Any Portal News Yet

[grizzh8r]

Bruggman reading this right now - wtf did I do?

Nothing memorable...

[AFCAT]

This is a picture of a ham sandwich.

[coachouert]

This is a picture of a ham sandwich.

My dog’s breath smells like dogfood.

[lutecat]

I can’t believe we’re actually doing this regarding Bruggerman. Unbelievable.

He was late on reads, he was inaccurate, could only play under a clean pocket (couldn’t handle pressure) and had no escapability or ability to improvise. The lateness on reads and inability to improvise would lead one to think he didn’t read coverages well. Didn’t seem like he played with a plan. The rest of the evidence would be that prior to MSU and post MSU he did not exhibit any success. Perhaps all of the stops were just bad places for him though.

Finally, I don’t doubt he looked good in practice. That was one of the worst defenses I’ve ever seen at MSU. Maybe some of it was the pressure of game day. Honestly, it doesn’t matter. There’s a long list of players who were practice all stars but couldn’t do it in game. At the end of the day, only game day matters. Hopefully this wasn’t too shallow for yo Tom, doesn’t hardly compare to “somebody told me he was good in practice”, I realize, but it’s the best I can do.

Was it hard for you to do that? You seem put off that you had to provide some generic, boilerplate statements. Is that because you know you're making generic, boilerplate statements and you're afraid someone will point that out?

Actually, arguing? Actually, making a case? Actually, supporting a premise? This a college football board filled with college graduates. While not every college graduate gets a degree in a science, most have to take science classes to get a degree. Most science classes involve proving or providing evidence to support statements or citing other documents. So, if someone makes a statement (misspells a word (did I spell misspell, right?) and doesn't say a word to support a claim, such as, Bruggman wasn't good because everywhere he played he was bad or Bruggman wasn't good because he couldn't grasp the offense here or Bruggman was too slow or his arm was weak or he couldn't find open receivers. Anything! Anything at all! It's not hard to do.

Yes, it was very shallow. Those are all things that anyone could pull of their ass. If you really want to show off your acumen, why not tell us about someone that is bad before they're bad or good before they're good or good despite everyone not thinking they're good. Pick a player that no one thinks is good and tells us why they're good. Or pick a player that's considered good and tell why they actually aren't.

For instance, I don't think Randall Cunningham was all that good when he was with the Vikings. One player came on board (Moss), Johnson (not that good either, but he was having a career year before getting hurt) went down and RC has arguably the best year of his career. He's got Moss, Carter, Reed, a great OL, Robert Smith, LeRoy Hoard and they set the NFL record for points scored. He had a QB rating of 106.0, while his previous best was 91.6. He was 69-51 as a starter for his career, but that year (two years after retiring after a season in which he had his worst season as a starter) he was 13-1.

Pick any player from any sport who was or wasn't as good as everyone thought. Be enlightening, instead of punching down. No one needs to hear you preach to the choir. Tell everyone something they don't think.

I’m not going to go look at the games from that year to prove a point. I’m not sure if you expect me to remember more than the basics from those games, but no man, I don’t remember any specific plays. Wasn’t exactly enjoyable to watch in real time, don’t think I care to go back and watch to prove what we all know.

I’m not sure I get your point on preaching to the choir or saying something everybody doesn’t already thing. I was responding to an opinion that I don’t agree with, with my own opinion. If you think being enlightening is just having an opinion that’s contrary to public opinion, well, that explains a lot. If you think your basis of why he was “not bad” was any less shallow than what I said, again, that explains a lot. You’re welcome to your opinion, I’m welcome to mine, and I think I’m done with this discussion now. Nothing to say that we haven’t all said.

Also, winning isn’t a QB stat and anybody who uses that as a primarily argument doesn’t get the game.

Yes, having an opinion that is contrary to the norm and being able to explain why your opinion has validity is enlightening. It causes people to say, "Hey, I never looked at it that way! How enlightening! I never would've thought of that on my own."

I know you won't go back and look at anything. You have a history of not doing that. PBJ, plain potato chips, tapioca pudding and a Pepsi for lunch every day.

The whole premise of your “theory” is that the experts (a coaching staff who in their entire tenure here never found or developed a capable starting QB) said that the QB looked good in practice (where he was going up against a horrid defense) and that opinion matters more than what we actually saw in games. Tom, that’s not heightened thinking! It’s not enlightenment! It’s ignoring the factual reality because the “experts” said something. It’s ignoring those same “experts” benched said QB for an inexperienced 17 year old true freshman who didn’t know the offense! I suppose it’s great thinking if you’re into Skip Bayless, Stephen A Smith and the like, but that’s not really my cup of tea. Now if you wanted to say that Bruggman wasn’t as bad as he looked at MSU, I wouldn’t argue with you at all. We all know that the supporting cast makes a large difference on performance (which is why QB wins is a garbage statistic), but a good QB will still look good on a bad team. We didn’t see that with Bruggman.

