Fulmer Just BBQ'd Kiffin on CBS College Sports

#851
#851
BigPapaVol said:
Why interrupt fantasyland with pesky little facts?

See, actual facts don't work in fantasyland. One needs half of the story stats, conjecture, projections or flat out lies to make that place work. Please try to accommodate, as Gibbs apparently needs the alternate reality to function.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Fine, but I hope sooner or later the kid in the avatar gets to read gibbs' posts. Really his only chance to overcome the poor genetic material he's inherited is to use shame as a motivator.
 
#852
#852
kptvol said:
Fine, but I hope sooner or later the kid in the avatar gets to read gibbs' posts. Really his only chance to overcome the poor genetic material he's inherited is to use shame as a motivator.
Click to expand...

Can't they medicate some of the insanity out these days?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#853
#853
BigPapaVol said:
Why interrupt fantasyland with pesky little facts?

See, actual facts don't work in fantasyland. One needs half of the story stats, conjecture, projections or flat out lies to make that place work. Please try to accommodate, as Gibbs apparently needs the alternate reality to function.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Perhaps the avatar is him. He operates on that mental level.

GSM
 
#855
#855
Uh, clearly Langley is listed as a starter in that list. At best, you can claim he is a co-starter as neither have been bolded. And, no, because he's listed second means nothing; there are a few second listing Bolded as starters.

So, it's over, Rock. You lost. There is a BCS starter in a position we desperately need. It's conceivable having Langley here right now could be the difference between a W and an L.

PS - my son can already mentally out-wrestle the GoF. To say nothing of my daughter!
 
#858
#858
utgibbs said:
Uh, clearly Langley is listed as a starter in that list. At best, you can claim he is a co-starter as neither have been bolded. And, no, because he's listed second means nothing; there are a few second listing Bolded as starters.

So, it's over, Rock. You lost. There is a BCS starter in a position we desperately need. It's conceivable having Langley here right now could be the difference between a W and an L.

PS - my son can already mentally out-wrestle the GoF. To say nothing of my daughter!
Click to expand...

uh, the bolds indicate returning starters expected to be playing this season. Maybe the lack of bold at many positions would have helped you. The lone guy bolded in the two hole isn't even counted in returning starter numbers. Maybe you're new to this depth chart thing, but your explanation is one of the most elementary I've ever seen in trying to support silliness.

You're as wrong as two boy scouts humping, but if you were right, starting at DT in Lubbock is hardly the endorsement you're seeking in trying to pretend that we've run off a herd of all stars.

Time to make up some new stats.
 
#859
#859
utgibbs said:
Uh, clearly Langley is listed as a starter in that list. At best, you can claim he is a co-starter as neither have been bolded. And, no, because he's listed second means nothing; there are a few second listing Bolded as starters.

So, it's over, Rock. You lost. There is a BCS starter in a position we desperately need. It's conceivable having Langley here right now could be the difference between a W and an L.

PS - my son can already mentally out-wrestle the GoF. To say nothing of my daughter!
Click to expand...

All things considered, I'd think he'd be lights out at math and poor at driving.
 
#860
#860
BigPapaVol said:
uh, the bolds indicate returning starters expected to be playing this season. Maybe the lack of bold at many positions would have helped you. The lone guy bolded in the two hole isn't even counted in returning starter numbers. Maybe you're new to this depth chart thing, but your explanation is one of the most elementary I've ever seen in trying to support silliness.

You're as wrong as two boy scouts humping, but if you were right, starting at DT in Lubbock is hardly the endorsement you're seeking in trying to pretend that we've run off a herd of all stars.

Time to make up some new stats.
Click to expand...

Gibbs exposed again; this time in 2 threads. Perhaps he is consulting with his Mensa babies. I am sure that he will return later hoping that evidence of his failure is hidden by a couple of pages and his tormenters are off line. It is just what he does.
 
