tiger88 934 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Now that is funny! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Never2Yield 1,005 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 HAHAHA I love that you just went to dictionary.com and looked up the definition for real. Nice work. And it WAS an intentional and obvious exaggeration to say that any person alive should have been able to win with that team. The exaggeration is to make the point that with the players we had that year and all the leadership and drive to be winners, it wouldn't take much of coach to win. As far as buying and selling goes.. are you really trying to sell that Gene Chizik is the only coach that could have won with Cam Newton at QB, Emory Blake as our WORST WR, Lutzie at TE, Mike Dyer at RB and an offensive line fit for the NFL? Sorry but it's hard to buy that. 1. I was well aware of what a hyperbole was when this threaded started. I did go to dictionary.com to get the exact definition, because I have found that people who attempt to call you out for grammar/vocabulary usage are often douche nozzles that will call you out again if you don't use the exact definition. Your trip to dictionary.com verifies that you used a word you that you werent sure of the meaning of and then had to double check, but I digress. 2. Nothing you have said explains why you would make a hyperbolic statement and then expect agreement on the statement. There are plenty of loons on this board who say crazier things than you said in complete seriousness. Don't assume people know when you are being completely serious or not. 3. Now, you try to turn the argument around to indicate that I am saying no other coach but Chizik could have won it with that team??? Really? That is funny. You are either a bit askew in your reasoning, a person who intentionally debates irrationally to throw his opponents off, or a younger person. If you're a teenager, I apologize for calling you out. I would just ignore you if that's the case. For the record there are probably more than a handful Or two of coaches that very possibly could have won the NC with that team. No guarantee whatsoever that a single one of them does. The list of those who would have mucked it up is endless (hyperbole). Now, now ladies... play nicely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiger88 934 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 HAHAHA I love that you just went to dictionary.com and looked up the definition for real. Nice work. And it WAS an intentional and obvious exaggeration to say that any person alive should have been able to win with that team. The exaggeration is to make the point that with the players we had that year and all the leadership and drive to be winners, it wouldn't take much of coach to win. As far as buying and selling goes.. are you really trying to sell that Gene Chizik is the only coach that could have won with Cam Newton at QB, Emory Blake as our WORST WR, Lutzie at TE, Mike Dyer at RB and an offensive line fit for the NFL? Sorry but it's hard to buy that. 1. I was well aware of what a hyperbole was when this threaded started. I did go to dictionary.com to get the exact definition, because I have found that people who attempt to call you out for grammar/vocabulary usage are often douche nozzles that will call you out again if you don't use the exact definition. Your trip to dictionary.com verifies that you used a word you that you werent sure of the meaning of and then had to double check, but I digress. 2. Nothing you have said explains why you would make a hyperbolic statement and then expect agreement on the statement. There are plenty of loons on this board who say crazier things than you said in complete seriousness. Don't assume people know when you are being completely serious or not. 3. Now, you try to turn the argument around to indicate that I am saying no other coach but Chizik could have won it with that team??? Really? That is funny. You are either a bit askew in your reasoning, a person who intentionally debates irrationally to throw his opponents off, or a younger person. If you're a teenager, I apologize for calling you out. I would just ignore you if that's the case. For the record there are probably more than a handful Or two of coaches that very possibly could have won the NC with that team. No guarantee whatsoever that a single one of them does. The list of those who would have mucked it up is endless (hyperbole). Now, now ladies... play nicely. I tend to take it to the next level when someone plays the grammar/spelling/vocabulary card. It's all good fun on my end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Never2Yield 1,005 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 HAHAHA I love that you just went to dictionary.com and looked up the definition for real. Nice work. And it WAS an intentional and obvious exaggeration to say that any person alive should have been able to win with that team. The exaggeration is to make the point that with the players we had that year and all the leadership and drive to be winners, it wouldn't take much of coach to win. As far as buying and selling goes.. are you really trying to sell that Gene Chizik is the only coach that could have won with Cam Newton at QB, Emory Blake as our WORST WR, Lutzie at TE, Mike Dyer at RB and an offensive line fit for the NFL? Sorry but it's hard to buy that. 1. I was well aware of what a hyperbole was when this threaded started. I did go to dictionary.com to get the exact definition, because I have found that people who attempt to call you out for grammar/vocabulary usage are often douche nozzles that will call you out again if you don't use the exact definition. Your trip to dictionary.com verifies that you used a word you that you werent sure of the meaning of and then had to double check, but I digress. 