16876Re: [patriotzip] Re: Welker Injured
- Jan 3, 2010I know you would prefer to play the Dolts in the second round (hoping we get there).
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerryFrom: Mark Morse <packy001@...>Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 17:22:22 -0800 (PST)To: <email@example.com>Subject: Re: [patriotzip] Re: Welker InjuredThe Weker injury was a fluke ... that could have happened in practice. I just don't like losing while playing most of the starters. Why subject Brady to all those hits? They should have rested him. Hindsight is great I know. I'm OK with being the #4 seed (actually preffered it).<font face="comic sans ms" color="#438059" size="5">Mark </font>
From: frankdanabrewster <frank.dana@...>
Sent: Sun, January 3, 2010 8:12:40 PM
Subject: [patriotzip] Re: Welker Injured
Can't compare this to the Colts situation. Manning, Wayne, Clark, etc., played into the 3rd quarter against the Jets. This happened to Welker early in the first. Who knows how far he BB was going to let him play. You certainly don't want your starters to not play at all for two weeks, then expect them to turn it on in the playoffs.
I was surprised that Brady played as long as he did, however.
--- In patriotzip@yahoogro ups.com, Barry Rosen <barry.rosen143@ ...> wrote:
> We *did* do the opposite. You rest and protect your players after you
> clinch. That's what the Colts did. That's what the Saints are doing today.
> That's the reason Welker is hurt -- and for no good reason. We blew it.
> On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Scott <kmacalp@... > wrote:
> > Well, that's the other edge of the blade. I hope this one doesn't hurt for
> > two seasons, sinking our playoff hopes this year and having Welker out all
> > of next season too. Rest or risk? We've seen the Colts hurt themselves with
> > too much rest, we may have just done the opposite. One of those damned if
> > you do, damned if you don't situations.
> > Scott Sheaffer
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>