-
Posts
15637 -
Joined
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Everything posted by RomaVicta
-
Bitch is a nice choice of word.
-
Valid. You see how those things can be said without adding the shit about what he's making on his name and likeness? This isn't the NFL (yet) where players are hired based on immediate performance. We're watching players come out of high school to play at a much higher level which means they must develop. The "well, he's getting paid millions to perform" line isn't apt here. Sure, he might turn out to suck. Certainly fans will have and may state harsh opinions. The money doesn't have much to do with it unless you think a player is loafing due to wealth. That's not the case with Manning or many other players I've observed. That really good pass rusher A&M got from Penn State last year is an example of a player making his money, putting together tape for his next job, and then loafing the rest of the season. Fuck that guy.
-
The market for "free" yardage is determined by demand/risk. There was little demand for free yardage in the game thus acquiring it and assuming the risk would be poor judgment. (Not bad for an RTF grad!) My acumen is in similar demand, but I stand with you, brother. Correct, IMHO. Further, Manning needs work on seeing the field as a passer not a runner. He's playing like a very promising QB in his first year starting. We've got some lesser opponents lined up, this is an opportunity to work on weaknesses not strengths, IMHO. I despise the dull minded sportswriting world that has treated his first year starting as a coronation. Then they get all mad because they look like idiots for expecting so much, so, naturally, they believe the problem lies with Manning. When I used to buy Dave Campbell's mag every year, they had a run of being wrong about who would win the SWC. After about seven consecutive faulty predictions, whoever wrote that column (Dave hisself?) stated that the onus of being chosen by Dave Campbell's Texas Football to win had been too much for those teams. Sure, Dave, you weren't wrong; they just couldn't take the pressure of your correctness. So it goes here. I think we win it all next year with Manning. Maybe by the end of this year, he'll be playing like a veteran and we will do well should we make the playoffs. Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy ride. Should be exciting no matter what.
-
I'm always glad to see Iowa State win. And what the fuck happened to Oklahoma State? It wasn't the best conference for us, but I still like some of the teams. The red head above is pretty.
-
As I recall, Ringwald was so popular (deservedly so, IMHO) that she wrangled a three picture deal with one of the studios where she had creative control. I think she exercised control and made three bombs. Naturally, her popularity wained to the extent you hardly saw her in anything for years. I think she's solid as a mature actress.
-
Official "Fuck this stupid ass-commercial" thread
RomaVicta replied to Prepuce of Doom's topic in Movies and TV
They've convinced themselves that it's a classic. Like Santa at the mall or the Easter bunny. I've always hated it. -
-
...what's with the fucking baseball cap with suit?
-
Official "Fuck this stupid ass-commercial" thread
RomaVicta replied to Prepuce of Doom's topic in Movies and TV
Get help. -
Does that include nerve gas?
-
Negative Recruiting Your Own School: The aggy Screenshot Megathread
RomaVicta replied to texifornia's topic in 🤫$9.95🤫
No visiting fan letters yet, but they have about four or five threads about Manning. Two in the top five on Texags: Here's the genius of How the Hell written yesterday morning: Here's one of the ones about Manning. Fan fiction. Sure, the sips around the watercooler are wildly gesticulating and claiming Arch did great. The typists in the secretarial pool are having trouble concentrating. Sure, the sports media has been impressively kind in their rage that the person they ballyhooed proved to be human. Toxic! Everybody drink! Flash! This just in from QAnon: How many people has "the media" assassinated protecting their prized Manning brand? We're all hype. Sadly, we'll never attain the heights A&M has. Now some Aggie boilerplate. We weren't that good/OSU achieved things against a mighty team: Seems the game was definitely a 14-0 shutout. Just like the Aggies were gaining a single yard away from a "much different outcome" when we shut out their sorry ass team. Anyway, we suck. However, OSU is great because they beat such a stud-filled team. Lastly, to be fair, there are Aggies saying Arch will be good. The answer to that below is another interesting bit of Aggie tunnel vision. Manning was awful Saturday. However, that's not the only sample of his work. He indeed started some games last year and did very well. The guy above mentions those starts but doesn't factor them in. The shriller Aggies have already written Arch off. My feeling? -
It's low intensity because one side hasn't accepted that things have changed.
-
Sounded like Herbstreit said, "you're bad," to me.
-
-
You're correct, there is no way to know. I honestly have a hard time thinking of a performance any worse than Manning's yesterday. But you're right. I think I may be right, but that it's in the question tells us something, no? Part of my reason to mention an unnamed QB was to illustrate my opinion of Manning's game yesterday. I'm not sure I see how Ewers was poorly developed. Before he got hurt each season, if I'm not mistaken, he was rather brilliant. Perhaps I attribute too much to the injuries. I'm a football idiot compared to the guys around here who clearly know shit. I thought Arch might be better than Ewers last year, but things other than the way they played kept Ewers on the field. I was way off on that one. Politics has shown me what a miserable predictor I can be. I'm better at football but not by much.
