Marquise Hill or Michael Clayton

Discussion in 'The Tiger's Den' started by HatcherTiger, Nov 1, 2004.

  1. Chipeace

    Chipeace Country Roads Tiger

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Messages:
    2,236
    Likes Received:
    917
    Clayton,

    But I know it is not part of the question but, we miss replacements for Peterman, Reed, Livings at guard (he's not a tackle), Edwards & now Wilkerson!
     
  2. DDTigerFan

    DDTigerFan Back from the Dead

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2003
    Messages:
    2,559
    Likes Received:
    6
    Clayton would be nice but we still don't have someone to get the ball there or provide protection for the QB.
     
  3. locoguano

    locoguano Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    Messages:
    10,342
    Likes Received:
    2,216
    Clayton.. easily.. the QBs would have had someone who could actually run a route and catch the ball in the first few games.. if Clayton is there.. LSU beats OSU by 21.. beats Auburn by 14...
     
  4. lsuj2006

    lsuj2006 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    1
    Y'all realize that if Mauck, Clayton, and Hill had stayed, we'd wondering who we're gonna play in the orange bowl right now.
     
  5. Tygrr

    Tygrr Win the West

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    Messages:
    4,044
    Likes Received:
    160
    I'd like to agree, but our O-line is still suspect.
     
  6. bigfella99

    bigfella99 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Messages:
    60
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think Hill would have had the larger impact. UGA ran left against us all day long, because we didn't have an end who could stop it. Having Hill would have freed up Spears and Williams to make more plays also. Clayton was a great player, but with our QB struggles, I don't think he could have had the same impact as Hill.
     

Share This Page