THE PAC12 THREAD v.4

[Olyduck]

Remains to be seen if either can come close to filling Adams shoes though. You have to admit that.

not worried about it. more worried about D but it would be hard to be worse

 

[WizardHawk]

There are 7 other teams in the Pac also breaking in new QB's and all of them should be worried, or at least concerned. Most will probably find someone at least serviceable, but you know all too well how easy it is for kids not to live up to expectations.

 

[socaljim242]

Both teams had a lot of really young guys. Both teams played like it. Washington just played like it a little less.

Wow really? I thought I was the only one that thought that.lol
Seriously USC kept handing the game to Washington and the Huskys would hand it back but USC insisted. lol.

 

[socaljim242]

So, I said they won't lose to Stanford or Oregon because of emotions in response to Oly. You do see that right?

Then I said there is a real difference in that aspect under Petersen compared to Sark. Got that?

Then YOU brought up the USC game which means what? I responded that they had a young team. Nowhere did I say anything about them not playing badly. I simply said it wasn't due to a trap game or emotion. Of course it was an ugly game. Never said or suggested otherwise. You simply don't know how to read.

They played plenty of bad games under Petersen, I just don't see traps or other preparation issues being the cause of them. Well prepared teams still lose. Teams with better athletes can still beat your best effort.

Now how much clearer do you need this?

Look man. I just said they played like shit. I offered no reason for it. I just said they played like shit. Both teams did. You said it wasn't because of trap game or emotions. Great good for you I didn't argue for or against either. But you still want to argue. You just argue for the sake or arguing. Now you agree they both played like shit. See that wasn't hard.

 

[trojanfan12]

Seriously USC kept handing the game to Washington and the Huskys would hand it back but USC insisted. lol.

Ever the polite and gracious hosts.

 

[trojanfan12]

Pac 12 not representing at all. When is the last time USC didnt have a first rounder?

Been awhile. In a weird way, almost a positive with the sanctions, we had so many young guys last year that all of our potential first rounders are still on the team.

 

[WizardHawk]

Look man. I just said they played like shit. I offered no reason for it. I just said they played like shit. Both teams did. You said it wasn't because of trap game or emotions. Great good for you I didn't argue for or against either. But you still want to argue. You just argue for the sake or arguing. Now you agree they both played like shit. See that wasn't hard.

So now after having absolutely nothing left to keep on your rant about you attempt to make this about me stirring up shit and trying to argue? You spend 2 pages of the boards time trying to make something out of nothing and then when you are entirely put back in place attempt to save face on your exit by blaming me.

How'd that work out for you?

 

[WizardHawk]

Oh look, the other person that doesn't know when to quit when they are behind downgraded my post.

You do know I take that as a VERY high sign that I'm winning right? I love being in people's heads.

 

[socaljim242]

Oh look, the other person that doesn't know when to quit when they are behind downgraded my post.

You do know I take that as a VERY high sign that I'm winning right? I love being in people's heads.

You've got it wrong. Your head is up your ass. You jumped into a conversation between two others and tried to explain something no one was asking. Good job on that. Then you get your jollies seeing the replys when I try to explain to you that no one was arguing against your point. Now you're "winning" . Winning what? Made up games in your head? You should take that as a sign you're paranoid and clueless.

 

[socaljim242]

Been awhile. In a weird way, almost a positive with the sanctions, we had so many young guys last year that all of our potential first rounders are still on the team.

Better that the talent is still on the team rather than the years the three or four top guys are gone.

 

[WizardHawk]

You've got it wrong. Your head is up your ass. You jumped into a conversation between two others and tried to explain something no one was asking. Good job on that. Then you get your jollies seeing the replys when I try to explain to you that no one was arguing against your point. Now you're "winning" . Winning what? Made up games in your head? You should take that as a sign you're paranoid and clueless.

Do you honestly believe that if you keep posting the same nonsense over and over again that it will turn into truth? It's really not working for you.

YOU made a comment to me, not the other way around. And now have been in denial for pages over the outcome of it. Laughable, but sad at the same time.

 

[socaljim242]

Do you honestly believe that if you keep posting the same nonsense over and over again that it will turn into truth? It's really not working for you.

YOU made a comment to me, not the other way around. And now have been in denial for pages over the outcome of it. Laughable, but sad at the same time.

