Excellent point on #2

by Pat (Moco), Bar, Urban Chophouse Short North, Tuesday, March 10, 2009, 06:29 (6350 days ago) @ FunkDoctorSpock

Of course now it is easy to armchair after the fact and say, "Oh, well if so-and-so had done X, Y, and Z, then we may have won a couple more," but fact of the matter is that didn't happen, and there is no real point debating it now because it doesn't solve anything.

At the same time, whoever on Rock's House said that we could have won 8 games in 2007 is smoking something fierce. We didn't just lose games because of a new QB.

locked

428 views

Complete thread:

bringing this discussion over here - Jay, 2009-03-09, 22:47
- I'm not sure that it would have meant more wins. - PMan, 2009-03-10, 07:57
  - I actually think the plan was as you described - Jay, 2009-03-10, 11:30
    - Sharpley attempted only two passes in 2006 - Jeff (BGS), 2009-03-10, 15:52
      - honestly, I don't think Charlie was looking that far ahead - Jay, 2009-03-10, 19:55
      - It wasn't just the lack of playing time. - PMan, 2009-03-10, 17:53
        
        Weis' quote... - domer.mq, 2009-03-10, 20:23
        
        Is this an actual quote? - Jeff (BGS), 2009-03-10, 20:52
        
        To be clear... - domer.mq, 2009-03-10, 20:59
    - My beef with CW. - San Pedro, 2009-03-10, 14:33
- It wouldn't have made a meaningful difference. - KGB, 2009-03-10, 07:21
- Two things. - FunkDoctorSpock, 2009-03-10, 06:08
  - Excellent point on #2 - Pat (Moco), 2009-03-10, 06:29
    - I agree - Jeff (BGS), 2009-03-10, 15:57
- A Sharpley-led team, with a completely different outlook - Kevin, 2009-03-10, 05:27
  - "completely different outlook" is the key assumption - Jay, 2009-03-10, 11:24
- I certainly do not. - Pat (Moco), 2009-03-10, 05:26
- Maybe, - DaveK, 2009-03-10, 05:15
  - I think you hit the nail on the head. - JRT, 2009-03-10, 07:50
    - I do agree with you guys - Jay, 2009-03-10, 11:13

the Polo Grounds

Excellent point on #2