An Interview with Steve Threet
Here is an interview with Michigan's current signal caller Steve Threet done by the Toledo Blade. It sounds like he is ready to go. Let's look forward to good Qb competition in the fall. Hopefully, he will either push Tate to be better or vice versa. In a world with maize and blue, both happen.
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090119/SPORTS17…
January 19th, 2009 at 2:06 PM ^
Again. Great Title! Very informative.
January 19th, 2009 at 2:14 PM ^
Terrible title, it just said interview with Steven Threet, not an interview by so and so with Steven Threet. I had to go into this post guessing. (Please note the sarcasm)
January 19th, 2009 at 2:30 PM ^
Can we please start having more informative thread titles? Thanks.
January 19th, 2009 at 3:50 PM ^
Can we please stop the running joke about having informative thread titles? Thanks.
January 19th, 2009 at 4:52 PM ^
Can we please have an explanation of this joke you speak of please? Pretty please? Thanks.
January 19th, 2009 at 2:52 PM ^
I can't help but be a big fan of Dual Threet.
January 19th, 2009 at 3:56 PM ^
How can they possibly call him a rising sophomore? I think people tend to idealize a player after the season's over and forget just how truly awful our QB play was this year. Threet is the 4th QB on a decent team.
January 19th, 2009 at 4:08 PM ^
He would've had a much better season "on a decent team." I don't doubt that for a second.
January 19th, 2009 at 4:09 PM ^
Another LA, huh? Not sure this blog's big enough for the two of us.
January 19th, 2009 at 5:30 PM ^
Does living in Orange County count as LA? I bet it does to all other people not living in Southern California.
I don't want to encroach on your territory.
January 19th, 2009 at 5:44 PM ^
No no, very different. In fact it's usually the OC peeps who don't want to say they're from LA.
January 19th, 2009 at 8:31 PM ^
We must band together Wolvin. There is no need for a rivalry, only unity.
January 19th, 2009 at 11:49 PM ^
Well, OK. We'll start the LA chapter of MGoBlog. Where in LA are you?
January 19th, 2009 at 4:10 PM ^
unintentional hilarity in this post
January 19th, 2009 at 4:12 PM ^
The best kind of post.
January 19th, 2009 at 4:11 PM ^
Is this a joke? "Rising sophomore" means that he will be a sophomore in next academic year. That's all.
January 19th, 2009 at 4:12 PM ^
Because everyone else seems intent to play around with you rather than pointing out the error in your post:
"Rising Sophomore" means that he will become a Sophomore next year. It's not a judgement on the quality of his play.
January 19th, 2009 at 4:07 PM ^
He's not looking very graceful in that picture.
January 19th, 2009 at 4:15 PM ^
Steven Threet 2008:
Percent Complete: 51%
Average Per Attempt: 5.5
TD: 9
INT: 7
Passer Rating: 105
I report, you decide.
January 19th, 2009 at 4:18 PM ^
I think this next year, his stats will be better than that. I also think that this next year, he will be a sophomore.
Boom. Rising Sophomore.
January 19th, 2009 at 4:22 PM ^
In case you were wondering:
Chad Henne: 2003
Percent Complete: 60%
YPA: 6.9
TD: 25
INT: 12
Passer Rating: 132
January 19th, 2009 at 4:25 PM ^
Seriously? How are Henne's stats even relevant to the hot mess Steve had to play in?
January 19th, 2009 at 4:31 PM ^
Henne was a fresman in 2003.
John Navarre 2000 (not much action):
Percent Complete: 52%
YPA: 7.6
TD: 8
INT: 1
Rating: 152
But, to make us feel better, how about Mallet:
CMP%: 43
YPA: 6.3
TD: 7
INT: 5
Rating: 105
Cool, Threet will be better as a Soph than Mallet!!!!(sarcasm??)
January 19th, 2009 at 4:40 PM ^
Holy shit you're an imbecile. We were 3-9 this past season. Henne played on a Rose Bowl team his freshman year. Maybe, just maybe it wasn't only the QBs that determined the results of those seasons?
January 19th, 2009 at 4:24 PM ^
What's the point? Threet wasn't good? I don't think this is something that needs to be argued.
January 19th, 2009 at 4:35 PM ^
What's the point?
What's the point?
I'm just worried about breaking up a boring day!!
January 19th, 2009 at 4:25 PM ^
Ladies and gentleman, this has been another episode of "Football Statistics Employed in Argument By Someone With Down's Syndrome".
January 19th, 2009 at 5:57 PM ^
Dex, I merely posted the statistics.
I made no argument. I drew no conclusions. I made no statements of any kind as to whether the statistics were good or bad.
Perhaps you had a bad experience with statistics when you were but a little tyke?
January 20th, 2009 at 12:11 AM ^
"I drew no conclusions."