Also, really weird you know my exact lunch order. Do I need to call HR to discuss your stalking? Let’s just keep it love notes at a distance, please.

What is my "theory?" LOL. You and others leave "that" out (about five times now), so I'm not sure if you know what it (he didn't suck) is. If I was trying to discredit someone's theory, I would first state what that theory is to eliminate any confusion about what we're discussing. You have left part of the "whole" premise also. So, you've left out what the theory is and didn't include everything in the premise, which means you're taking it out of context. This is what you seemingly always do. You have a hard time using words or reading them. You don't know what you're talking about or what I'm talking about, yet you persist. It's funny. You're backing off your original statement behind that smokescreen.

Are you saying Bruggman wasn't as bad as he looked at MSU or what do you mean by that exactly. If you wouldn't argue that, then where exactly is the line? I would like to know the difference between "didn't suck" and "wasn't as bad as he looked at MSU" is. I think he could've looked even worse than he did at MSU. Aside from Herbert, his targets were D'Agostino and Paige.

MSU has had QBs that never started a game in their careers and transferred to NAIA schools and didn't do all that well there either. Yet, there are fans (you?) here that think they never got a fair shot and not only didn't suck but were actually really good.




I don't watch sports much unless a team I like is playing. Never watch sports talk shows.

I don’t think I’ve ever said anything about a player not getting a fair shot here, but if you can show me where I’ve said that, or any proof of any of the shots you’ve been taking at me, I’m more than willing to admit I’m wrong.

You can't say that. You know who-aholic is is going to remember that you said something 20 years 5 months 22 days 16 hours 33 minutes and 13 second ago. He "remembers" everything....

[BigBruceBaker]

The guy who barely made 50% of this throws against Bryant?
Objectively, against his peers - he sucked.

He was at 47% completion and got benched for a 17year old that could cut and run.

I’ll say again, compared to his qb peers, he objectively sucked while playing college football games. Probably a super nice guy and could throw the hell out of the ball in 7v7, just wasn’t a college qb.

[Montanabob]

The guy who barely made 50% of this throws against Bryant?
Objectively, against his peers - he sucked.

He was at 47% completion and got benched for a 17year old that could cut and run.

I’ll say again, compared to his qb peers, he objectively sucked while playing college football games. Probably a super nice guy and could throw the hell out of the ball in 7v7, just wasn’t a college qb.

i was at the Idaho game. He should have been pulled sooner.

[SparkCat]

The guy who barely made 50% of this throws against Bryant?
Objectively, against his peers - he sucked.

He was at 47% completion and got benched for a 17year old that could cut and run.

I’ll say again, compared to his qb peers, he objectively sucked while playing college football games. Probably a super nice guy and could throw the hell out of the ball in 7v7, just wasn’t a college qb.

I think Tom gets a kick back for speaking kindly of certain players. You’d of thought Reed was the second coming of Keenum’s college years, solely based on his warm up throws.

[TomCat88]

The guy who barely made 50% of this throws against Bryant?
Objectively, against his peers - he sucked.

He was at 47% completion and got benched for a 17year old that could cut and run.

I’ll say again, compared to his qb peers, he objectively sucked while playing college football games. Probably a super nice guy and could throw the hell out of the ball in 7v7, just wasn’t a college qb.

I think Tom gets a kick back for speaking kindly of certain players. You’d of thought Reed was the second coming of Keenum’s college years, solely based on his warm up throws.

You don't think Reed throws a beautiful ball?

I do like to point out the good things players do even if the bad outweighs the good. I don't say players that aren't developing into good players suck very often, if ever. That's an incredibly mean thing to do. It's punching down. It's like making fun of someone who has a speech impediment. If you want to say someone sucks save it for the pros, at least. Or good players. If Tommy Mellott sucked for one game or one series of plays, then it might be okay to say he sucked. He knows he doesn't suck but probably agrees when he does for a game, or a play or two.

[TomCat88]

The guy who barely made 50% of this throws against Bryant?
Objectively, against his peers - he sucked.

He was at 47% completion and got benched for a 17year old that could cut and run.

I’ll say again, compared to his qb peers, he objectively sucked while playing college football games. Probably a super nice guy and could throw the hell out of the ball in 7v7, just wasn’t a college qb.

He was under 50% at the JC school he played at before coming to MSU.

