On page 264 of The Dinosaur Heresies is the observation:
"A fully adult Ceratosaurus's skull, nearly three feet long in life, was not one tight mass of bones and teeth; it consisted of a loose kit of thin bony struts, flexible bony sheets regularly perforated by holes, ball-in-socket joints, and sliding articulations, the whole bound together with ligaments." And on the next page "There was a strong central core in the heads of the predatory dinosaurs: their thick-walled braincase...The primary function of the dinosaur's 'braincase' was to provide attachment sites for the neck muscles and to serve as the foundation point for all the thinner, more flexible components of the snout, palate, and roof of the skull."
(The "," before the "and" is worthy.) This discussion was just after a description of a Coelophysis nimbly killing an anchisaur by small wounds. It seems that an animal with such a light and comparatively fragile skull would have to use other approaches besides biting.
Fastovsky and Weishampel note (Evolution and Extinction of the Dinosaurs, p. 283) "Still, because of the well-rounded occipital condyle and its articulation with the first part of the cervical vertebrae, it is thought that the skull had considerable mobility on the neck. So, too, did many of the joints of the skull with each other. Their appearance of mobility, however, may be an illusion; instead, they may have been constructed in such a fashion to lessen or dissipate the stresses passing through the skull as the animal bit, subdued, and dismembered its struggling prey."
So, my question is, does this loosely connected skull indicate that certain predatory dinosaurs (Bakker, though the term seems to include tyrannosaurs, and that's strange; F & W title the section from which the quote was taken Theropods as Living Organisms) were incapable of using their heads as a main weapon in hunting, at least in hunting sizable prey?