2. Nothing you have said explains why you would make a hyperbolic statement and then expect agreement on the statement. There are plenty of loons on this board who say crazier things than you said in complete seriousness. Don't assume people know when you are being completely serious or not. 3. Now, you try to turn the argument around to indicate that I am saying no other coach but Chizik could have won it with that team??? Really? That is funny. You are either a bit askew in your reasoning, a person who intentionally debates irrationally to throw his opponents off, or a younger person. If you're a teenager, I apologize for calling you out. I would just ignore you if that's the case. For the record there are probably more than a handful Or two of coaches that very possibly could have won the NC with that team. No guarantee whatsoever that a single one of them does. The list of those who would have mucked it up is endless (hyperbole). Now, now ladies... play nicely. I tend to take it to the next level when someone plays the grammar/spelling/vocabulary card. It's all good fun on my end. Hey it's late, we should probably all be sleep by now any. With that, goodnight everybody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiger88 934 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 I'm right behind you. Took a nap earlier or I'd already be there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburn4Winners 0 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 HAHAHA I love that you just went to dictionary.com and looked up the definition for real. Nice work. And it WAS an intentional and obvious exaggeration to say that any person alive should have been able to win with that team. The exaggeration is to make the point that with the players we had that year and all the leadership and drive to be winners, it wouldn't take much of coach to win. As far as buying and selling goes.. are you really trying to sell that Gene Chizik is the only coach that could have won with Cam Newton at QB, Emory Blake as our WORST WR, Lutzie at TE, Mike Dyer at RB and an offensive line fit for the NFL? Sorry but it's hard to buy that. 1. I was well aware of what a hyperbole was when this threaded started. I did go to dictionary.com to get the exact definition, because I have found that people who attempt to call you out for grammar/vocabulary usage are often douche nozzles that will call you out again if you don't use the exact definition. Your trip to dictionary.com verifies that you used a word you that you werent sure of the meaning of and then had to double check, but I digress. 2. Nothing you have said explains why you would make a hyperbolic statement and then expect agreement on the statement. There are plenty of loons on this board who say crazier things than you said in complete seriousness. Don't assume people know when you are being completely serious or not. 3. Now, you try to turn the argument around to indicate that I am saying no other coach but Chizik could have won it with that team??? Really? That is funny. You are either a bit askew in your reasoning, a person who intentionally debates irrationally to throw his opponents off, or a younger person. If you're a teenager, I apologize for calling you out. I would just ignore you if that's the case. For the record there are probably more than a handful Or two of coaches that very possibly could have won the NC with that team. No guarantee whatsoever that a single one of them does. The list of those who would have mucked it up is endless (hyperbole). Look. You are obviously an intelligent person, but the arguments you're making, make me feel like that intelligence doesn't extend beyond grammar. It seems really convenient that you can blame me for having to look up the definition and then mock me for double checking it though. I guess I'm just not as good at making BS excuses. IN AN EFFORT TO APPEASE YOU: I would like to say that you are right. I shouldn't have said that everyone would agree with me. I should realize that every website like this is gonna have absolutely ridiculous people that believe that only CGC is capable of being a winner. (Unfortunately not a hyperbole) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiger88 934 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 HAHAHA I love that you just went to dictionary.com and looked up the definition for real. Nice work. And it WAS an intentional and obvious exaggeration to say that any person alive should have been able to win with that team. The exaggeration is to make the point that with the players we had that year and all the leadership and drive to be winners, it wouldn't take much of coach to win. As far as buying and selling goes.. are you really trying to sell that Gene Chizik is the only coach that could have won with Cam Newton at QB, Emory Blake as our WORST WR, Lutzie at TE, Mike Dyer at RB and an offensive line fit for the NFL? Sorry but it's hard to buy that. 1. I was well aware of what a hyperbole was when this threaded started. I did go to dictionary.com to get the exact definition, because I have found that people who attempt to call you out for grammar/vocabulary usage are often douche nozzles that will call you out again if you don't use the exact definition. Your trip to dictionary.com verifies that you used a word you that you werent sure of the meaning of and then had to double check, but I digress. 2. Nothing you have said explains why you would make a hyperbolic statement and then expect agreement on the statement. There are plenty of loons on this board who say crazier things than you said in complete seriousness. Don't assume people know when you are being completely serious or not. 3. Now, you try to turn the argument around to indicate that I am saying no other coach but Chizik could have won it with that team??? Really? That is funny. You are either a bit askew in your reasoning, a person who intentionally debates irrationally to throw his opponents off, or a younger person. If you're a teenager, I apologize for calling you out. I would just ignore you if that's the case. For the record there are probably more than a handful Or two of coaches that very possibly could have won the NC with that team. No guarantee whatsoever that a single one of them does. The list of those who would have mucked it up is endless (hyperbole). Look. You are obviously an intelligent person, but the arguments you're making, make me feel like that intelligence doesn't extend beyond grammar. It seems really convenient that you can blame me for having to look up the definition and then mock me for double checking it though. I guess I'm just not as good at making BS excuses. IN AN EFFORT TO APPEASE YOU: I would like to say that you are right. I shouldn't have said that everyone would agree with me. I should realize that every website like this is gonna have absolutely ridiculous people that believe that only CGC is capable of being a winner. (Unfortunately not a hyperbole) I have issues following your logic train. No hard feelings I hope. Simmah down and good night! War Damn Eagle!! Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiljam08 0 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Wow. I hate to say this, but the position change isn't the most confusing thing in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DyeCampAlum 335 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 I'd find that move pretty disturbing, to be honest. We were heavily counting on that group of DB recruits. Rose is gone. Florence isn't there yet, which is ok. Whitehead, the least heralded one, is the one who has done the most. We need at least 3 of those guys to become SEC winners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUpreacherman22 3,892 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 This has got to be a joke. There is no way you move your starting cornerback to 5th string runningback! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DyeCampAlum 335 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Look, I get that the coaches see what we don't. There are lots of reasons a highly recruited kid might not work out at his initial position, and lots of things that can happen during a young man's career. But here's why I'm concerned. If we want to compete with Bama, LSU, and Georgia in 2013, that class of DBs has to be playing winning SEC ball. There's no way around it. And signs aren't encouraging at this point. I'll even go more negative. Let's give the current coaches credit for Emory Blake. Beyond Blake, we've developed exactly zero SEC winning players at WR, LB, and DB. That's hard to swallow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarEagle123 28 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Chizik is not going to let him switch positions because he wants to. CGC is paid millions of dollars to win football games. If he thinks it will help the team then I trust his decision. That's why I am sitting at home and he is running the program. War Eagle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellitor 33,114 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 His offense highlights start at 4:30 for any one that is curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUIH1 1,515 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 This is a curious move to me as well. On another board, a poster said that Therezie has been VERY frustrated that he has not worked his way back up the depth chart since his injury. wde Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AuburnSoldier 117 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Those highlights were not very impressive. Jay Jacobs had better start passing out the pink slips. Purple is this season's yellow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gravejd 3,272 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Wow.....i'm going to hold off on calling the coaches idiots right now but reserve the right to do so at a later date. Perhaps Therezie is going to be the second coming at RB but our attrocious secondary can use some help and I was hoping this guy was going to provide some help back there. Guess we'll see how this plays out. Really hoping this isn't true or that he'll be playing both ways. I saw the title to this thread and my first thought was "I can't wait to see him at safety!".....maybe the coaches know something we don't about our current group of RBs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdover 0 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 This has got to be a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellitor 33,114 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 This has got to be a joke. No joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,542 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Therezie RB highlights from HS: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DyeCampAlum 335 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 My last few posts on the board have been mostly negative, but I do not feel negative about this team or this program. We're about where I thought we'd be, which is about where we should be. There's only so much the coaches can do if a kid says he wants a move. They can say no, but then they have a discouraged player. Maybe he'll see what's really going on at RB and move back. Maybe (please, no) he'll transfer. I have no clue what's going on. But this move concerns me a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Autigers71 0 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Moving a guy from CB to RB during the season does not sound like a calculated move. That would have been done in the off season. This seems to be more of an o'crap moment or dissension in the ranks. So this makes 3 - 4* DB's from the 11 class that have transferred out, changed position or not even on the depth chart. WOW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,542 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Have any of your worryworts considered that Therezie was buried on the depth chart at corner and simply asked for a shot at RB to get on the field sooner? Judging by the fact that Mason and McCalebb got 98% of the carries in the first game, the coaches are either having some trust issues with Blakely and Grant or they are not 100% healthy, so maybe RT sees an opportunity. Bottom line: it just isn't that big of a deal to warrant all this fretting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRush 0 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 This Saturday's version of AU Everyday is gonna be like an episode of The Twilight Zone!!! true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUenginerd 16 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 I don't even know what to say about this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdover 0 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Have any of your worryworts considered that Therezie was buried on the depth chart at corner and simply asked for a shot at RB to get on the field sooner? Judging by the fact that Mason and McCalebb got 98% of the carries in the first game, the coaches are either having some trust issues with Blakely and Grant or they are not 100% healthy, so maybe RT sees an opportunity. Bottom line: it just isn't that big of a deal to warrant all this fretting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.