Jump to content

RomaVicta

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    15674
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by RomaVicta

  1. OMG! Not again! SENIORS!!!!!!! Bowling Green PTSD
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. Aggie fans clearly filled with anticipation after missing the SEC Championship Game by one play. They're all in on their Aggies.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. Talk about wearing out a word because you're a simpleton, exhibit one;
  12. Yes, Democratic Party, do something! I'm getting bored laying around on my nuts doing nothing. Save me!
  13. As for last year, Notre Dame lost the following week at home to Northern Illinois University. Remember how they discredited our win at Alabama a few years ago? That wasn't the same Alabama team as later in the season! Also, Olin dared not utter the name of near-nemesis, The Bowling Green Seniors.
  14. Which of the above groups have real cause to worry that someone wishes them harm? Which of the above groups are threats to the republic? Thank you for your attention to this matter.
  15. No abuse of power here!
  16. Wow, somebody came up with a fresh photographic perspective to convey the story instead of the same people hugging and weeping followed by the candlelight vigil. Great photo. Surely some of the people outside the crime scene are outraged. How about a picture of that instead of constant victimhood. This is event is urgent (woman above) and more of an outrage than a pity. I think the press has decided that we, their audience, are in constant need of reassurance and calming. Show the dead. Show the blood. Show the rage. Show the whole story. @Zeus, I don't care about your links, so I won't click them. I guess that's all you have since Brother Rush is no longer there to feed you the dog vomit you can then regurgitate.
  17. No, no, no, no, Brisket. It's a one-way street thanks to brother Rush. When any person not a red-blooded capitalist white GOP commits an outrage, that person embodies the "left" or the delusional vision of liberals. We're all responsible. We're all enemies of the state. We individually cannot deny it, at least not to any affect on a Limbaugh GOPPER. However, when the elected national representative of the red-blooded capitalist white GOP denies an epidemic that kills hundreds of thousands or rapes a chick, that's no reflection on GOPs. It's fake news or liberal lies which amount to the same thing. Or they say they didn't vote for that, so they're okay. I thought about negging Zeus for the dishonesty of blaming the left for Catholic assembly shootings, but he's likely no knowingly lying. He's a brainwashed jersey-wearer content that his team is winning big and rigging the rules to keep winning big. The funniest part is that he thinks he's on the side that is saving the country. I guess I could neg him for being a degenerate.
  18. 1 I suppose it is possible that their potential market may not make the connection between the colors used on their uniforms and those on the boxes. 2 The band is exactly the same on every cigar! 3 It sure does. They lose points and probably money from not having 12 in each box. Who doesn't want to be this guy?
  19. He writes a Why We Lose post every week for humor.
  20. Thank you. I have no idea what you mean.
×
×
  • Create New...