Article: Woulard makes strong opening statement

[GaUSFBull]

11 minutes ago, Who'sYourData? said:

The backup QB is always the fan favorite on every team.  Every fan base would have the same discussion in this situation.  As proof, go look at any football message board ever.

If I was to go back and look at archives of Alabama's message board archives during the Greg McElroy years, do you think I'd see an example of what you're talking about?

What about during Cam Newton's year at Auburn?

What about Jameis Winston at FSU (his off-field issues at FSU don't really count here)?

Trip's comment about CWT is absolutely correct, but as you've proven irrational numerous times, I don't expect you to agree with it.  

[Bull-Hornz]

On 4/6/2016 at 0:30 PM, JTrue said:

No one ever disagreed with it. The only thing anyone ever said was that if AW looked as good as his potential, that he should get a look. Not one person said AW should start if QF was better.

Let me jump I to the fray  

In fact I think the most ridiculous statements have come from those who apparently are grown arse men with posters of QF over there bed and can't fathom any criticism about there baby Jesus. My memory is similar to your @JTrue, I haven't read one single person say that AW should start over QF, but any point that is not black or white is to subtle for some here...let the next battle begin 

[BullsFanInTX]

37 minutes ago, Who'sYourData? said:

Very few fan bases would have a QB debate in this or any other situation?

Seriously?  

The backup QB is always the fan favorite on every team.  Every fan base would have the same discussion in this situation.  As proof, go look at any football message board ever.

And it has absolutely nothing to do with CWT, despite your desire to twist people's words.  It has to do with the fact that QF has proven to be a very, very inconsistent passer of the football.  Any rational person would agree with that.  

One problem, AW is not the backup.  At present, he may be the 3rd stringer.

On your second statement, I completely disagree that "QF has proven to be a very, very inconsistent passer".  He is one of the most consistent deep ball throwers we've ever had, and due to that, Rodney Adams broke the school record for yardage, and most of those were not by dinks and dunks.  He also passed for 60% completion rate and had 22 TD's passing vs. 8 Int.  Those are great college numbers.  Not average, but well above average, if you take all the QB's in FBS.

Yes, he missed his share.  I am not blind to that fact, but what QB doesn't.  He absolutely rolled the second half of season. Team scored 50 points a game down the stretch. I totally disagree that he's "very, very inconsistent".   

 

[JTrue]

23 minutes ago, Bull-Hornz said:

Let me jump I to the fray  

In fact I think the most ridiculous statements have come from those who apparently are grown arse men with posters of QF over there bed and can't fathom any criticism about there baby Jesus. My memory is similar to your @JTrue, I haven't read one single person say that AW should start over QF, but any point that is not black or white is to subtle for some here...let the next battle begin 

There were definitely ones who thought AW should start, but as I said before, it was based on their belief he was better than QF. Not that he should start over QF without question. But now we're getting into the arguing for arguing's sake part of the thread for everyone since we've passed 5 pages. We've got people claiming there was some sort of mob calling for AW to start no matter what (not true, but its more fun that saying there were a lot of people who thought AW had the potential to start and he hasn't looked as good as hoped/anticipated, thereby rendering the competition a non-issue). We've got people bragging that they predicted QF would win the starting job (kudos, I predict Mack will be the starter next year at RB). We've got people openly rooting for AW to fail just because others openly wanted him to succeed (odd, since if AW lived up to his hype, he'd be an NFL prospect...not sure why anyone wouldn't want that). Whatever. QF is and should be the starter until he is clearly unseated. I don't care how CWT determines what that means since I'm not the one making the decision. I imagine it would be like every other coach has made that decision for 100 years in every sport. He goes, "Gee, I think this guy would give me a better chance to win based on... <insert rationale that only needs to make sense to the person who's job rests on the decision>"

Edited April 7, 2016 by JTrue

[Triple B]

29 minutes ago, Who'sYourData? said:

Very few fan bases would have a QB debate in this or any other situation?

Seriously?  

The backup QB is always the fan favorite on every team.  Every fan base would have the same discussion in this situation.  As proof, go look at any football message board ever.

And it has absolutely nothing to do with CWT, despite your desire to twist people's words.  It has to do with the fact that QF has proven to be a very, very inconsistent passer of the football.  Any rational person would agree with that.

Where did I say "any other situation"? I specifically said the "under the same circumstances". Thanks for living up to your well earned straw man rep.

First, the backup QB is always the fan favorite usually at the first sign of trouble for a not well entrenched starting qb. Only those with an agenda would think that description fits here at this point. "Very, very inconsistent passer" is a joke. Could he have been a better passer, absolutely. Most qb's can, but the qb position is not always just about completing passes but this has been pointed out ad nauseum and those that don't want to see, won't.

Second, I don't believe that AW was even designated the backup QB by those that matter when all this started.

Third, I didn't twist anybody's words pertaining to this being ultimately about CWT. It was a psychological evaluation via the Internet

[Bull-Hornz]

13 minutes ago, JTrue said:

There were definitely ones who thought AW should start, but as I said before, it was based on their belief he was better than QF. Not that he should start over QF without question. But now we're getting into the arguing for arguing's sake part of the thread for everyone since we've passed 5 pages. We've got people claiming there was some sort of mob calling for AW to start no matter what (not true, but its more fun that saying there were a lot of people who thought AW had the potential to start and he hasn't looked as good as hoped/anticipated, thereby rendering the competition a non-issue). We've got people bragging that they predicted QF would win the starting job (kudos, I predict Mack will be the starter next year at RB). We've got people openly rooting for AW to fail just because others openly wanted him to succeed (odd, since if AW lived up to his hype, he'd be an NFL prospect...not sure why anyone wouldn't want that). Whatever. QF is and should be the starter until he is clearly unseated. I don't care how CWT determines what that means since I'm not the one making the decision. I imagine it would be like every other coach has made that decision for 100 years in every sport. He goes, "Gee, I think this guy would give me a better chance to win based on... <insert rationale that only needs to make sense to the person who's job rests on the decision>"

Sry the post was intended to say "AW should start over QF if QF was better"...I got some weird timeout message while writing the post...

[JTrue]

1 minute ago, Bull-Hornz said:

Sry the post was intended to say "AW should start over QF if QF was better"...I got some weird timeout message while writing the post...

We're on the same page.

[MMW]

6 minutes ago, Triple B said:

It was a psychological evaluation via the Internet

It is totally unethical to perform psychological evaluations over the Internet.  Unless of course you got your degree online.  In which case, never mind.

[Bull-Hornz]

We all come here to commiserate during the off-season lol. By the way some of those posters taking so much pride on calling QF success have also made pretty outlandish predictions in the past, so you have to take them w/a grain of salt.

[GaUSFBull]

1 minute ago, Bull-Hornz said:

By the way some of those posters taking so much pride on calling QF success have also made pretty outlandish predictions in the past, so you have to take them w/a grain of salt.

Link?