Twigby ready to set doubters straight

[Zool]

Bigby is like Bob Sanders, expect not good.

He is better than what we have no but hopefully we'll have a new starter at SS next season or a vetern SS to backup Bigby. cough cough Anothy Smith.

Anthony Smith wasn't even ACTIVE for the Rams against the Pack. Non-injury scratch. He's that bad.

Yeah but he is probably just learning there system. Had Roues still been on the team Martin wouldn't have been active either to the counterpoint.

He's been active for 1 game this year.

[Bretsky]

Bigby is like Bob Sanders, expect not good.

He is better than what we have no but hopefully we'll have a new starter at SS next season or a vetern SS to backup Bigby. cough cough Anothy Smith.

Anthony Smith wasn't even ACTIVE for the Rams against the Pack. Non-injury scratch. He's that bad.

Yet we miss his play; honestly he looked better in the preseason than several we kept on the team

but inactive for the dam Rams


statement on how sad these guys are


[/b]

[MJZiggy]

statement on how sad these guys are

Bigger statement is that we're having this intense a conversation about them.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Re: Twigby ready to set doubters straight

3. The reason the coaches couldn't start him earlier in 2006 was injuries (if I remember correctly).

This will probably come as a surprise to the reporters covering the game who reported KGB's benching four San Francisco offensive plays into the game and their surprise that a DT was asked to take his place.

There wasn't a plan, they got tired of KGB just running upfield.

Edit: 2 San Francisco offensive plays.

Jenkins played in 14 games that year.

He played in 14 games but I've heard on numerous occasion (I believe from Bretsky?) that the coaches didn't make the move earlier because Jenkins was not anywhere near 100% and not playing great.

Here is an article that seems to give Partial some credibility on this subject:

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/29225819.html (Dec 18, 2006 article)

The relevant part of the article:
When Jenkins was asked why it took the coaches so long to make the change, he gave the politically correct answer, saying he had been hampered much of this season by an ankle injury that still bothered him.

Now, it seems that there is a difference of definition of "injury prone". Partial appears to take this as a player has an injury over a long period of time regardless if they play in the game or not and it hinders their play. Others believe that being injury prone means that a player is missing games due to injury. I believe that is where the crux of the argument and misunderstanding is.

Perhaps some clarification on terms will help out in the future.

[Bretsky]

Re: Twigby ready to set doubters straight

3. The reason the coaches couldn't start him earlier in 2006 was injuries (if I remember correctly).

This will probably come as a surprise to the reporters covering the game who reported KGB's benching four San Francisco offensive plays into the game and their surprise that a DT was asked to take his place.

There wasn't a plan, they got tired of KGB just running upfield.

Edit: 2 San Francisco offensive plays.

Jenkins played in 14 games that year.

He played in 14 games but I've heard on numerous occasion (I believe from Bretsky?) that the coaches didn't make the move earlier because Jenkins was not anywhere near 100% and not playing great.

If you read all of the insider reference there were several notations about how Jenkins is banged up and was playing through pain much of that season. He got healthy at end of that year. That was me who was often noting that.

[pbmax]

Fair enough.

But I suspect the politically correct answer "ankle" is not the real reason. Code for what the coaches wanted him to say. That sounds like a cover for "money".

[Guiness]

Not following you here, pb.

Are you trying to say Jenkins wasn't playing, or wasn't playing well in an attempt to get more money/cause he wasn't happy with his contract?