1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

NFL Week 4 Running Thread: Didn't some QB wear No. 4?

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Inky_Wretch, Sep 24, 2008.

  1. Madhavok

    Madhavok Well-Known Member

    Terrence McGee will probably get the nod. He did a fabulous job for the Bills before Roscoe took the returns. Or possibly rookie cornerback Leodis McKelvin.

    As for WR, I'm hoping Hardy will get involved more. He's a big target for Edwards but doesn't have the elusiveness as Parrish.
     
  2. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    Doesn't change what the Steelers did without him. I don't think it would change how Giants fans felt if Shockey had a moment like that later in his career (though I doubt that will happen).

    Hope your buddy didn't hurt himself patting you on the back over that one.
     
  3. pseudo

    pseudo Well-Known Member

    McGee only does kickoffs, and he let McKelvin handle those last week. It'll be the rook -- or maybe Josh Reed or Fred Jackson, if Bobby April wants someone with a little more experience back there. (McKelvin tried to return two punts from inside his own 5 during the preseason.)

    Reed will start opposite Evans, as usual. Would be nice to see a little more out of Hardy, but I'm not sure how well he knows the offense. That leaves Reed and Justin Jenkins in the slot for the multiple-WR formations. Hmmm ... with fullback Darian Barnes also dinged, might see a lot of two-TE sets this week.
     
  4. kokane_muthashed

    kokane_muthashed Active Member

    Well, it IS the Giants off-week.
     
  5. Inky_Wretch

    Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member

    But the Giants obviously expected him to be there.
     
  6. They're off? Wow.

    So he's only missing the one game?
     
  7. Tommy_Dreamer

    Tommy_Dreamer Well-Known Member

    Giants show real sack there in suspending him for the "BYE WEEK" ::)

    Anyway, and I'll catch flak for this but I'm going to put it out there right now.

    Who's been the bigger cancer to his team over the past two year? Burress or TO?

    You know I'm not going TO on this one, and that's just by grading him on his merit the past two years. Yes, Burress has the ring, but TO's not hurting his team by pulling this shit.

    Also, it came out today that Burress has been involved in two domestic dispute incidents since June at his house. No word from anybody on if that had something to do with his absence from practice.
     
  8. pallister

    pallister Guest

    Burress may be the typical idiot athlete, but the "cancer" label doesn't apply when you win a Super Bowl. I really don't think T.O has been a "cancer," either. But Dallas' playoff disappointments the last two seasons make him more vulnerable to the tag.
     
  9. pallister

    pallister Guest

    You do realize Burress was suspended for the game after the bye week, too, right?
     
  10. Tommy_Dreamer

    Tommy_Dreamer Well-Known Member

    Yeah, against Seattle. Not exactly a big game matchup there.
     
  11. pallister

    pallister Guest

    Would you prefer they waited until they faced the Cowboys to suspend him?
     
  12. Tommy_Dreamer

    Tommy_Dreamer Well-Known Member

    Of course I would, but given the timing of this that isn't an option. :D

    But seriously, it's not really sending a "strong message" suspending him for the bye week and a game against a weak non-division opponent. At least when the Panthers dropped Steve Smith for two games it was against teams that have shown a backbone: San Diego and Chicago.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page