I don't have to understand that because it's an assumption.Pondering Her Percy wrote:Well I would have to imagine that would NOT happen. You have to understand that the only reason those guys got the playing time they did, was because of the injuries/legal troubles and in turn, they were next in line.
I think it was likely that Patterson and Rhodes were going to see their roles expanded when the coaching staff felt they were ready anyway. If you want to choose to believe that wouldn't have happened, you can choose to believe that but that's what it is: a choice, an assumption.
The problem is you're seeing the good performances by players like Rhodes and Patterson as confirmation that you were right and ruling out the possibility that they did, indeed, need the time and seasoning the coaches felt they needed before assuming bigger roles. You're assuming they would have been as successful early on as they were in the latter half of the season but there's nothing to back up that assumption. Maybe the success they eventually had was due, in part, to the coaching and preparation they received. Ditto for Cole. Is that not a possibility?And it's not easy to play "coach" from home....I've been saying Rhodes and Patterson should have been starters from day 1, I've always said Carlson was paid too much but at the same time, is underutilized, and Cassel should have continued starting after the Cleveland game.
