A. "You’re just lying and playing semantics, as usual"
What did I lie about? Show me what I lied about?
you continuously misrepresent the premise of the original statement, prediction (or un-prediction, or whatever the 17 you want to call it). For evidence, see your point B below. Also - see point D.
B. "Most people agreed with you that our offense would still be very productive, but said we would still miss Dixon"
Not really- people constantly mentioned how teams would load the box against us with Ralph at QB and since we didnt have Dixon- our running game was going to suffer. Remember that? That was a main reason for the Tyler Russell push to be QB- to have a passing game so we would be able to run the ball.
Here's a quote from me from this past Spring:
"Our running game will be just as good or even better, we will make bigger plays in the passing game, win 7, maybe 8 games next year, and then everybody on the board will post about how they knew we were going to be better offensively this year even without Dixon...It's the Sixpack way... "
Thank you for not disappointing me
C. "You blamed our start on poor play calling and “trying to sling it around”. Well, guess WHY we were doing that? We were looking for an identity on offense. "
Myself and other posters have shown this to be ******** by simply looking at the drive charts. Were we looking for an identity Saturday night against Fla when they turned it over on downs in our territory and then we threw 3 straight passes? The playcalling has been ****** at times and you know it.
Yes, the playcalling has been ****** at times. If your reading comprehension skills were above retard level, you would understand that I'm saying the playcalling was bad because they were trying to find an identity and/or a playmaker because Dixon is gone. Remember, you said our playcalling would actually be better and harder to defend b/c we would be able to spread it around instead of just focusing on Dixon?
D. "Your predictions on Relf are completely laughable now. 30 TDs? Ha"
I NEVER <span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline">predicted</span> Ralph would have 30 TD's. Yes, you DID. But, thanks for the great example of lies and semantics for me to use on point A.
E. "How about the 30 points per game? Yes, it’s true we sit at 28.6, and may just be above 30 after Saturday, but again…semantics."
How is it semantics? Either we average 30 damn points or we don't. Nobody ever said anything different parts of the schedule. That statement by you right there shows what true dumbass you are. And also your obsession. You are really sad
Let me clarify - you get credit the same as a moron gets credit for circling the right answer on a multiple choice test, even though he has no clue how he arrived at that answer. You get no CRED on here, as in that same moron (you in this case) would receive no credit for the same problem if he had to show his work and how he arrived at that answer. In other words, we all know you had no clue our offense would be so bad against real defenses.
F. "30 ppg scoring average – you do NOT get credit here"
Nice job using the same point twice. I guess in retaliation I have to use the same answer twice so....
Let me clarify - you get credit the same as a moron gets credit for circling the right answer on a multiple choice test, even though he has no clue how he arrived at that answer. You get no CRED on here, as in that same moron (you in this case) would receive no credit for the same problem if he had to show his work and how he arrived at that answer. In other words, we all know you had no clue our offense would be so bad against real defenses.
aGAIN- you are a dumbass
What a waste of my time proving your idiocy- you should be on read-only
