[TEX]

Originally Posted by FAX

The pro-Hermers are amazingly adamant in their support, Mr. TEX, but the anti-Hermers are equally steadfast. We are polarized. But, like many such things, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. The o-line issue could be telling, however.

1. Your LJ Theory. This may be right. Herm may have believed that LJ's talent could make up for their deficiencies. The problem with this is that LJ wasn't in camp, so how could Herm have known or reasonably expected this while he was finalizing the roster?

2. The Defense Theory. I've speculated that, in camp, Herm may have viewed the problems with the line as being due to our new, spectacular defense. He might have thought that, in camp, our D was so good, it was making the line look worse than they really were.

3. The Dumbass Theory. It could be that Herm knew the line was bad but serviceable enough to get us through a season of development on the defensive side of the ball.

4. The Ultra-Dumbass Theory. Perhaps (and contrary to the opinions of the pro-Hermers) Herm's player evaluation skills are overrated and he doesn't know how to tell if a line is good or bad by watching them practice.

5. The Nobody Else Available Theory. Maybe Herm knew they sucked in camp and tried to find replacements, but couldn't.

6. The Super Patience Theory. It's possible that Herm knew they sucked, but thought they would improve as the season unfolded and decided to give them time to "gel".

Either way, the play of the oline is holding back everything else including the development of the young players. It's difficult to excuse Herm for that given the fact we're still under the cap and my grandma could block better than these guys.

FAX

\

Well said. I can deal with all of it except # 4 because that's Herm's preceived best attribute. If it's a myth, we're TOAST.