- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: On keeping the Quarterback that has won us every game this year.
Posted on 9/12/10 at 12:43 pm to GRTiger
Posted on 9/12/10 at 12:43 pm to GRTiger
quote:
And you calling for JJ to be starter implies confidence in him, unless you don't and have motives to want LSU to be unsuccessful.
Can you give me ONE link where I called for JJ to be the starter? ONE.
I am calling for the opposite. Giving JL a shot at more playing time. Why do you keep arguing this with me?
quote:
Good lord, man. I don't have answers to everything.
Well, if you're going to reason that JJ needs more time to develop, then you should AT LEAST be able to give an opinion as to how much longer he should be given as a starter to develop, considering he's a junior.
In your opinion, assuming he shows no improvement, how many more games starting would you give him to develop?
Posted on 9/12/10 at 12:56 pm to Festus
I meant JL regarding confidence in him and wanting him to start. I apologize for the confusion. I forget that people here can't see an obvious error and correct in their mind, knowing what was meant.
Setting a timline is dumb. Call it pussying out, as your infintley wise mind would do. I can't know how long it takes people to master their craft, and claiming that would be dishonest. My main arguement is that either could start, and neither would blow your mind. You think differently, but that's your right.
All else being equal (ie talent and ability), which I think it basically is, I believe either could start and do the same thing, allow the play makers to win games. Neither are play makers, but both could fulfill that role.
I'm not sure why you have to create this argument in your mind and decide you win just to feel better. Have successfully justified your otherwise meaningless existence?
ETA:
Damn, less than 10 minutes? I'm sorry for not waiting on baited breaths for your witty comebacks. You should relax and enjoy your Sunday. Just to let you know, I'll probably be moving on from this thread, as it is not on my list of priorities today. You can call it pussying if you makes you happy.
Setting a timline is dumb. Call it pussying out, as your infintley wise mind would do. I can't know how long it takes people to master their craft, and claiming that would be dishonest. My main arguement is that either could start, and neither would blow your mind. You think differently, but that's your right.
All else being equal (ie talent and ability), which I think it basically is, I believe either could start and do the same thing, allow the play makers to win games. Neither are play makers, but both could fulfill that role.
I'm not sure why you have to create this argument in your mind and decide you win just to feel better. Have successfully justified your otherwise meaningless existence?
ETA:
quote:
Why won't you answer specific questions, like above?
Instead, you drive by with a-hole comments that you make up, then call other posters shitty.
Answer the questions.
Damn, less than 10 minutes? I'm sorry for not waiting on baited breaths for your witty comebacks. You should relax and enjoy your Sunday. Just to let you know, I'll probably be moving on from this thread, as it is not on my list of priorities today. You can call it pussying if you makes you happy.
This post was edited on 9/12/10 at 1:00 pm
Popular
Back to top
![logo](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/images/layout/TDIcon.jpg)