Hmm...Richards sure does have one Big...P...

[atlwebdawg]

pathetic excuse after another - <font size="2" face="georgia,palatino">"There was just a week or two where they wanted me to recover from getting hurt earlier in the season," he said. "So I just took a few weeks off, got a little rest, and I'm good now."...

Wow, this guy needs to suck it up and play. I'm so sick of hearing about his status!
</font>

 

[KurtRambis4]

is why people give punters/kickers so much hell...jesus this guy's turrible

 

[TheBigDA]

him on the shelf so Shank can play. For whatever reason Shank has something on or with Croom to keep him on the field. I think this whole Richards injury situation thing is just an easy way for Croom to keep playing Shank.

//duck -- black helicopters overhead

 

[dawgstudent]

if he is our best kicker/punter/kickoff guy - put him on the field.

 

[Shmuley]

now that Veazey and 2 hour delay dude in Tupelo are harping on it, Croom will trot Richards out there at Neyland.

And afterward I'm confident we'll be asking how this guy could be listed as the #3 kicker in the country 2 years ago and suck this bad now.

Regression, thy name is MState.

 

[8dog]

we can find someone that can kick as good or better than what we've got (Zack Warden?) and use the scholarship on another offensive linemen, a position in huge need.

Think about it: we have 2 guys on scholarship that are punters and we can't get off more than 36 yds a kick. Yet we have the same guy playing backup RG and backup LG.

 

[DerHntr]

it is either that or we need to send someone other than our coaching staff down to the soccer/intramural fields, hold a tryout, and let that person assess talent and bring on someone else to kick.

 

[Shmuley]

I'm glad we sat on our hands waiting for Anthony Steen's grades to improve. Who the hell needs a guy that benches 425 and plays nasty? We don't need linemen THAT badly.

/staring at wall wondering if running through it screaming would help.

 

[FlabLoser]

...that Croom plays Shank because Croom is comfortable that he knows what Shank's downside is. Shank's downside, usually, is a 25-30 yard punt with no return. Croom thinks the 4 yard punt was an aberration and the 16 yard punt isn't to be worried about because we shouldn't have been punting from the back of the endzone.

Croom always coaches towards whatever the known downsides are. As in, let's run out the clock at the end of the 1st half instead of try to score becaues he's pretty sure we won't fumble one 1-yard-and-a-cloud-of-dust plays. Better take the known result - time off the clock and perhaps punting instead of an unknown - passing.

And that's why Croom's most consistent upside (ie: the best he can usually do) is playing the other team close. Croom is not a winner. And neither will we be as long as he is here.