Re: Guice injured again
 

Officially a Torn Meniscus

Re: Guice injured again
 

[quote=Chico23231;1229718]Ha...it also kinda stinks when the Front office and Coach cant get on the same page. But AP back is big...but I wouldn't be surprised if CT gets a lot of run.[/quote]

Yeah we don't lose much if anything. Allen and Guice both happened and it sucks, but they happened at positions of strength/depth for us. We should be able to hold up.

The question is are we any good in the first place. lol

Re: Guice injured again
 

Sucks but no reason to move on from a guy under a cheap rookie deal for 2 more years after this


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Guice injured again
 

[quote=Schneed10;1229717]Jay wanted Peterson gone. Front office said no.

It's pretty bad when Bruce Allen makes you look incompetent.[/quote]

Where did you see that?

Re: Guice injured again
 

[quote=Back2RFK;1229727]Where did you see that?[/quote]

The fact he placed him inactive first game confirmed the rumor that there was serious discussions on Jay wanting to cut him after the preseason.

Jay's history of player decisions haven't been good.

Re: Guice injured again
 

[url]https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/27600991/source-redskins-guice-knee-6-8-weeks[/url]

Re: Guice injured again
 

[quote=Chico23231;1229730]The fact he placed him inactive first game confirmed the rumor that there was serious discussions on Jay wanting to cut him after the preseason.

Jay's history of player decisions haven't been good.[/quote]

Jay's a moron.

Re: Guice injured again
 

Go AP!!! If the Gruden story is indeed true and he wanted to waive AP then I hope Gruden gets fired sooner than later!! AP was the only thing we had going last year and this is the thanks he gets... Gruden is a friggin joke

Re: Guice injured again
 

[quote=Schneed10;1229717]Jay wanted Peterson gone. Front office said no.

It's pretty bad when Bruce Allen makes you look incompetent.[/quote]

Listening to B-Mitch today, driving around running errands, he believes Gruden was being spiteful by making AP inactive and it was a dumb ass move. That dumb ass were his exact words, I didn't think you could say that on the radio.

Re: Guice injured again
 

B Mitch is a little overly dramatic at times, take it with a grain of salt


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Guice injured again
 

[quote=Buffalo Bob;1229754]Listening to B-Mitch today, driving around running errands, he believes Gruden was being spiteful by making AP inactive and it was a dumb ass move. That dumb ass were his exact words, I didn't think you could say that on the radio.[/quote]

This is a great example of how I am frustrated about how many people literally accept someone's opinion as a factual information. We have seen it everywhere, especially in politics lately.. This often leads to bad assumptions and spreads misinformation..

I read one interview transcript with Gruden after the game earlier today, Gruden said that he chose to keep Peterson inactive for the Eagles game only because he doesn't play special team. Gruden knew Eagles will use Sproles as returner so he wanted players who can help contain Sproles. I understand where Gruden came from, I don't agree with the move but I am not holding it against him.

Re: Guice injured again
 

[quote=GridIron26;1229758]This is a great example of how I am frustrated about how many people literally accept someone's opinion as a factual information. We have seen it everywhere, especially in politics lately.. This often leads to bad assumptions and spreads misinformation..

I read one interview transcript with Gruden after the game earlier today, Gruden said that he chose to keep Peterson inactive for the Eagles game only because he doesn't play special team. Gruden knew Eagles will use Sproles as returner so he wanted players who can help contain Sproles. I understand where Gruden came from, I don't agree with the move but I am not holding it against him.[/quote]

Do you believe that was the real reason? I don't understand why Guice had to carry the whole load for the running game when:

1. His first NFL game - ever.
2. After spending the previous season down with an ACL - first regular season return game after injury.

I know he was cleared to play by the medical staff. I know he only ran for 10 carries. Still, wouldn't a LITTLE caution be prudent under these two conditions?

Re: Guice injured again
 

[quote=Warthog;1229760]Do you believe that was the real reason? I don't understand why Guice had to carry the whole load for the running game when:

1. His first NFL game - ever.
2. After spending the previous season down with an ACL - first regular season return game after injury.

I know he was cleared to play by the medical staff. I know he only ran for 10 carries. Still, wouldn't a LITTLE caution be prudent under these two conditions?[/quote]

There were two other RBs active for the game. He didn't have to (and didn't) carry the whole load.

Re: Guice injured again
 

guice had 10 carries for 18 yards lol, he didn't do jack shit Sunday. Maybe he's just not that good / reliable? He fell pretty far for a reason. Skins took a chance and so far it hasn't paid off

Re: Guice injured again
 

This AP shit has gone way overboard. I don't agree with making a HOF player a healthy scratch, Jay and whoever else had input on the decision should have seen the bigger picture. BUT, I don't think Jay was doing it to intentionally spite AP, or there's some sort of conspiracy at work. Guice was drafted to be the stud RB, he was cleared and healthy. He looked great in that 3rd preseason game against ATL. All this revisionist history now that he got hurt again is ridiculous.