Logan007 Posted July 31, 2013 Report Posted July 31, 2013 Ha, ha Justin Case. I got that one. Clever. I know I'm a comedic genius.
kelownabomberfan Posted July 31, 2013 Report Posted July 31, 2013 I know I'm a comedic genius. if even Iso gets your jokes then you are a genius.
robynjt Posted July 31, 2013 Report Posted July 31, 2013 Ohhhh Buck's mysterious injury. It'll be interesting to see him magically get healthy in the middle of the game if our other QBs go down.
holoman Posted July 31, 2013 Report Posted July 31, 2013 Ohhhh Buck's mysterious injury. It'll be interesting to see him magically get healthy in the middle of the game if our other QBs go down. Well he dressed last game, so I'm not really too sure if that were to happen, if it would be magical.
robynjt Posted July 31, 2013 Report Posted July 31, 2013 .... my point is that he is not truly injured and they don't have the balls to just say he's being sat down. MOBomberFan 1
Mark H. Posted July 31, 2013 Report Posted July 31, 2013 .... my point is that he is not truly injured and they don't have the balls to just say he's being sat down. But the only problem was keeping him healthy...they win when he plays...no...wait...
The Unknown Poster Posted July 31, 2013 Report Posted July 31, 2013 You think they would start Max Hall over a healthy Buck Pierce? Come on....
Jacquie Posted August 1, 2013 Report Posted August 1, 2013 Ohhhh Buck's mysterious injury. It'll be interesting to see him magically get healthy in the middle of the game if our other QBs go down. Like if Mitchell and Tate had gone down last game and Glenn would have had to come in?
Bomber Diehard Posted August 1, 2013 Report Posted August 1, 2013 The word is.....Buck got a big hit on his Testicles and could play on monday.
robynjt Posted August 1, 2013 Report Posted August 1, 2013 Like if Mitchell and Tate had gone down last game and Glenn would have had to come in? Glenn never was announced the starter, nor is he the guy that they have stated they'll live and die by. So no... I wouldn't say like that.
Blueandgold Posted August 1, 2013 Report Posted August 1, 2013 Like if Mitchell and Tate had gone down last game and Glenn would have had to come in? Brad Sinapoli would've come in before Glenn.
Atomic Posted August 1, 2013 Author Report Posted August 1, 2013 .... my point is that he is not truly injured and they don't have the balls to just say he's being sat down. Or do they
Mike Posted August 1, 2013 Report Posted August 1, 2013 You think they would start Max Hall over a healthy Buck Pierce? Come on.... Well, I guess we know the answer to that now. robynjt and MOBomberFan 2
17to85 Posted August 1, 2013 Report Posted August 1, 2013 Well, I guess we know the answer to that now. the thing that really got me was how in the clip of burke talking about moving on from pierce he talked about needing the continuity of having the same guy behind centre week to week and how the young guys have more potential to get better.... Why the **** didn't he see that prior to now? Some of us were saying those exact same things before last season ended. Frustrates me when fans pick up on obvious things before the coaches do.
robynjt Posted August 1, 2013 Report Posted August 1, 2013 Or do they Well they didn't for one game at least
Brandon Posted August 1, 2013 Report Posted August 1, 2013 the thing that really got me was how in the clip of burke talking about moving on from pierce he talked about needing the continuity of having the same guy behind centre week to week and how the young guys have more potential to get better.... Why the **** didn't he see that prior to now? Some of us were saying those exact same things before last season ended. Frustrates me when fans pick up on obvious things before the coaches do. People were saying this 2 seasons ago.... I guess Burke needed 2 years of game footage to come up with the same answer that a casual fan could come up with....
iso_55 Posted August 2, 2013 Report Posted August 2, 2013 Boggles the mind. Think they played dice before they made the decision? Rollin', rollin.' rollin'.
Jacquie Posted August 2, 2013 Report Posted August 2, 2013 Glenn never was announced the starter, nor is he the guy that they have stated they'll live and die by. So no... I wouldn't say like that. What does that have to do with it. The suggestion was that Buck wasn't really hurt because he was dressed for the game. Tate and Glenn were both said to be injured yet they both dressed as well.
robynjt Posted August 2, 2013 Report Posted August 2, 2013 ... Both of those would start if they WERE in fact healthy. My point is that Pierce was healthy and they were using an "injury" as an excuse. Completely different situations. Not sure how else to explain it. ETA I think Mitchell may now back up Tate in more than just short yardage now.
Jacquie Posted August 2, 2013 Report Posted August 2, 2013 ... Both of those would start if they WERE in fact healthy. My point is that Pierce was healthy and they were using an "injury" as an excuse. Completely different situations. Not sure how else to explain it. Except Pierce was NOT healthy. The doctors said he wasn't able to go. What Pierce said was irrelevant because he could be on the turf looking like the Black Knight from Monty Python's Search for the Holy Grail and still say he was healthy enough to play.
robynjt Posted August 2, 2013 Report Posted August 2, 2013 Except Pierce was NOT healthy. The doctors said he wasn't able to go. What Pierce said was irrelevant because he could be on the turf looking like the Black Knight from Monty Python's Search for the Holy Grail and still say he was healthy enough to play. Suuuuuure he was . Just like the day before they announced Goltz was the starter he was still "... injured"..
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now