September 26th, 2010 at 9:45 AM ^
Don't drink and post.
September 26th, 2010 at 9:47 AM ^
What is the sound of three (six) hands clapping?
September 26th, 2010 at 10:02 AM ^
I guess it's five o'clock somewhere...
September 26th, 2010 at 10:05 AM ^
Really you should think about it this way:
Two is one, and one is none. Remember kid, that's good advice.
September 26th, 2010 at 10:14 AM ^
Roandave, what team do you follow? Once you have answered that question, ask yourself this question, "What happens to my fav team when the starting QB gets injured and can't play?" Are you confident that your back up will be able to step in with out losing a beat? The answer to that question for ANY team is typically "No, I am not confident that the back up qb for my fav team (college or pro) can run the offense like the starter can."
And that's why we have THREE competent QBs (that will continue to get better).
And while it's your right to demonstrate how much of an asshat you are online, it's our right to point out just how much of an asshat you are.
September 26th, 2010 at 10:34 AM ^
And while it's your right to demonstrate how much of an asshat you are online, it's our right to point out just how much of an asshat you are.
And how much of an asshat are you if you go off on a rant about someone while completely misinterpreting their post?
He's not saying its a bad thing to have three quarterbacks. He's not agreeing that "if you have two quarterbacks you have none". He's making fun of that stupid statement, and making a positive comment about our embarrassment of riches at the position.
Maybe it wasn't the greatest post ever, but you just went off half-cocked and called the guy an asshat for something he didn't say.
September 26th, 2010 at 10:46 AM ^
The wording of the OP's last sentence looked a lot more like celebration/sarcasm/in your face than asshatness to me.
September 26th, 2010 at 10:18 AM ^
So I'm not exactly worried about this.
September 26th, 2010 at 10:22 AM ^
Post game on BTN, the reporter asked RR "Do you know yet who will start next week to open up the BT season? Are you not sure yet?" And he smiled and said... "Denard."
September 26th, 2010 at 10:25 AM ^
That saying applies to rotating QBs, dopey.
September 26th, 2010 at 10:31 AM ^
A starter that is probably the front-runner for the Heisman Trophy and 2 backups that can run the offense exceptionally well.
I don't know about you, but given that this is just about as ideal of a situation as you can imagine, I am not really sweating too much over it.
September 26th, 2010 at 10:33 AM ^
With thanks to Demar Dorsey 4ever:
September 26th, 2010 at 10:41 AM ^
The old saying that if you have two quarterbacks you don't have any refers to a totally different situation where you don't have a QB that has established himself as the leader. What happens then is that not just fans but players and coaches bicker over who should be the starter, which is awful for morale and execution. That's not our problem. Something like 95 percent of fans and practically all players and coaches (including Tate Forcier, however reluctantly) have accepted that Denard Robinson is the leader. But we have two guys who have shown they can step in and run the offense when needed.
September 26th, 2010 at 10:43 AM ^
"How many QB's DONT you have..." What a douchenozle remark. This is one of those situations where explaining reality is pointless. It's like trying to convince somene that evolution is real. They are so far gone from this planet already that nothing you say can change that. I just think people who don't believe in science shouldn't be able to use computers, cars, or any technology science has provided.
September 26th, 2010 at 10:59 AM ^
No. Just, no. He was making fun of the statement, not agreeing with it. It must be tough going through life being unable to detect sarcasm.
September 26th, 2010 at 11:46 AM ^
the interenet makes sarcasm harder to detect. I'm not sure you know what that word means, and I don't think it's what the OP is using it in his post either. Sarcasm can be defined as "harsh or bitter derision or irony; a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark..." There is certainly nothing ironic about his post, nor is is harsh or sneering. It's really just stupid if it's a joke, and wrong if it's not. Must be hard going through life not knowing what sarcasm is.
September 26th, 2010 at 4:57 PM ^
I'm not sure you know what that word means, and I don't think it's what the OP is using it in his post either. Sarcasm can be defined as "harsh or bitter derision or irony; a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark..." There is certainly nothing ironic about his post, nor is is harsh or sneering.
Oh, I know what sarcasm means. It appears that you still don't, despite cutting and pasting a dictionary definition.
Irony is when was is said is the opposite of the speaker's actual meaning. So yes, OP was being "ironic" when he suggested that having three quarterbacks is a problem. It was also an "ironical taunt", targeting at those who had earlier suggested that our having multiple quarterbacks meant that we had none. So the OP was certainly being sarcastic.
It would probably be simpler to just admit that you were wrong and that you misread the OP's intent, rather than trying to pick a fight and digging a deeper hole.
September 26th, 2010 at 12:13 PM ^
You're probably wrong.
September 26th, 2010 at 10:53 AM ^
Wow, it seemed like a pretty obvious joke to me. The OP was just kidding around.
September 26th, 2010 at 11:21 AM ^
certainly make a right.
September 26th, 2010 at 11:48 AM ^
Man, the snippiness is in rare form today.
The OP seems to be making a sarcastic point about the usual saw about needing a single QB not applying here when there are clearly 3 QBs on the roster who can run the offense. That said, this is Denard's team unless something absolutely horrible happens.
September 26th, 2010 at 11:52 AM ^
The OP just needs to get a cup of coffee and sober up.
September 26th, 2010 at 11:59 AM ^
September 26th, 2010 at 12:04 PM ^
I can't believe just how many people completely shifted on the fact that the OP was making a joke and not actually saying that we don't have any qbs. A little disappointing. A lot disappointing.
September 26th, 2010 at 12:18 PM ^
I think it's clear he was joking.
I just don't see the point of starting a thread for . . . this.
September 26th, 2010 at 12:20 PM ^
The fanbase is a bit twitchy today.
I don't so much enjoy the "riddle me this" type topics; you can probably do better OP.
September 26th, 2010 at 3:02 PM ^
You would have...three. That only one quarterback thing is more for the NFL, where big contracts and egos abound. In our system the more QBs we have the better.
Ask Purdue - they would like to have our "problem"
September 26th, 2010 at 3:48 PM ^
What we've really seen is that a lot of the cheesy old football clichés are out of date.
September 26th, 2010 at 4:07 PM ^
Relaaaax....
September 26th, 2010 at 5:21 PM ^
A man with one watch knows what time it is; a man with two watches is never quite sure.
A man with three watches should start the fastest one, redshirt the newest one and hope the other one doesn't transfer.
September 27th, 2010 at 11:25 AM ^
Whoa is all I gotta say.
Whimsy, not sarcasm.
If you can't be in a good mood after a blowout like that, when can you?