Antonio Crawford upset

[dk72]

He managed to pick off a few passes playing corner in this **** show of a defense over the past couple seasons. He'll probably win the God damned Heisman elsewhere.

Which of the other corners should he have taken playing time from?

Well "OzarCaneSaw", since you down voted why don't you answer the question. Which CB during Crawford's time here should have sat to allow Crawford more time? Two years ago he was even given 2 starts, in which he did very little. Bottom line is he was never better than 4th best on the team, and at times, more like 5th best.

 

[OrangetieFatface]

He managed to pick off a few passes playing corner in this **** show of a defense over the past couple seasons. He'll probably win the God damned Heisman elsewhere.

Which of the other corners should he have taken playing time from?

Well "OzarCaneSaw", since you down voted why don't you answer the question. Which CB during Crawford's time here should have sat to allow Crawford more time? Two years ago he was even given 2 starts, in which he did very little. Bottom line is he was never better than 4th best on the team, and at times, more like 5th best.

Yeah, **** it, we don't need backups.

Depth is for pussies, that's why I respect AG's "let em go" philosophy.

Back in my day, the same 11 guys played the entire game, on both sides of the ball.

 

[dk72]

He managed to pick off a few passes playing corner in this **** show of a defense over the past couple seasons. He'll probably win the God damned Heisman elsewhere.

Which of the other corners should he have taken playing time from?

Well "OzarCaneSaw", since you down voted why don't you answer the question. Which CB during Crawford's time here should have sat to allow Crawford more time? Two years ago he was even given 2 starts, in which he did very little. Bottom line is he was never better than 4th best on the team, and at times, more like 5th best.

Yeah, **** it, we don't need backups.

Depth is for pussies, that's why I respect AG's "let em go" philosophy.

Back in my day, the same 11 guys played the entire game, on both sides of the ball.

Your reading comprehension, as usual, seems to be quite low. Of course we need backups. But there's not much you can do when a 4th-5th best backup thinks he deserves to take playing time over the others ahead of him. I ask again, which of the other CBs should have spent more time on the bench to allow Crawford to play. You know full well that if any of them did sit more, the very same people complaining now would be complaining that the coaches are giving Crawford playing time over better players.

 

[OrangetieFatface]

He managed to pick off a few passes playing corner in this **** show of a defense over the past couple seasons. He'll probably win the God damned Heisman elsewhere.

Which of the other corners should he have taken playing time from?

Well "OzarCaneSaw", since you down voted why don't you answer the question. Which CB during Crawford's time here should have sat to allow Crawford more time? Two years ago he was even given 2 starts, in which he did very little. Bottom line is he was never better than 4th best on the team, and at times, more like 5th best.

Yeah, **** it, we don't need backups.

Depth is for pussies, that's why I respect AG's "let em go" philosophy.

Back in my day, the same 11 guys played the entire game, on both sides of the ball.

Your reading comprehension, as usual, seems to be quite low. Of course we need backups. But there's not much you can do when a 4th-5th best backup thinks he deserves to take playing time over the others ahead of him. I ask again, which of the other CBs should have spent more time on the bench to allow Crawford to play. You know full well that if any of them did sit more, the very same people complaining now would be complaining that the coaches are giving Crawford playing time over better players.

Attrition and depth has been your biggest problem as head coach. Almost 50% of your recruits over a four year period are gone for one reason or another.

Any counter argument is yours to prove. Ours is pretty well documented.

We don't need depth at DB you say? We're all set? Prove it Al.

 

[westcoastcanes]

Which of the other corners should he have taken playing time from?

Well "OzarCaneSaw", since you down voted why don't you answer the question. Which CB during Crawford's time here should have sat to allow Crawford more time? Two years ago he was even given 2 starts, in which he did very little. Bottom line is he was never better than 4th best on the team, and at times, more like 5th best.

Yeah, **** it, we don't need backups.

Depth is for pussies, that's why I respect AG's "let em go" philosophy.

Back in my day, the same 11 guys played the entire game, on both sides of the ball.

