible for that call. Russ' responsibility is to play when they determine him to be available.
The third is unanswerable except with another definite maybe. First of all we don't know the season to be irretrievably sacrificed and secondly having sat him these last couple games doesn't bring any certainty at all to our chances of having won them. I will say that tending to your franchise QB's ego is a legitimate concern, though more so when he is young, I don't believe it to have been a consideration in this case. Playing the way he did was a worse blow to his ego than having sat a couple more games would have been.
c_hawkbob wrote:Your Geno worship still blows me away. He's an average at best NFL backup.
c_hawkbob wrote:You know you can talk to me instead of about me Hawktawk.
Your Geno worship still blows me away. He's an average at best NFL backup.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 56 guests