I disagree.
"Cool, Threet will be better as a Soph than Mallet!!!!"
January 20th, 2009 at 8:12 AM ^
SJUblue, are you a MSM sports reporter?
You conveniently left off the next word in the quote which was "(sarcasm?)".
January 20th, 2009 at 8:18 AM ^
The use of sarcasm still implies an opinion.
January 20th, 2009 at 4:15 PM ^
Well, yes, you would be correct except you left off the "?" in the word.
It was "(sarcasm?)".
Which leaves the reader to determine whether I was being sarcastic or not. And, of course, if you don't know if I was being sarcastic or not, it is impossible to know my opinion. Hence, I was not stating an opinion.
The "?" was not by accident.
January 20th, 2009 at 4:18 PM ^
You are a fucking moron (sarcasm????)
January 20th, 2009 at 4:20 PM ^
What the fuck are you even talking about?
January 20th, 2009 at 4:33 PM ^
Chaos, Panic, and Disorder from the LAW -- My Work Here Is Done!!!
(No sarcasm, no "?", a statement of my absolute opinion.)
January 20th, 2009 at 4:36 PM ^
You are a fucking moron.
(No sarcasm, no "?", a statement of my absolute opinion.)
January 20th, 2009 at 4:40 PM ^
Thank you. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
January 20th, 2009 at 4:46 PM ^
I'll take your obsession with baiting us as flattery.
January 20th, 2009 at 5:31 PM ^
Well, let's see, I post statistics for Threet and Henne, Navarre, and Mallet as freshman on a thread about Threet.
And Dex (of the LAW) posts: "Ladies and gentleman, this has been another episode of "Football Statistics Employed in Argument By Someone With Down's Syndrome"."
And I am baiting you guys????
Who exactly is baiting who (or whom, who knows).
January 20th, 2009 at 8:23 AM ^
Right. Your sarcasm implies that Threet won't be better than hypothetical sophomore Mallett. That's called a "conclusion" by people with a fourth grade education.
January 20th, 2009 at 8:59 AM ^
Fuck you, elitist.
January 20th, 2009 at 6:13 PM ^
Sarcasm clearly referred to the word "cool". The sarcasm was quite clearly meant to reflect your unhappiness with Threet (as in "Awesome, Threet is so good"), not to refer to the trust you put in your position.
January 20th, 2009 at 6:26 PM ^
I have no idea if grammatically the words "(sarcasm?)" at the end of my sentence "clearly referred to the word cool" or not.
But, why do you think I put the "?" there if I meant the sentence as sarcastic? Why not just "(sarcasm)" without the "?"?
And, unless you have ESP, you would have no idea that "The sarcasm was quite clearly meant to reflect your unhappiness with Threet (as in "Awesome, Threet is so good"), not to refer to the trust you put in your position."
If you actually believe that the grammatical structure of a post can be used to literally tell what the poster is thinking, you don't know the internets.
January 20th, 2009 at 7:41 PM ^
"If you actually believe that the grammatical structure of a post can be used to literally tell what the poster is thinking, you don't know the internets."
You are correct. Some internet writers are so absurdly bad at simple English they cannot properly convey their ideas.
But the whole FUCKING (see how i capitalized for emphasis?) point of writing is to convey your meaning. So, yes, if your grammatical structure (or lack of) is too bizarre, wrong, and misguided to convey your point, it's your FUCKING problem.
January 20th, 2009 at 7:47 PM ^
Dex, I am sure none of your posts have ever been misinterpreted by another poster.
Want to tell me why you don't capitalize the title of any of your posts and why you did not capitalize "i" in the following:
"But the whole FUCKING (see how i capitalized for emphasis?) point of writing is to convey your meaning. So, yes, if your grammatical structure (or lack of) is too bizarre, wrong, and misguided to convey your point, it's your FUCKING problem."
Poor grammar my friend!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Notice all the "!")
January 21st, 2009 at 2:13 AM ^
"Cool, Threet will be better as a Soph than Mallet (sarcasm?)!!!!"
The literal meaning wasn't "Threet will be slightly better than Ryan Mallett, who sucked. That is definitely not cool," but it was "I have no idea what Threet's sophomore year will be like and will not draw conclusions on his Freshman year through a Ryan Mallett comparison."
Do you expect people with brains to believe that?
January 21st, 2009 at 9:03 AM ^
He's going to say "yes".
January 21st, 2009 at 12:37 PM ^
Yes. But, of course, that would exclude some (those without brains).
January 21st, 2009 at 12:44 PM ^
Last word.
January 21st, 2009 at 12:46 PM ^
From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_mark
The question mark can also be used as a "meta" sign to signal uncertainty regarding what precedes. It is usually put between brackets (?). The uncertainty may concern either a superficial (unsure spelling) or a deeper (truth, real meaning) level.