Riders coach Ken Miller says Andy Fantuz will not dress in Montreal because of that tender hamstring that has forced him to miss the past few games. Miller said Fantuz could probably play, but with the bye week coming up, it will give him some more time to be at 100 percent.
Say what you will about Bobby Harris, but they are going to have to drag this guy off the field. He is bothered by a bad knee, but he remains out there. Miller doesn't know how much longer that left knee can hold up and he may be scratched from the lineup for this one--and perhaps much longer. If he doesn't go, look for Gene Makowsky to head over to left tackle with Chris Best taking Makowsky's spot at guard.
Miller also talked about the fact that the football gods have not smiled upon them this week. You are playing a short week, having to travel through Calgary with a long layover before heading to Montreal, you are facing the best team in the league, you are facing the best team in the league in a city where the nightlife is second to none and you know that once the game is over, you have a week off. Its certainly not a recipe for success is it? Miller says you have to play with the hand that you are dealt and that there are distractions, but they are going to try and turn the distractions into a positive.
3 comments:
I'm really starting to wonder about Fantuz. I'm not saying he has a lack of desire, but he just seems to be very lackadaiscal and perhaps resting on the mighty laurels everyone placed upon him. I hope he stays, but with Getzlaf and Bagg here it won't be the end of the world if he goes back to either TO or Ham.
As for Harris, if he is hurt then why are they playing him. Is he not a liability?
RT
RT:
While I agree with you regarding Bobby Harris, I strongly disagree on your Fantuz statement. He is the best young Cdn receiver in the game and losing him would be a major blow. I hear the team is talking to his agent about a contract extension. Hopefully, it will get announced during the bye week.
Sorry Mitch. Please attribute the rebuttal to RT to Richard.
Post a Comment