sleeper;1278056 wrote:Agreed. Their whole team is ridiculous. It's easy to recruit players when you don't have any academic standards, you don't self-report any violations, you over-sign and you can pay your players whenever you want.
I read the whole thing. You should've just left out the first part of that and stuck with "notre dame loses by 40"Crimson streak;1278055 wrote:I love you none of you read or quote the other part to that comment.
You said that you think they're gonna play two QB's going forward and you're not a fan of it? No, you said something to the effect of,"Tommy Rees will be the starter from now on. LOL"WebFire;1278029 wrote:But when I think it it's sour grapes. :thumbup:
Do we get to take away all of ND's mistakes/turnovers too? Are we going to consider gameplans (ND forcing Denard to stay in the pocket and throw to beat them) as well? Do I get to say,"If ND's o-line goes out there and dominates like they should've they win by a couple TD's"?WebFire;1278035 wrote:Is the "if" game that I said Michigan wins "if" Michigan doesn't turn it over 6 times? Do you disagree?
I don't like 2 QB systems and I laugh at Kelly's musical QB strategy. I was making fun of Rees being the starter because he led the team to a TD. Kelly's QB system is a what have you done for me lately. Timing is everything when reading things on a message board. Which you apparently don't grasp.killer_ewok;1278061 wrote:You said that you think they're gonna play two QB's going forward and you're not a fan of it? No, you said something to the effect of,"Tommy Rees will be the starter from now on. LOL"
Hopefully you can see that's not the same thing.
Do we get to take away all of ND's mistakes/turnovers too? Are we going to consider gameplans (ND forcing Denard to stay in the pocket and throw to beat them) as well? Do I get to say,"If ND's o-line goes out there and dominates like they should've they win by a couple TD's"?
We can play that game all day. It's easy to look for excuses, IF's and to discredit a team by saying they won because the other team "didn't play well." Yeah, because ND had nothing to do with it. It's sour grapes on your part.
You're trying too hard to look way too far into what I am saying and argue about it. Of course ND had something to do with it. Michigan wouldn't have lost if there was no other team on the field.killer_ewok;1278061 wrote:
We can play that game all day. It's easy to look for excuses, IF's and to discredit a team by saying they won because the other team "didn't play well." Yeah, because ND had nothing to do with it. It's sour grapes on your part.
No, I grasp it and agree that timing is everything....hence multiple people on here pointing out your sour grapes comments during and right after the game.WebFire;1278067 wrote:I don't like 2 QB systems and I laugh at Kelly's musical QB strategy. I was making fun of Rees being the starter because he led the team to a TD. Kelly's QB system is a what have you done for me lately. Timing is everything when reading things on a message board. Which you apparently don't grasp.
And the rest of your post is retarded. And sure, we can take away your TOs, since the first one Michigan couldn't even capitalize on.
Speaking of trying too hard and arguing.........you just refuse to give ND any credit for beating your team. Whatever makes you feel better about the L, I guess.WebFire;1278068 wrote:You're trying too hard to look way too far into what I am saying and argue about it. Of course ND had something to do with it. Michigan wouldn't have lost if there was no other team on the field.
From last year's ND-Michigan game thread:killer_ewok;1278075 wrote:Speaking of trying too hard and arguing.........you just refuse to give ND any credit for beating your team. Whatever makes you feel better about the L, I guess.
killer_ewok wrote:Yeah, I wanna give UM some credit but it's hard to when my team is 'tarding it up out there. We choked on applesauce two weeks in a row.
Not the same thing. Had webfire said that or something along those lines I would not have said anything to him about it. I didn't say that I wouldn't give them any credit....just said that it was hard to. There is a difference.sleeper;1278090 wrote:From last year's ND-Michigan game thread:
http://www.ohiochatter.com/forum/showthread.php?28210-9-10-(0-1)-Notre-Dame-(1-0)-Michigan...1st-night-game-ever-at-The-Big-House&p=891191&viewfull=1#post891191
Actually, if you read through the post-game comments on there....I didn't discredit them nor do I piss and moan and make sour grapes comments. In fact, you should go back and read more of it because it shows that I agreed with webfire and some of his assessments after the game. Hardly hypocritical as I didn't make negative comments about Michigan and repeatedly play the IF card. So, thanks for bringing that up because it shows when I was on the other end of it.....I didn't do what webfire is doing this year. Thanks!sleeper;1278099 wrote:Typical response. Nowhere in that thread did you give Michigan credit. If you are going to be a hypocrite at least man up to it.
lolwutsleeper;1278101 wrote:It's like saying "I fucked your mom, but I did it in my head". Same thing. Nice fail though.
WebFire;1278136 wrote:Good luck with your season. You are pretty defensive for a team that won the game.
ND fans are defensive at all times. That's why its fun watching them lose because they rationalize useless stuff like "Well it was a close game" and "Well we would have won if our defense didn't give up those 3 TDs".WebFire;1278136 wrote:Good luck with your season. You are pretty defensive for a team that won the game.
Outside of the the turnovers, I was pleased with Michigan's play. I will be honest, I thought ND might blow us out. If you'd had told me Michigan would turn it over 6 times, I would have said the score would be 40 something to very little. But Michigan's defense played well.Pick6;1278111 wrote:Good win for ND. Surprised they held Michigan to 6 points, but also surprised at how bad Michigan played. Seems like it was a sloppy game with all of those turnovers and so little points.
WebFire;1278144 wrote:Outside of the the turnovers, I was pleased with Michigan's play. I will be honest, I thought ND might blow us out. If you'd had told me Michigan would turn it over 6 times, I would have said the score would be 40 something to very little. But Michigan's defense played well.
Sorry, is that sour grapes? I can't tell the difference on this thread.
sleeper;1278143 wrote:That's why its fun watching them lose
The more they win the more ND fans start talking about BCS wins. It'll just make that loss so much sweeter. Enjoy!killer_ewok;1278156 wrote:Not having much fun this season then, are you?
sleeper;1278377 wrote:The more they win the more ND fans start talking about BCS wins. It'll just make that loss so much sweeter. Enjoy!
You are being a complete douche, and for no reason. Enjoy your win you fucking crybaby.karen lotz;1278142 wrote:Fuck off and dry your eyes.
karen lotz;1278142 wrote:Fuck off and dry your eyes.
Reported for aggresive behavior on a message board.WebFire;1278466 wrote:You are being a complete douche, and for no reason. Enjoy your win you fucking crybaby.
Good. I hope I get an infraction.DeyDurkie5;1278479 wrote:Reported for aggresive behavior on a message board.