Chris Donald?

#51
#51
blamie said:
What in the world do you mean by this?

Did you mean Mayo instead of Cutcliffe? That's about the only thing that could make any sense out of this statement...
Click to expand...

I'm assuming he meant we obviously had a very good D and (he's postulating) that Cut could have brought the QB play up enough to complement the D sufficiently for us to have fielded a competitive team.
 
#52
#52
I think he just means if Cutcliffe stayed, the offense would've been decent as opposed to awful and with the D's solid play, we may have had a good season. He just didn't transition well from talking about the defense to talking about the offense.
 
#53
#53
hndog609 said:
I'm assuming he meant we obviously had a very good D and (he's postulating) that Cut could have brought the QB play up enough to complement the D sufficiently for us to have fielded a competitive team.
Click to expand...

That or he doesn't know the difference between Cut and Chief....
 
#54
#54
buckeyevol23 said:
I think he just means if Cutcliffe stayed, the offense would've been decent as opposed to awful and with the D's solid play, we may have had a good season. He just didn't transition well from talking about the defense to talking about the offense.
Click to expand...

I think this should have been obvious, plus when a person starts a new line or paragraph, it means a new thought.

Duh.
 
#55
#55
Outdors21 said:
I think this should have been obvious, plus when a person starts a new line or paragraph, it means a new thought.

Duh.
Click to expand...

When that new thought has nothing to do with the thoughts in the previous paragraph then a decent writer(who wouldn't do this to begin with) would at least make a little more effort at bridging the gap...

Going from linebackers to David Cutcliffe is far from an obvious transition
 
#56
#56
blamie said:
When that new thought has nothing to do with the thoughts in the previous paragraph then a decent writer(who wouldn't do this to begin with) would at least make a little more effort at bridging the gap...

Going from linebackers to David Cutcliffe is far from an obvious transition
Click to expand...


Agreed
 
#57
#57
Outdors21 said:
I think this should have been obvious, plus when a person starts a new line or paragraph, it means a new thought.

Duh.
Click to expand...

I would like to say that now that I understand what you meant I couldn't agree more...

With any semblance of a QB this year we beat Wyoming, we probably don't hand Auburn the winning TD, UCLA probably isn't close enough for Chavis' horrible scheming(that game) to matter, and we probably don't hand USCe 21 points which would have forced them to actually win it on offense which they wouldn't have been able to do....

There's 4 games and we're 9-3 instead of 5-7...

Of course we wouldn't have the excitement that we have now with Kiffin and his incoming staff(at least what we know of it so far)....

Don't get me wrong I did NOT want to lose and I'm not happy that we did....just saying that since things are how they are I'm looking on the bright side and I'm excited about what could be for a change instead of just hoping that Fulmer can lead us in backing our way into the SEC championship game again
 
#58
#58
...and that would have meant automatic contract extension for Fulmer and more of the same lack luster performance on the field and recruiting. I was all for Fulmer staying on going into 2008 as I didn't think you could make a rational case to the outside world of terminating him after a 10-4 season and appearance in the SECCG. However, he lost me in 2008...time for da change.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top