Do you want to know UT's record when Lofton is held to single figures?

#2
#2
Yes, usually when an opponent places emphasis on shutting down an individual it is at the expense of shutting down other, sometimes capable individuals.

What's our record when he is out of the lineup? Like 3-5, right?
 
#3
#3
Seems obvious to me that you would be making a huge mistake by letting him even play because, if he gets zero points, then mathematically you can't lose. Right?

Thread reminds me of Monty Python and the Holy Grail and the "new science" scene. Witches burn, so does wood. Wood floats, so do ducks. Therefore, if she wieghs the same as a duck, she is made of wood and is therefore a witch.

This thread is not as funny as that scene. But the logic is about at an equal level.
 
#4
#4
lawgator1 said:
Monty Python and the Holy Grail and the "new science" scene. Witches burn, so does wood. Wood floats, so do ducks. Therefore, if she wieghs the same as a duck, she is made of wood and is therefore a witch.

.
Click to expand...
:eek:lol:great movie.
 
#5
#5
He's been in the lineup for every game this year. But last year we were 1-3 when he was out for four games. I am a huge Lofton fan. I was not trying to say that he is not valuable; he is HUGELY valuable to our team and everything we do. I was just trying to say that he does not have to GO OFF for us to win, even in big games. He only had 7 points in our big win at Memphis, for example.
 
#6
#6
lawgator1 said:
Seems obvious to me that you would be making a huge mistake by letting him even play because, if he gets zero points, then mathematically you can't lose. Right?

Thread reminds me of Monty Python and the Holy Grail and the "new science" scene. Witches burn, so does wood. Wood floats, so do ducks. Therefore, if she wieghs the same as a duck, she is made of wood and is therefore a witch.

This thread is not as funny as that scene. But the logic is about at an equal level.
Click to expand...


Again, the point of the thread is not that we don't need Lofton - without him we are not where we are or even close - it's that he does not have to score big for us to win.
 
#7
#7
surely you can forgive law for 'missing' the point of the thread, since the thread didn't really proclaim any kind of point; instead it just listed a stat and somehow magically expected us to infer what you eventually typed.
 
#8
#8
Did I insult/blame anyone? I missed that. I thought I just clarified the point of my thread.
 
#9
#9
Oldblood said:
Again, the point of the thread is not that we don't need Lofton - without him we are not where we are or even close - it's that he does not have to score big for us to win.
Click to expand...

lidderer said:
surely you can forgive law for 'missing' the point of the thread, since the thread didn't really proclaim any kind of point; instead it just listed a stat and somehow magically expected us to infer what you eventually typed.
Click to expand...


I knew what he meant. Trying to calm those who think that Lofton MUST play well and score a ton for you to win and that is simply not true. I know that. And agree.

But yes, the title and the brief initial post were easy pickins'!
 
#12
#12
Of course it's better when he scores and shoots well, but he does open up our offense because his man typically will NEVER help on defense which opens up driving/passing lanes.
 
#13
#13
lawgator1 said:
Seems obvious to me that you would be making a huge mistake by letting him even play because, if he gets zero points, then mathematically you can't lose. Right?
Click to expand...

LG, that is incorrect. The proper strategy is to bench him immediately whenever he gets to 7 points, insuring he cannot make double digits.
 
#14
#14
cotton said:
LG, that is incorrect. The proper strategy is to bench him immediately whenever he gets to 7 points, insuring he cannot make double digits.
Click to expand...


Excellent point, sir! Just one question. Who would insure that he doesn't get to ten points? State Farm? Allstate? Progressive? ....


Ooooooooh. You mean "ensure!"



(Sorry, insure/ensure is a pet peeve of mine)
 
#15
#15
lawgator1 said:
Excellent point, sir! Just one question. Who would insure that he doesn't get to ten points? State Farm? Allstate? Progressive? ....


Ooooooooh. You mean "ensure!"



(Sorry, insure/ensure is a pet peeve of mine)
Click to expand...

how can you even mention the others with state farm... aren't they the one sponsoring this NCAA... :eek:lol:
 
#18
#18
lawgator1 said:
Excellent point, sir! Just one question. Who would insure that he doesn't get to ten points? State Farm? Allstate? Progressive? ....
Ooooooooh. You mean "ensure!"



(Sorry, insure/ensure is a pet peeve of mine)
Click to expand...

Being an Allstate agency owner, I can tell you that I wouldn't take that risk.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top