The outcome is you look like a nut. I said two teams played like shit. You agreed 4-5 posts later. That was my only point. The Duck fan offered his opinion on you team. So what the hell are you arguing about with me?

 

[WizardHawk]

Do I need to post the quotes and embarrass you yet again?

I responded to something OLY said. And simply said I haven't seen them play badly because of emotion (trap game etc) under Petersen. Then YOU said did I even watch the USC game.

Tell us what that post of YOURS meant given the context it was in reply to.

Asked you that already once and you again won't/can't answer it because it will (again) make you look pretty stupid.

 

[socaljim242]

Do I need to post the quotes and embarrass you yet again?

I responded to something OLY said. And simply said I haven't seen them play badly because of emotion (trap game etc) under Petersen. Then YOU said did I even watch the USC game.

Tell us what that post of YOURS meant given the context it was in reply to.

Asked you that already once and you again won't/can't answer it because it will (again) make you look pretty stupid.

I said they played like crap both of them. Did I say your emotion and trap game explanation was wrong? No I didn't .I said they just played like crap. I even said young teams can still play like crap and experienced teams can play like crap.

 

[WizardHawk]

We saw the team not look prepared more than once under Sark. Can't say I recall any under Petersen. Now I do think Petersen screwed up the end of the zona game in his first season and cost them that win and I'm sure not saying they didn't have performance issues, but those happen with college kids. Petersen has done a great job in getting them focused on the day to day aspect of the game and sticking to the goals of just getting better practice after practice. The results are obvious to anyone who watched both Sark's version of the team and this one.

Did you watch the SC Washington game? Both teams looked like drunk Sark was coaching them.

OK, I guess you aren't done yet being shown up so why not another try.

Your quote directly quoted mine above. Mine was entirely saying I haven't seen them fold under the emotion of a game. That was ALL I said.

And you replied "Did you watch the SC Washington game?"

What would any reasonable person conclude that question meant? I would suspect they would believe you were pointing out they looked like the emotion of the game got to them. Even more so with the Sark reference as I had said they played down in several games under him.

You can keep backpedaling all you like, but I'll just keep using your own words against you. This really is too easy.

 

[trojanfan12]

Better that the talent is still on the team rather than the years the three or four top guys are gone.

 

[socaljim242]

OK, I guess you aren't done yet being shown up so why not another try.

Your quote directly quoted mine above. Mine was entirely saying I haven't seen them fold under the emotion of a game. That was ALL I said.

And you replied "Did you watch the SC Washington game?"

What would any reasonable person conclude that question meant? I would suspect they would believe you were pointing out they looked like the emotion of the game got to them. Even more so with the Sark reference as I had said they played down in several games under him.

You can keep backpedaling all you like, but I'll just keep using your own words against you. This really is too easy.

They did look like drunk Sark was coaching them. Good lord you're being such a little whiner. You're trying to make something out of nothing. I said coach Peterson was a good coach. I just said it was a sloppy game by both teams. Is that the end of the world for you? Do you really have to go on and on? What are you going to do when Duck fans really say shit to you about your team? Oh wait we know what you'll do.

 

[WizardHawk]

They did look like drunk Sark was coaching them. Good lord you're being such a little whiner. You're trying to make something out of nothing. I said coach Peterson was a good coach. I just said it was a sloppy game by both teams. Is that the end of the world for you? Do you really have to go on and on? What are you going to do when Duck fans really say shit to you about your team? Oh wait we know what you'll do.

Just as I predicted. More useless BS trying to stir up something instead of just manning up and admitting you took something out of context and tried to make drama out of boredom.

I said this team doesn't show those same weaknesses, you said I must not have seen the game last year, I said I sure did but both played badly and it had zero to do with emotion and then you went off on some crazy tangent trying to stir up shit for at least 3 pages now.

 

[trojanfan12]

Just as I predicted. More useless BS trying to stir up something instead of just manning up and admitting you took something out of context and tried to make drama out of boredom.

I said this team doesn't show those same weaknesses, you said I must not have seen the game last year, I said I sure did but both played badly and it had zero to do with emotion and then you went off on some crazy tangent trying to stir up shit for at least 3 pages now.

 

[WizardHawk]

View attachment 112852

Oh come now. You know damned well I feed trolls for fun. This was a fabricated controversy created by someone with nothing better to do over the off season.