Mac Jones Injury Watch - Update 30 Sept - Mac is out v Packers
- Thread starter Roberto71
- Start date
Share this page
getting better!
heard the credit goes to a heavy dose of vitamin Z...
heard the credit goes to a heavy dose of vitamin Z...
Mac is looking like he might be starting against the Browns.
Hawg73
Mediocre with flashes of brilliance
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2002
- Messages
- 25,130
- Reaction score
- 11,442
- Points
- 113
- Age
- 68
- Location
- Gumdrop house on Lollipop Ln.
I dunno. Sure, he looked pretty good there, without any running or hitting, but I'm going (due to a complete lack of facts) with Mike Reiss' opinion that he's "a little more than halfway through the healing process". That seems plausible/reasonable to me.
I'm a little freaked out imagining him writhing on the field with a re-injury and then we have to start the process over.
Of course, if he does play against the Browns, does well and we win then I'll act like it was obvious he was ready.
I personally would give it a couple more weeks. Make sure that sucker is good and healed… there’s no rush. We’re not gonna win the Super Bowl this year. No need to cause a permanent injury.
spacecrime
Well-known member
Very unlikely almost as unlikely as in 2001 after going 5-11 the previous year and only a .500 team in November 2001. Let's not even think about what was said with 17 minutes to play against Atlanta.
IOW:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMRrNY0pxfM
I get it. The first Super Bowl was the greatest one in my mind. It’s like losing your virginity for the first time. Although I will give Seattle my second favorite and then 28 to 3…
spacecrime
Well-known member
That was quite a playoff series. When Brady was stripped of the ball in the Raiders game, I htought, here we go again, same old same old. Anf again when ... was it Tebucky Jones ... picking up a Kurt Warner fumble and returning for a TD was negated by a WMG hold on Marshal Fauk.
One of the best times was remembering Sean McDonough predicting 73-0 Rams on a pre-game show, but my absolute favorite was Ricky Proehl:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLoZNdd-TLg
Phil Elliott
Well-known member
With all due respect, I believe the 73-0 prediction was Ron Borges's...and maybe 72-0???
Last edited:
spacecrime
Well-known member
IDK, I remember Will Macdonough, but it could have been Borges. Pretty sure it was 73-0 though.
Phil Elliott
Well-known member
Yeah, the more I look at 73, the more I think you're right. But, I do think it was Borges, LOL!
spacecrime
Well-known member
You are correct, sir. From a 2006 Boston SPorts Media Article:
Every writer, particularly a sports writer, is going to be wrong from time to time. We all understand that. But Borges is habitually wrong, comically wrong and, even worse, is not man enough to admit the errors of his ways when he’s egregiously wrong. And it seems he?s often purposely wrong, spitefully attempting to drive home his anti-Belichick agenda, such as the time he predicted a 73-0 win by St. Louis over New England in Super Bowl XXXVI.
bostonsportsmedia.com
Every writer, particularly a sports writer, is going to be wrong from time to time. We all understand that. But Borges is habitually wrong, comically wrong and, even worse, is not man enough to admit the errors of his ways when he’s egregiously wrong. And it seems he?s often purposely wrong, spitefully attempting to drive home his anti-Belichick agenda, such as the time he predicted a 73-0 win by St. Louis over New England in Super Bowl XXXVI.
Fire Ron Borges, the Broadsheet Bully
Fire Ron Borges, the Broadsheet Bully By Kerry J. Byrne, publisher, ColdHardFootballFacts.com and Bruce Allen, publisher, BostonSportsMedia.com. Update: Ron Borges “Retires” From Globe They’r…
bostonsportsmedia.com
spacecrime
Well-known member
Is Mazz really a Ron Borges sock puppet?
Change Borges to Mazz in the BSM quote above:
... Mazz is habitually wrong, comically wrong and, even worse, is not woman enough to admit the errors of her ways when she’s egregiously wrong. And it seems she's often purposely wrong, spitefully attempting to drive home her anti-Belichick agenda ...
Change Borges to Mazz in the BSM quote above:
... Mazz is habitually wrong, comically wrong and, even worse, is not woman enough to admit the errors of her ways when she’s egregiously wrong. And it seems she's often purposely wrong, spitefully attempting to drive home her anti-Belichick agenda ...
Phil Elliott
Well-known member
LOL, we'll call it a split! I originally had the guy (Borges) right, and you had the score (73-0) right!You are correct, sir. From a 2006 Boston SPorts Media Article:
Every writer, particularly a sports writer, is going to be wrong from time to time. We all understand that. But Borges is habitually wrong, comically wrong and, even worse, is not man enough to admit the errors of his ways when he’s egregiously wrong. And it seems he?s often purposely wrong, spitefully attempting to drive home his anti-Belichick agenda, such as the time he predicted a 73-0 win by St. Louis over New England in Super Bowl XXXVI.
Fire Ron Borges, the Broadsheet Bully
Fire Ron Borges, the Broadsheet Bully By Kerry J. Byrne, publisher, ColdHardFootballFacts.com and Bruce Allen, publisher, BostonSportsMedia.com. Update: Ron Borges “Retires” From Globe They’r…