-
I didn't plan to return here, but I respect your post. You missed some of my earlier statements in the discussion. It's a long, unharmonious thread, so that's totally reasonable. I used the word stupid in the second quote of mine below which was addressed specifically at an early responder to me. I do not define as stupid anyone who disagrees with me. Many people who found fault with my argument seized on details rather than the overall point. You: We're seemingly in agreement. We see Sark's decision making on starting Manning in the same way as you describe Ewers. My main point was addressing the blame placed on Sark for Manning's preparation. As you assert, Manning did not play in practice as he did in the actual game. Now, for whom to insert in his stead. From my discussion in this thread with @troph whose post I pos-repped: I don't think leaving Manning in this game was definitively bad. We were close. He's shown great play before, so you hope that version re-emerges. Some here believe that version did re-emerge in the fourth quarter. Maybe it did. We almost tied the game. He still didn't look great nor was his decision making notable. I recognize Manning is a special case due to unprecedented attention and ballyhoo just because of his last name. I don't advocate a decision about replacing him until conference play. Frankly, I expect him to bounce back. If he doesn't, his fate by then should be the same as any other struggling QB even if benching him would be classic tragedy that I'd rather not see. Arch Manning presents as a great young man who I love representing my university. I keenly want him to succeed and believe he will.
-
The Manning who started and played most of the game is the only one I know how to judge. If he played great in the fourth quarter, obviously my condition would still apply: He wouldn't be playing badly, so there would be no need to bench him. I'm surprised at the resistance to the notion that a QB who horribly misses easy passes should be replaced. That's my simple premise. Somehow that has been contorted into an advocacy that Manning should never play another down. I specify that if he continues to play as describe above, he should be benched as I think the guy under him can do better. Period. Some moron took that to "I can't believe you're talking about benching after three bad quarters. Said moron doubles down. That suggests that the genius feels we should keep Manning on the field no matter what. I'm done with this topic. It's amusing that the moron referred to my post as "this board." I rarely post here. I'm hardly typical of it. I want to see Manning succeed and believe that he will. Any player who doesn't should yield to one who can. Not exactly revolutionary.
-
Return to reading class. Then try reasoning class. It would be idiocy to continue with a QB who played as poorly as Manning did Saturday. I'm neither suggesting he be pulled or that I expect him to be pulled, Skipper.
-
Actually, I think your characterization vindicates Sark more than condemns him. The performance was so spectacularly bad (I agree with your description), that it's difficult to imagine what a coach could have done about it. Manning did not belong on the field in the role of QB. I'm not hating. I want him to work out. Leaving Manning in the game was the only decisive choice, IMHO, that falls on Sark. I can't even name our second team QB, but he would have been better. If there were no other factors such as Manning's psychological strength and merciless public opinion, Manning should have been pulled. The only reason you don't bench him is because you feel he is your best chance for a great season and that benching him would damage him and the hopes of a great season. If we get into conference play and Manning plays nearly as poorly as yesterday, I say pull him.
-
I guess coach-hating is addictive. It's absurd to think Manning looked in practice the way he did in the shoe, and Sark decided he was ready. This was not a failure of coach preparation unless you think a coach can prescribe and administer xanax. It wasn't footwork or mechanics that thwarted Manning. He choked horrifically. All the evidence you need for that is to review his performance in other games where the pressure was low. He was more than competent in those games. Had he played that well in this game, we likely win. The only difference was pressure. Similarly to his panicky showing against Georgia last year, the moment was too large for him. He faces pressure from the importance of a game and the expections almost cruelly laid upon him. I'll write this game off. He has a couple of cupcakes coming up, then he must face the next test. It's profoundly stupid to blame Manning's performance on Sarkisian. Fourth downs are another matter altogether.
-
Negative Recruiting Your Own School: The aggy Screenshot Megathread
RomaVicta replied to texifornia's topic in 🤫$9.95🤫
Aggie fans clearly filled with anticipation after missing the SEC Championship Game by one play. They're all in on their Aggies. -
Negative Recruiting Your Own School: The aggy Screenshot Megathread
RomaVicta replied to texifornia's topic in 🤫$9.95🤫
The Aggies have it figured out. They're ahead of the curve. Head of the class first rate thinkers! The only recruiting ranking that really matters is the one in June. Aggies get it. Claim success before the contest even begins! Spike the ball! National championship polls and ratings? You guessed it, the big one is before any games have been played! If a team, particularly tu who just happens to fit this ingenius historical analysis perfectly, wins a title without being predicted to win a title, that title is diminished and the team should be ashamed that they failed to start in the number one position. Summer when there are no games is where it's at. The dear old Fightin' Texas Aggies from Texas won three MNCs in a single summer 13 years ago without playing a game. They're way ahead of everybody out there in College Station. -
Negative Recruiting Your Own School: The aggy Screenshot Megathread
RomaVicta replied to texifornia's topic in 🤫$9.95🤫
That's fantastic. -
Negative Recruiting Your Own School: The aggy Screenshot Megathread
RomaVicta replied to texifornia's topic in 🤫$9.95🤫
Whoever cast the women in that show would be quite welcome to cast the ones in my life. Old, young, exotic whatever. I don't recall this shot, but it pretty much justifies Western Civilization. -
Negative Recruiting Your Own School: The aggy Screenshot Megathread
RomaVicta replied to texifornia's topic in 🤫$9.95🤫
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... COOKIE MONSTER!