Against the Pats, the D took a dump after he left. They made a couple of good plays but for the most part..took a dump!!!!!!!!!!
Nooooooooooooo!!!
There are 88 users in the forums
Originally posted by Leathaface:
Originally posted by Hoovtrain:
So now he goes from looking like he is fine, to then questionable, to then doubtful, to out and now they they HOPE he will be back for the playoffs. That is not good. I get so sick of all of the bs when it comes to injuries. I still don't think I have heard a full explanation of Hunters injury or the severity. First it was an ankle, then MM had to report that he heard it was the Achilles.
Hunter had an Achilles tendon tear...which is posterior and medial to the malleoli...aka, the ankles. It's easy to see how one would might think it was an ankle injury based on the area they were working in...
As for Justin Smith...I think he has a very significant, 6-8 week injury to his triceps. Hopefully with 4 weeks (with a bye week off), he can be back to 75-85% with good workout of surrounding muscles. We don't need him vs Az.
Originally posted by Montana:
This totally sucks, no Justin!!!!
Against the Pats, the D took a dump after he left. They made a couple of good plays but for the most part..took a dump!!!!!!!!!!
Nooooooooooooo!!!
Originally posted by THEB:
Originally posted by Montana:
This totally sucks, no Justin!!!!
Against the Pats, the D took a dump after he left. They made a couple of good plays but for the most part..took a dump!!!!!!!!!!
Nooooooooooooo!!!
PREVENT is the reason we stunk, not because Justin was out. Do you not remember RJF and McDonald getting back to back sacks? More pressure than Justin was getting all night.
Originally posted by 49erRider:
They weren't getting doubled the way Justin was, either. Sometimes guys make a good play, but that doesn't mean they were doing a better job.
Originally posted by THEB:
Originally posted by 49erRider:
They weren't getting doubled the way Justin was, either. Sometimes guys make a good play, but that doesn't mean they were doing a better job.
RJF got more pressure on less (WAY less) attempts. By definition, RJF did a better job that game. im not saying hes a better player than justin. but yes, he was more effective against the patriots, and im sure he will be serviceable tonight. a lot of teams dont even have starting DEs as good as RJF.
Originally posted by kray28:
As great as J. Smith is, you aren't playing 10 vs. 11 if you lose him, RJF replaces at least some of this effectiveness. It's a team effort on D, so it's hard to say that the absence of one guy makes a huge difference.
Originally posted by 49erRider:
Again, someone fails to acknowledge the job of a 3-4 DL. They are there to command blockers, which frees up Willis, Bowman, Aldon, Ahmad, and pretty much everyone else not on the line. When you lose a guy that the other team has to put 2 and sometimes 3 bodies on, you are losing a major part of your defense. RJF might be able to make some plays on his own tonight because he is unlikely to eat up that many blockers, which means they will put one guy on him, but that leaves another blocker free to get to our linebackers. If RJF can win his one-on-one battles, they may consider putting another body on him. Only then will the loss of Justin Smith not be so huge. If he can't win those one-on-one battles, our defense will suffer mightily.
I want RJF to become a dominant player, but losing Justin Smith cannot be thought of as a "no big deal, we have another guy who will fill in" situation.
Originally posted by wysiwyg:
What are you basing this on?