Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

R.R.:I have been wrong before about injuries


Jmac

Recommended Posts

Rivera sought of hedged his bet when asked about Cams status.The comment in the header was by the coach when talking about Cams injury.Cam did not practice today due to sore ribs and didn't speak to the media.Went directly in for treatment.Not raising alarm bells cause Cam is a tough S.O.B.Just passing along what was being said after practice today by the media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually don't think Cam is 100 percent. He could be facing a down year compared to his standard. Worse thing we could do is force the issue with his health. If he's not 100 percent I'd rather him sit out then be a target. Besides we have a pretty awesome back up.

This^

If this is not "smoke", RR really needs to think long and hard about playing Cam. TB has some studs on that front seven, I don't like this eriee vibe that's starting to envelope this match- up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 If he's not 100 percent I'd rather him sit out then be a target.  Besides we have a pretty awesome back up.

 

DA is pretty good, and I think the team is capable of winning the first game if he has to play.

 

One thing I've noticed though...you know how people often complain of Cam's high throws?  When DA misses, they often are behind the receiver, and that can lead to interceptions. If the QB is going to miss, it's probably better that he misses high where neither the receiver or the defender can make a play on the ball.

 

As for Cam being in pain today and taking it easy, that shouldn't surprise anyone who's ever had injured ribs. Hopefully he can manage the pain on Sundays until he's better, but he's going to pay the price on Mondays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • https://support.google.com/assistant/thread/311339676?hl=en&sjid=11489775381582229063-AP https://support.google.com/assistant/thread/311339676?hl=en&sjid=11489775381582229063-AP https://support.google.com/assistant/thread/311339676?hl=en&sjid=11489775381582229063-AP https://support.google.com/assistant/thread/311339676?hl=en&sjid=11489775381582229063-AP https://support.google.com/assistant/thread/311339676?hl=en&sjid=11489775381582229063-AP https://support.google.com/assistant/thread/311339676?hl=en&sjid=11489775381582229063-AP
    • When we drafted Luke, we already had Cam, Smith, Olsen, Stewart, Deangleo, Gross, Kalil, CJ, Hardy, Beason, TD, Gamble (and maybe more I'm forgetting), we had a lot of great pieces in place. Going pure BPA for a player with Luke's potential when the LB you already have is different when you already have all those pieces in place.  Our OL right now is probably in a better shape than that team and our RBs and TE have potential compared to proven vets back then, but after that, the 2012 roster was in a far better shape than we are right now. We need a #1 WR, DEs, LBs, DBs, C, and depending who you ask a QB.  Going BPA at pick #5 when that player is a DT and your current best player on either side of the ball is a DT, seems irresponsible. If he's the only player they like that high left, then you trade back and go with position of more need at a slot that makes sense for the player while adding other picks.  If you trade back and he falls because other teams don't need/want a DT, then you consider him at that point because of the value.    
    • This sounds like the same back and forth when we drafted a LB when we already had a LB or as mentioned prior back to back DLs. I want the BPA, if it is another DT so be it. (No not a kicker/punter for those people that think they are funny))
×
×
  • Create New...