#863
#863
utgibbs said:
Uh, clearly Langley is listed as a starter in that list. At best, you can claim he is a co-starter as neither have been bolded. And, no, because he's listed second means nothing; there are a few second listing Bolded as starters.

So, it's over, Rock. You lost. There is a BCS starter in a position we desperately need. It's conceivable having Langley here right now could be the difference between a W and an L.

PS - my son can already mentally out-wrestle the GoF. To say nothing of my daughter!
Click to expand...

Yeah, clearly they just listed the two guys there. I guess Wade comes before Langley in whatever alphabet Scout is using.
 
#864
#864
VolDad said:
Gibbs exposed again; this time in 2 threads. Perhaps he is consulting with his Mensa babies. I am sure that he will return later hoping that evidence of his failure is hidden by a couple of pages and his tormenters are off line. It is just what he does.
Click to expand...

Texas Tech - Team Notes - USATODAY.com

Two links; two times Langley declared starter.

I will admit, the babies helped! ;)

GSM. Wipe your nose, GoF; you just got played (again) :eek:lol:
 
#865
#865
kptvol said:
Yeah, clearly they just listed the two guys there. I guess Wade comes before Langley in whatever alphabet Scout is using.
Click to expand...

Langley is #98.

Just thought I throw in another non sequitir since that's what y'all are trying now.

Two links; Langley declared starter twice.

Guys, I'll gladly concede in two weeks if he doesn't start for TT. But right now, kpt's assertion that we have no formerly players who will "amount to anything" in Div 1 ball is patently false.
 
#866
#866
utgibbs said:
Guys, I'll gladly concede in two weeks if he doesn't start for TT. But right now, kpt's assertion that we have no formerly players who will "amount to anything" in Div 1 ball is patently false.
Click to expand...

I don't know that I've ever even posted the phrase "Div 1 ball" on this site
 
#867
#867
kptvol said:
I don't know that I've ever even posted the phrase "Div 1 ball" on this site
Click to expand...

Okay, man-up and go back and show us where you've said none of our dead-weight ex-players would amount to anything (paraphrasing to prevent more of your knavery).

Or do I need to bring back Tajh Boyd?

Just man-up and tell us what you have said then, please.

Regardless: two links; two Donald Langley.
 
#868
#868
utgibbs said:
Okay, man-up and go back and show us where you've said none of our dead-weight ex-players would amount to anything (paraphrasing to prevent more of your knavery).

Or do I need to bring back Tajh Boyd?

Just man-up and tell us what you have said then, please.

Regardless: two links; two Donald Langley.
Click to expand...

So, essentially what you've said is that the Scout link you've provided proves somehow that Langley is a co-starter. If you believe that, you have to then say that Boyd is not second string over Michael Wade on the other Scout depth chart you provided.
 
#869
#869
kptvol said:
So, essentially what you've said is that the Scout link you've provided proves somehow that Langley is a co-starter. If you believe that, you have to then say that Boyd is not second string over Michael Wade on the other Scout depth chart you provided.
Click to expand...

Again, multiple links on both demonstrating I was right.

I'll be the first to man-up and say he is not a starter in two weeks (unlike, cough-cough, the GoF).

But right now, he's a projected starter.
 
#871
#871
utgibbs said:
Again, multiple links on both demonstrating I was right.

I'll be the first to man-up and say he is not a starter in two weeks (unlike, cough-cough, the GoF).

But right now, he's a projected starter.
Click to expand...

You're right. That same source that lists Tyler Bray, Marlon Walls, and Ben Martin as starters for UT couldn't possibly be wrong.
 
#872
#872
utgibbs said:
Again, multiple links on both demonstrating I was right.

I'll be the first to man-up and say he is not a starter in two weeks (unlike, cough-cough, the GoF).

But right now, he's a projected starter.
Click to expand...

If he ends up being a starter, I'll concede that Lane Kiffin got rid of a guy that never contributed under Fulmer and couldn't find his way onto the field under Kiffin, who is now starting at a school famous for its lack of defense in a conference recently famous for its lack of defense.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top