re: Pretty funny by Guilbeau

quote:

---

it's not just about scoring 6 points. It's about winning the game.

---

These are not the same two things. Turnovers can lead to more points for the opponents. Also field position is very important in a game like that and maintaining drives (scrambing for first downs and having some success running options) are very important even if they don't directly lead to putting points up on the board. You want to give your opponent a long field to traverse and not give him a short field, as it is easier to score points on a short field (when the distance is less that you have to go for a score). Turnovers are important not only for giving up the ball to your opponent and taking away your chance to score but they also have field position implications.

Your insistence on nitpicking regarding the word "could" and trying to pretend as if others don't know the meaning makes you look really petty and ridiculous.

Obviously everyone realized that LSU could score 6 points had Jarrett Lee finished the game.

LSU could have lost to Oregon.
LSU could have lost to WVU.
LSU could lose to Ole Miss and Arkansas.

Lots of things could happen.

Your implication throughout has been pretty clear: you believe that if Jarrett Lee was left in the game, LSU would have found a way to score 6 points in regulation. You say, "we have no reason not to believe this." Despite the fact that the Lee's three drives resulted in 33 total yards and 2 INTs. We didn't get past their 40 while he was in. And one of those JJ came in an converted a 3rd and 1 with a QB sneak.

So let's stop talking about fantasies and "coulds" and speak to what we actually saw.

Is there reason to believe we wouldn't have scored 6 points had Jarrett Lee remained at QB vs. Alabama. Yes, in that game, there was reason to believe that.

Does that mean anything about Jarrett going forward? No.
Does that erase what he did over the first 8 games? No.

But you've taken this argument into nitpicking and discussing words like bias and could, telling posters how stupid they are and critiquing "comprehension" and you aren't even talking about football any more.

Plenty of people have tried to extend you respect in this thread, including myself, yet you continue to revert to namecalling and insults, which are the tale tell signs of someone who doesn't really have a sound argument or much of a leg to stand on.

I wish I could say you'd respond with an actual decent answer, but I already know this what your response will look like

RTS:

"

quote:

---

Obviously everyone realized that LSU could score 6 points had Jarrett Lee finished the game.

---

Good, we're getting somewhere.

So it's at all possible that this could happen? Great. That's my whole argument. Something could happen."

quote:

---

Your insistence on nitpicking regarding the word "could" and trying to pretend as if others don't know the meaning makes you look really petty and ridiculous.

---

You dumbass, its the whole fricking argument....

Dude you really just ought to quit. Everything you touch backfires. Do yourself a favor, and go back, reread before you make a fool of yourself again.

quote:

---

the way roger uses the word 'could 'is a little different than the way the ordinary person thinks of the word.

---

yeah, when you get beat, change the meaning of words. Unfortunately the meaning doesn't really change. There really aren't that many meanings of the word.

quote:

---

You dumbass, its the whole fricking argument....

---

No. It's something stupid you started like 5 pages ago and continue to tell people how "stupid" they are (notice, you did it AGAIN) because they won't play your game.

Everything has context. From a broad perspective:

Could LSU be undefeated if JJ never played a snap? I could agree with that.
Could LSU be undefeated if Lee never played a snap? I could also agree with that.

In that specific game, knowing all we knew, of course it could have happened, but the probability was certainly not in our favor.

But you are unwilling to acknowledge anything but your narrow perspective and need to continue to insult everyone for telling you how mindless it is to continually state "could."

I'm not even insulting you when I say, you look like a fool in this thread. Because you've done it to yourself. Seriously, go back and read your posts in this thread alone from start to finish.

You started by saying what GG said was childish, turned into insulting many other posters, grandstanding about how much more you know (using the definition of the word bias as the example of your knowledge) and are now basing an entire argument (which has nothing to do with the OP, this article or anything really) on the fact that things COULD happen.

so this whole arguement is based off of the meaning of the word 'could'. Not off of what was likely to happen or what had a reasonable chance of happening, just what was within the realm of possibility, no matter how long the odds.

quote:

---

so this whole arguement is based off of the meaning of the word 'could'.

---

Do you want to go back and revisit the origins of this "argument?" You could have saved yourself a lot of time simply understanding what "can" and "could" mean.

LSU could be undefeated with both, and this is the central point that some of you argued against pages ago.

Not just a ruse, but an elaborate ruse.

quote:

---

so it was all just a ruse. You got me on that one. Good one Rodger.

---

I pondered your sanity. For sure. I think your actual problem should be with the people who argued against it to begin with.

quote:

---

Could be undefeated with both qbs... Yes of course it was physically possible.

---

quote:

---

Was it realistic after what we were witnessing between the play of the two qbs in the bama game?..unlikely.

---

Neither are great QB's but both are capable of playing decent at times. With the right game plan, LSU could be undefeated with Rueben Randle at QB, most likely. It hasn't been an difference making position in many of the games.