nychoya3
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,674
|
Post by nychoya3 on Aug 27, 2005 17:09:54 GMT -5
Man, I forgot that we sat Paulus for half that season. He was easily the best QB we've had in the last few years - tough to believe he sat for so much of his career. I had such high hopes for Alonzo too - that was too bad.
Some consistency at QB would go a long way to solving our offensive woes. It won't happen right away, but give it some time...
|
|
|
Post by hoya20010 on Aug 27, 2005 18:05:09 GMT -5
Cali-
I'll concede that I was GUILTY of shoddy reading of that paragraph on Allan and missed the reference to him starting four games.
However, even though Allan never may have been officially named starter in preseason-- he did run the first offense for the crucial last days of preseason before his injury and he was so much the de facto starter that even after Crawford ably led the team to victory in the first game of the season he was pulled for Allan. Crawford was considered a filler for that first game, not a starter. While he may have been picked to start, he was not a "starter".
Crawford only reappeared because Allan proceeded to lose 4 straight games, threw 7 INT's without a TD, and had a completion percentage under 30%. Crawford only became the starter because Allan was thrown off his perch by performances and numbers we will hopefully never see again by any Hoya. The article implied Crawford was the starter in the early season, which is dead wrong, he assumed the job when Allan was rudely knocked off his perch.
Even if the article was technically/semantically right, it is bizarre the way it is worded, because the point of that section was that a starter really wasnt declared until late in the season. If the author really knew what you stated, you think it would have been spelled out because that would only have strengthened the claim.
Either way it looks like the team will def. have an upgrade in reporting from years' past.
|
|