[TomCat88]

The guy who barely made 50% of this throws against Bryant?
Objectively, against his peers - he sucked.

He was at 47% completion and got benched for a 17year old that could cut and run.

I’ll say again, compared to his qb peers, he objectively sucked while playing college football games. Probably a super nice guy and could throw the hell out of the ball in 7v7, just wasn’t a college qb.

Joe Namath had a 50.1 completion pct. and threw 220 interceptions and had just 173 TD passes.

[BelligerentBobcat]

The guy who barely made 50% of this throws against Bryant?
Objectively, against his peers - he sucked.

He was at 47% completion and got benched for a 17year old that could cut and run.

I’ll say again, compared to his qb peers, he objectively sucked while playing college football games. Probably a super nice guy and could throw the hell out of the ball in 7v7, just wasn’t a college qb.

Joe Namath had a 50.1 completion pct. and threw 220 interceptions and had just 173 TD passes.

Dude, really?

Different era, different game, different rules. It’s not comparable.

[SparkCat]

The guy who barely made 50% of this throws against Bryant?
Objectively, against his peers - he sucked.

He was at 47% completion and got benched for a 17year old that could cut and run.

I’ll say again, compared to his qb peers, he objectively sucked while playing college football games. Probably a super nice guy and could throw the hell out of the ball in 7v7, just wasn’t a college qb.

I think Tom gets a kick back for speaking kindly of certain players. You’d of thought Reed was the second coming of Keenum’s college years, solely based on his warm up throws.

You don't think Reed throws a beautiful ball?

I do like to point out the good things players do even if the bad outweighs the good. I don't say players that aren't developing into good players suck very often, if ever. That's an incredibly mean thing to do. It's punching down. It's like making fun of someone who has a speech impediment. If you want to say someone sucks save it for the pros, at least. Or good players. If Tommy Mellott sucked for one game or one series of plays, then it might be okay to say he sucked. He knows he doesn't suck but probably agrees when he does for a game, or a play or two.

I won’t say Reed sucked, I’ll punch above with that, however, he was never going to be the dude for the Cats. His biggest issue at the position was confidence. I will say though, I will call it how it is with college players, now that they have NIL deals and other means to receive funding, just like anyone else in the working world, they need to be up to hear criticism and complaints.

[Hi-Line Bobcat]

The guy who barely made 50% of this throws against Bryant?
Objectively, against his peers - he sucked.

He was at 47% completion and got benched for a 17year old that could cut and run.

I’ll say again, compared to his qb peers, he objectively sucked while playing college football games. Probably a super nice guy and could throw the hell out of the ball in 7v7, just wasn’t a college qb.

I think Tom gets a kick back for speaking kindly of certain players. You’d of thought Reed was the second coming of Keenum’s college years, solely based on his warm up throws.

You don't think Reed throws a beautiful ball?

I do like to point out the good things players do even if the bad outweighs the good. I don't say players that aren't developing into good players suck very often, if ever. That's an incredibly mean thing to do. It's punching down. It's like making fun of someone who has a speech impediment. If you want to say someone sucks save it for the pros, at least. Or good players. If Tommy Mellott sucked for one game or one series of plays, then it might be okay to say he sucked. He knows he doesn't suck but probably agrees when he does for a game, or a play or two.

No he didn’t. Anybody can throw a tight spiral 15 yards while warning up, they all can. Some get that confused with zip, which he didn’t have. As far as deep balls, anybody that puts air under it can throw it a decent ways, that doesn’t mean it’s a good ball. He couldn’t throw on the run, couldn’t throw in the pocket that well, so no his ball was far from beautiful. Unless you like dirt balls and balls thrown behind wrs.

[TomCat88]

The guy who barely made 50% of this throws against Bryant?
Objectively, against his peers - he sucked.

He was at 47% completion and got benched for a 17year old that could cut and run.

I’ll say again, compared to his qb peers, he objectively sucked while playing college football games. Probably a super nice guy and could throw the hell out of the ball in 7v7, just wasn’t a college qb.

Joe Namath had a 50.1 completion pct. and threw 220 interceptions and had just 173 TD passes.

Dude, really?

Different era, different game, different rules. It’s not comparable.

You trigger so easily.
I’m 62. I know. Whenever someone talks about QB stats I think of Namath and his horrible stats and how incredibly overrated he was.

Another guy people thought was good is Archie Manning: 125 TDs 173 interceptions.

[TomCat88]

The guy who barely made 50% of this throws against Bryant?
Objectively, against his peers - he sucked.

He was at 47% completion and got benched for a 17year old that could cut and run.

