THE PAC 12 THREAD v.3

[WizardHawk]

UW doesn't have another player that would have been close to his performance today. Guess you can question Coach P and a Duck all you want. But it is blatantly obvious he was needed on O today. Congrats on your big win.

Come on, you really can't be this stupid. It's an act right?

Yes, UW doesn't score as much with him on the other side of the ball....

But with him on the other side of the ball NEITHER DOES COLORADO. How are you not getting that? He's a huge difference maker no matter where he lines up. He started at safety for UW last year and played several positions on defense and kicked ass in ALL OF THEM. He's a freak that just plays ball anywhere.

Use logic. The score would be different for both teams and given how many turnovers, sacks, drops for a loss, etc there was without him, it's reasonable to bet it would have been even worse with him.

Use your head man. It's good for something besides a hat rack.

 

[TheLonestarDUCK]

So you disagree with Coach P to flip him?

 

[WizardHawk]

Wallace man, sorry about the game results. Mannion sets a new benchmark for the conference and it's on a night with a home loss. I feel for ya brother.

Cal is pretty legit this year though. If they find some defense next season they end up upsetting at least one big team in conference. They are really building something down there.

 

[TheDayMan]

Come on, you really can't be this stupid. It's an act right?

Yes, UW doesn't score as much with him on the other side of the ball....

But with him on the other side of the ball NEITHER DOES COLORADO. How are you not getting that? He's a huge difference maker no matter where he lines up. He started at safety for UW last year and played several positions on defense and kicked ass in ALL OF THEM. He's a freak that just plays ball anywhere.

Use logic. The score would be different for both teams and given how many turnovers, sacks, drops for a loss, etc there was without him, it's reasonable to bet it would have been even worse with him.

Use your head man. It's good for something besides a hat rack.

He's still trying to figure out why no one took his "but the fox sports guys said it" argument seriously.

 

[WizardHawk]

So you disagree with Coach P to flip him?

Of course not. Are you fucking high man?

UW had 5 scholarship backs going into this season and all but 1 are out hurt. The one left has had 3 ACL surgeries in 3 years. He was needed on that side for sure.

I'm just not getting how you don't understand what happens when he IS on defense though. It's not like it was a 1 pt game or something. With Shaq on that side the defense is a different critter, especially in the tackling department. He replacement blew many tackles. It's an entirely different game.

Just think this through man. I know you have to have it in you. You just can't be this dense.

 

[Ironbreaker]

So you disagree with Coach P to flip him?

In a permanent capacity, yes, I would disagree with that.


I don't think it happens once Coleman and Washington are healthy. Which should be next week.

Shaq will get some carries, but whats going to happen is people will discover UCLA isn't Colorado and that the personnel on the field arent the main problem.


Some of us know this already.

 

[nddulac]

filhty basthasties you face!

 

[TheLonestarDUCK]

Why am I responding? I said it in he third quarter, their panel of experts discussed after the game. Plain and simple, if they leave him on D and have their 3rd & 4th depth chart backs play - they lose. Of course the score would have been different, but due to the lack of depth, it gave the Huskies the best chance to win. sheece how can you argue that.

 

[Ironbreaker]

Coleman and Washington were #1 and #2 before they got hurt...

 

[WizardHawk]

I give up. It appears you just can't fix stupid.

 

[WizardHawk]

22 seconds left and the 2pt game of the week is very up in the air. Gotta love it. IB is sitting on a perfect night. Utah wins and it's all him. ASU wins and it's a new battle.

 

[TheLonestarDUCK]

You're in the minority if you think you win if he plays D and not O today.

 

[TheDayMan]

Why am I responding? I said it in he third quarter, their panel of experts discussed after the game. Plain and simple, if they leave him on D and have their 3rd & 4th depth chart backs play - they lose. Of course the score would have been different, but due to the lack of depth, it gave the Huskies the best chance to win. sheece how can you argue that.

Well, you went from "UW loses the game without Shaq playing RB" to "because of a lack of depth, playing RB gave them the best chance to win." So maybe the absurdity of how you started out is starting to sink in and you're trying to turn it into a reasonable discussion. I don't know...

And I feel like you're still missing (and apparently the Fox Sports guys were as well) that there is no 3rd and 4th backs on the depth chart who are available to play.

 

[WizardHawk]

Looking a lot like overtime. If you aren't already watching it, you are missing a whale of a game.

 

[Ironbreaker]

You're in the minority if you think you win if he plays D and not O today.

So what?

Everyones happy he had a great game and are riding the wave.

Fact is it was against the worst run D in the conference. If healthy our backs would have had a decent game and Shaq would have been a monster on D.

I think they win.

Big fucking deal. It didnt happen and we won anyway.


Onto UCLA.

 

[WizardHawk]

Well, you went from "UW loses the game without Shaq playing RB" to "because of a lack of depth, playing RB gave them the best chance to win." So maybe the absurdity of how you started out is starting to sink in and you're trying to turn it into a reasonable discussion. I don't know...

And I feel like you're still missing (and apparently the Fox Sports guys were as well) that there is no 3rd and 4th backs on the depth chart who are available to play.

Just give up man. He's on another planet and just looking to stir up drama. The fact is UW did win. They did what they had to and won. All he's doing is trying to create some kind of reason to still make fun of them despite the win and it's sad really. Leave him to his stupidity. I have for sure.

 

[TheLonestarDUCK]

Well, you went from "UW loses the game without Shaq playing RB" to "because of a lack of depth, playing RB gave them the best chance to win." So maybe the absurdity of how you started out is starting to sink in and you're trying to turn it into a reasonable discussion. I don't know...

And I feel like you're still missing (and apparently the Fox Sports guys were as well) that there is no 3rd and 4th backs on the depth chart who are available to play.

Everyone knows why he is playing RB - guess I should have typed slower.

 

[Ironbreaker]

...the closest comparison is the game vs Cal.

Healthy backs and Shaq on D vs pass happy O and a crappy d.

What happened there?

Ass kicking thats what.

 

[WizardHawk]

Utah played better than I thought they would after their big receiver went out hurt. Win or lose they played a hell of a game.

 

[TheLonestarDUCK]

Just give up man. He's on another planet and just looking to stir up drama. The fact is UW did win. They did what they had to and won. All he's doing is trying to create some kind of reason to still make fun of them despite the win and it's sad really. Leave him to his stupidity. I have for sure.

Wow - compliment the kid and say Coach P's decision worked is stirring up shit? Sensitive bunch of Huskies.