Enter your username and password below to sign in to your PewterReport account.
x close
i dont think anyone honestly knows what our weak links will be.
So as we speak your brain doesn't look at our roster and go Hovan, Sims, and whatever bag of rocks we have on the roster is a weakness? Seriously, I know that "we don't know until they play" line makes you feel smart but if that is your position, then leave, come back when the seaosn is over and only post on what has happened since you lack the will and/or ability to make intelligent speculation.
........... intelligent speculation.
 There has to be strong negative repercussions from a loss for the game to be deemed "important".
 Wilks is probably the best we know of and he's a relative cast off. Â
The game reminds me a lot of the 1997(?) opener with the 49ers where the Bucs pulled off a shocker and beat SF. It signaled the start of the Bucs as a good team and the demise of the "Yucks" sending Bucco Bruce to a watery grave.
Quote from: Java on July 20, 2009, 06:52:37 PM� There has to be strong negative repercussions from a loss for the game to be deemed "important".I agree.....like our final four games last year.
� There has to be strong negative repercussions from a loss for the game to be deemed "important".
I don't think that Cowboys game is all that important. If they lose it, big whoop - that's expected. They have a new head coach who is basically clueless. It looks like the Glazers are going to give him every chance no matter what happens this year. They hired the guy because he listens to the same music as Jermaine Phillips. He'll still be listening to that same music whether the Bucs win or lose opening day. Raw could lose every single game (and may), and it wouldn't surprise many people. Raw really isn't under that much pressure to win this one, so this game is just another game. Pretty much every single game last year was bigger than this one. If they were to somehow win the game, yes, it would be a big win. But if they lose it, it won't be that big a deal. That's the definition of a game that is not that big. There has to be strong negative repercussions from a loss for the game to be deemed "important".
Quote from: Cheveliar on July 20, 2009, 06:51:14 PM�Wilks is probably the best we know of and he's a relative cast off. �he had less sacks, tackles, deflections and heck, interceptions than adams...so how is he the best we know of?
�Wilks is probably the best we know of and he's a relative cast off. �
Quote from: Cheveliar on July 20, 2009, 06:51:14 PM�Wilks is probably the best we know of and he's a relative cast off. �he had less sacks, tackles, deflections and heck, interceptions than adams...so how is he the best we know of?
�Wilks is probably the best we know of and he's a relative cast off. �