Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Artez" data-source="post: 129469078" data-attributes="member: 1852616"><p>I see a lot of bashing and gnashing of teeth on this board over stupid trivial BS. I honestly think half of this boards members are 18-30 year olds with the maturity of a five year old. That said, I find valid points on both sides of most arguements. The QB situation on the other hand makes me wonder about our backups, our so called &quot;highly recruited&quot; backups. It was announced by Dana that Howard was playing very banged up and hurt the last 4-5 games. Us not knowing that caused some major&nbsp; concerns with Howard's ability. Once we learned he was hurt, the differences in his performance was explained, but that doesn't explain why we blew a redshirt on one of our highly recruited QBs just to have him play a couple games at receiver, and it also begs the question, how bad do these backups have to be is a severely hurting QB is still a better option than our &quot;highly recruited&quot; backups?</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="Artez, post: 129469078, member: 1852616"] I see a lot of bashing and gnashing of teeth on this board over stupid trivial BS. I honestly think half of this boards members are 18-30 year olds with the maturity of a five year old. That said, I find valid points on both sides of most arguements. The QB situation on the other hand makes me wonder about our backups, our so called "highly recruited" backups. It was announced by Dana that Howard was playing very banged up and hurt the last 4-5 games. Us not knowing that caused some major concerns with Howard's ability. Once we learned he was hurt, the differences in his performance was explained, but that doesn't explain why we blew a redshirt on one of our highly recruited QBs just to have him play a couple games at receiver, and it also begs the question, how bad do these backups have to be is a severely hurting QB is still a better option than our "highly recruited" backups? [/QUOTE]

Name