I’ll say again, compared to his qb peers, he objectively sucked while playing college football games. Probably a super nice guy and could throw the hell out of the ball in 7v7, just wasn’t a college qb.

I think Tom gets a kick back for speaking kindly of certain players. You’d of thought Reed was the second coming of Keenum’s college years, solely based on his warm up throws.

You don't think Reed throws a beautiful ball?

I do like to point out the good things players do even if the bad outweighs the good. I don't say players that aren't developing into good players suck very often, if ever. That's an incredibly mean thing to do. It's punching down. It's like making fun of someone who has a speech impediment. If you want to say someone sucks save it for the pros, at least. Or good players. If Tommy Mellott sucked for one game or one series of plays, then it might be okay to say he sucked. He knows he doesn't suck but probably agrees when he does for a game, or a play or two.

No he didn’t. Anybody can throw a tight spiral 15 yards while warning up, they all can. Some get that confused with zip, which he didn’t have. As far as deep balls, anybody that puts air under it can throw it a decent ways, that doesn’t mean it’s a good ball. He couldn’t throw on the run, couldn’t throw in the pocket that well, so no his ball was far from beautiful. Unless you like dirt balls and balls thrown behind wrs.

Yes, he does throw a beautiful ball. Nothing in your word salad changes that.

[TomCat88]

The guy who barely made 50% of this throws against Bryant?
Objectively, against his peers - he sucked.

He was at 47% completion and got benched for a 17year old that could cut and run.

I’ll say again, compared to his qb peers, he objectively sucked while playing college football games. Probably a super nice guy and could throw the hell out of the ball in 7v7, just wasn’t a college qb.

I think Tom gets a kick back for speaking kindly of certain players. You’d of thought Reed was the second coming of Keenum’s college years, solely based on his warm up throws.

You don't think Reed throws a beautiful ball?

I do like to point out the good things players do even if the bad outweighs the good. I don't say players that aren't developing into good players suck very often, if ever. That's an incredibly mean thing to do. It's punching down. It's like making fun of someone who has a speech impediment. If you want to say someone sucks save it for the pros, at least. Or good players. If Tommy Mellott sucked for one game or one series of plays, then it might be okay to say he sucked. He knows he doesn't suck but probably agrees when he does for a game, or a play or two.

I won’t say Reed sucked, I’ll punch above with that, however, he was never going to be the dude for the Cats. His biggest issue at the position was confidence. I will say though, I will call it how it is with college players, now that they have NIL deals and other means to receive funding, just like anyone else in the working world, they need to be up to hear criticism and complaints.

Cool.

[BelligerentBobcat]

The guy who barely made 50% of this throws against Bryant?
Objectively, against his peers - he sucked.

He was at 47% completion and got benched for a 17year old that could cut and run.

I’ll say again, compared to his qb peers, he objectively sucked while playing college football games. Probably a super nice guy and could throw the hell out of the ball in 7v7, just wasn’t a college qb.

Joe Namath had a 50.1 completion pct. and threw 220 interceptions and had just 173 TD passes.

Dude, really?

Different era, different game, different rules. It’s not comparable.

You trigger so easily.
I’m 62. I know. Whenever someone talks about QB stats I think of Namath and his horrible stats and how incredibly overrated he was.

Another guy people thought was good is Archie Manning: 125 TDs 173 interceptions.

Trigger? Goodness Tom. I think we can reasonably disagree without doing ****** like that. You can respond to me without the insults, I believe in you!

[canyoncat]

Jesus this place can sound like a bunch of old women arguing over a card game.

[TomCat88]

The guy who barely made 50% of this throws against Bryant?
Objectively, against his peers - he sucked.

He was at 47% completion and got benched for a 17year old that could cut and run.

I’ll say again, compared to his qb peers, he objectively sucked while playing college football games. Probably a super nice guy and could throw the hell out of the ball in 7v7, just wasn’t a college qb.

Joe Namath had a 50.1 completion pct. and threw 220 interceptions and had just 173 TD passes.

Dude, really?

Different era, different game, different rules. It’s not comparable.

You trigger so easily.
I’m 62. I know. Whenever someone talks about QB stats I think of Namath and his horrible stats and how incredibly overrated he was.

Another guy people thought was good is Archie Manning: 125 TDs 173 interceptions.

Trigger? Goodness Tom. I think we can reasonably disagree without doing ****** like that. You can respond to me without the insults, I believe in you!

Settle down, I wasn’t comparing you to Namath.

Bradshaw 212 TDs and 210 INTs. 51.9%

[catatac]

Jesus this place can sound like a bunch of old women arguing over a card game.

I know, it feels all eGRizzy sometimes... eeeewwww