Jump to content

Park Gothic

Burnt Ends
  • Posts

    2300
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Park Gothic

  1. In all seriousness, from the updates it sounds like Moore and Wingo are the focus at WR. To me that suggests that the staff would rather have an extra RB or TE on the field than a third WR (presumably White Chocolate). But that doesn't mean he won't see the field. Imagine that we're up by less than a score late in the 3rd quarter. Out trots Jaggy and lines up in the X. The DB looks at this goofy ass white kid and thinks "well this is a run play." The ball is snapped, Jaggy does his goofy arm-flailing shit, and the DB takes his eyes off Livingstone for second. Next thing he knows, Parker motherfucking Livingstone is 10 yards behind him, on track to catch an absolute dot from Manning in the end zone. You don't start a chess match by moving your queen in front. You start with the pawns. You save your best pieces for checkmate.
  2. I just want it noted for the record that I did not intend to start this line of discourse and that I think Quinn Ewers was a neat QB at Texas.
  3. I still can't wrap my head around the Simms Applewhite mindfuck, but the restaurant one makes sense. Nobody can ever say this thread was a waste of time. I've found the exception that, uh, disproves their rule or something. As long as I can reach one person, then I’ve made a difference. Also, congrats on having written confirmation that you’re smarter than CTJ.
  4. And I was really proud of that sign on the bar door analogy.
  5. Then I will. When a person provides a rule (e.g., "Sark always recruits great QBs") and another person points out an example of where the rule was untrue, the first person sometimes responds "well that's the exception that proves the rule." That response is 100% retarded. Showing that rule is not always true does not, in any way, shape, or form, prove a rule. It does the opposite. This modern usage of that phrase is maddening. The phrase "the exception that proves the rule" is meant to refer to a situation where stating an exception shows that all other situations are the rule. For example, if the sign on the door to a bar says "Closed on Sundays" you can infer that the "rule" is that the bar is open every other day of the week. Instead of saying the days that the bar is open, the sign proves the rule by saying the one day it isn't. So in this instance, the "rule" is that Chris Simms was an above average QB. The "exception" is that he was comparable to Major. Because both Simms and Major were far better than other 3-star QBs, this proves that Chris Simms (and Major) were both above average QBs. It's not quite as clean-cut as the sign on the bar door example, but it works.
  6. Fair enough. I swear I'm not trying to give you a hard time.
  7. If you view this thread as performance art, then it's actually quite enjoyable.
  8. They're relevant if there is some indication that Stroh was not evaluated correctly or if he has meaningfully developed. Truisms don't do anything for me unless there's some connection to facts.
  9. Although those statements are undoubtedly true, are they relevant to this issue? My skepticism and concern are based on the fact that the positivity about Stroh seems like a suspiciously recent development. I am, however, frequently wrong and underinformed. If there has been a noted trend line for Stroh's development that I have missed, I would appreciate someone calming my tits for me.
  10. I think I understand where the disconnect is. I'll take a shot - Comparing Simms to Applewhite, in comparison with their relative star ratings, shows that Applewhite was underrated and not that Simms was overrated. The fact that Simms and Applewhite were evenly matched on the same team shows that Applewhite was much better than a 3-star rating and should have been rated as a blue chip. Instead of comparing Simms to Applewhite, Sydney is saying you need to compare Simms to a guy who was correctly rated as a 3-star.
  11. I appreciate that you've used this phrase correctly. People get it wrong a lot today, and in they get it wrong in a way that is completely illogical, yet people just seem to accept the nonsense meaning. This was a great joke and I'm disappointed how many people missed it. There's a lot of low-rent trolling on this board, but when you bring your A-game, you're one of the best. I tip my hat.
  12. Day can emphasize things all he wants - there is not replacement for going up against a real opposing defense who is coming at you at full speed. People can knock Manning for only starting against ULM and MSU, but he also played in several games when the shit was flying all around him. Sayin is going to have to go through the fastest maturation process in CFB history or we are going to rattle to him. Remember how Ewers looked in the first half against UGA in Austin? That's what I'm expecting.
  13. Hamstring. And yes. On a more substantive note - I just watched Sayin's "highlights" from 2024 and all plays from the 2025 Spring Game. The dude throws a pretty ball - very tight spiral with an on time delivery. Good ball placement, although he didn't throw into many tight windows (but he didn't have to). He can move a decent bit to avoid pressure and even scrambled for a few yards. We are going to fuck him up something fierce. He lack pocket awareness, processes slowly, and pats the ball before he throws. He does not throw the ball with any zip - his long passes weren't moonshots, but his short passes have little urgency to them. Those are all fixable problems, but they are not going to get fixed before Saturday and he is going to get his shit wrecked by our defense. If he isn't getting sacked he will throw the ball into coverage and distribute a few picks. Seriously, he does not look ready for this game. He may turn into an absolute baller by the end of the season or next season, but he's not even close to that yet.
  14. I am just really going to miss Jahdae Barron. He just seemed like everything we want in a player.
  15. I liked Stroh as a recruit and he is enormous. But weren't we consistently told that his feet are a problem? That he's not quick and lacks good balance? Maybe that matters less at guard than tackle, but I don't love that note.
  16. Goddamn they just free hand that shit? I assumed they had some sort of template or a machine. I can't even help my 1st grader put stickers on his diorama.
  17. If I were continuing this conversation, which I am not, I would say that is a valid point.
  18. You know, enabling an addict is dangerous behavior.
  19. If y'all are going to pretend that 98 and 99 don't count then I'm going to say the 2000 game doesn't count because they won the national championship. Or maybe I won't do that, because it's disingenuous bullshit and not germane to the point anyone was making when this conversation started. And Major started in 2000. So that makes him 2-1 against the Sooners, which is still better than Simms or any recent QB not named Colt McCoy. And with that, I am now actually, but for real this time, done with this argument.
  20. Seems fine for the most part. I would expect them to lean OSU for toss ups and they rightly point out several position groups that are toss ups. The only place I would really push back is at CB, but then I'm a Texas homer so I would. It jumps straight to the comments due to the #comments at the end of the link.
  21. Maybe I'm getting senile - which is a distinct possibility - but I believe that Major was QB1 against OU in 1998 and 1999. We won in 1998 and 1999. And now that's the last thing I'll say about this.
×
×
  • Create New...