Connorbear Posted August 18, 2008 Report Share Posted August 18, 2008 http://www.suntimes.com/sports/mulligan/11...mully18.article Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pixote Posted August 18, 2008 Report Share Posted August 18, 2008 http://www.suntimes.com/sports/mulligan/11...mully18.article Peace I thought Clark's injury was considered minor and he would be fine for the opener? Has anyone heard differently? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connorbear Posted August 18, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 18, 2008 I thought Clark's injury was considered minor and he would be fine for the opener? Has anyone heard differently? Lovie had said it was minor but I believe he did go in for an MRI. Who knows what that will show. Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kinglopaka Posted August 18, 2008 Report Share Posted August 18, 2008 I believe all injuries are minor according to Lovie and Bears staff....then they get surgery on go on IR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted August 18, 2008 Report Share Posted August 18, 2008 Dang...maybe they should look into what I mentioned earlier...seeing Davis play seom FB maybe? http://www.suntimes.com/sports/mulligan/11...mully18.article Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DABEARSDABOMB Posted August 18, 2008 Report Share Posted August 18, 2008 Lovie never tells you the darn truth with injuries. How many minor injuries or this guy will play this week have the Bears had with the go only to have a major surgery or not play (despite being listed as probable) for weeks at a time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted August 19, 2008 Report Share Posted August 19, 2008 Dang...maybe they should look into what I mentioned earlier...seeing Davis play seom FB maybe? I would rather not mess w/ his development. The kid is a rookie who had a bit of a mixed career in college, due in part to himself and in part to coaching changes. But he came to us a kid w/ skills, but needing to develop those skills. Moving him around, and asking him to learn multiple positions could do more harm than good. Think about this. We get a rookie WR and develop him usually at one WR position. We develop a kid as a Z WR. If there is an opening at the Y WR position, we don't move the rookie, as we say he has been learning the Z position. Later, after their rookie year, they learn more, but as a rookie, their education is usually more limited. Right now, I think Davis is looking pretty darn good at TE, and I would simply hate to mess w/ that development. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted August 20, 2008 Report Share Posted August 20, 2008 I agree with that, leave Davis right where he is at TE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.