Your reading comprehension, as usual, seems to be quite low. Of course we need backups. But there's not much you can do when a 4th-5th best backup thinks he deserves to take playing time over the others ahead of him. I ask again, which of the other CBs should have spent more time on the bench to allow Crawford to play. You know full well that if any of them did sit more, the very same people complaining now would be complaining that the coaches are giving Crawford playing time over better players.

Attrition and depth has been your biggest problem as head coach. Almost 50% of your recruits over a four year period are gone for one reason or another.

Any counter argument is yours to prove. Ours is pretty well documented.

We don't need depth at DB you say? We're all set? Prove it Al.

Any player on the roster with either "DT" , "DE" , or "OLB" has a "/CB" in magic marker following it on the depth chart. Check Mate.

 

[dk72]

Which of the other corners should he have taken playing time from?

Well "OzarCaneSaw", since you down voted why don't you answer the question. Which CB during Crawford's time here should have sat to allow Crawford more time? Two years ago he was even given 2 starts, in which he did very little. Bottom line is he was never better than 4th best on the team, and at times, more like 5th best.

Yeah, **** it, we don't need backups.

Depth is for pussies, that's why I respect AG's "let em go" philosophy.

Back in my day, the same 11 guys played the entire game, on both sides of the ball.

Your reading comprehension, as usual, seems to be quite low. Of course we need backups. But there's not much you can do when a 4th-5th best backup thinks he deserves to take playing time over the others ahead of him. I ask again, which of the other CBs should have spent more time on the bench to allow Crawford to play. You know full well that if any of them did sit more, the very same people complaining now would be complaining that the coaches are giving Crawford playing time over better players.

Attrition and depth has been your biggest problem as head coach. Almost 50% of your recruits over a four year period are gone for one reason or another.

Any counter argument is yours to prove. Ours is pretty well documented.

We don't need depth at DB you say? We're all set? Prove it Al.

So in other words, you know full well that he wasn't good enough to take playing time away from any of the other players ahead of him. Thanks for confirming it with your silly non-answer.

BTW, you are also now documented as a liar. I never said we don't need depth at DB. Quite the opposite if you actually read (not sure how capable you are) my post. Doesn't change the fact that if our 4th-5th best CB wants us to sit our 1st-4th best CBs so he can get more playing time, or else he'll leave, then goodbye.

 

[dk72]

Which of the other corners should he have taken playing time from?

Well "OzarCaneSaw", since you down voted why don't you answer the question. Which CB during Crawford's time here should have sat to allow Crawford more time? Two years ago he was even given 2 starts, in which he did very little. Bottom line is he was never better than 4th best on the team, and at times, more like 5th best.

Yeah, **** it, we don't need backups.

Depth is for pussies, that's why I respect AG's "let em go" philosophy.

Back in my day, the same 11 guys played the entire game, on both sides of the ball.

Your reading comprehension, as usual, seems to be quite low. Of course we need backups. But there's not much you can do when a 4th-5th best backup thinks he deserves to take playing time over the others ahead of him. I ask again, which of the other CBs should have spent more time on the bench to allow Crawford to play. You know full well that if any of them did sit more, the very same people complaining now would be complaining that the coaches are giving Crawford playing time over better players.

Attrition and depth has been your biggest problem as head coach. Almost 50% of your recruits over a four year period are gone for one reason or another.

Any counter argument is yours to prove. Ours is pretty well documented.

We don't need depth at DB you say? We're all set? Prove it Al.

BTW, it's laughable that you think I'm Golden. Shows the limited intellectual capacity you possess. But sure would like his salary!

 

[hoops156]

u guys still talk bout crawford?

 

[Angry Ibis]

u guys still talk bout crawford?

No. But using Crawford to talk about Golden.

 

[hoops156]

u guys still talk bout crawford?

No. But using Crawford to talk about Golden.

cant u just talk about golden without referring to an ex-cane. i figured expecting to finish 6 out of 7 in the coastal is enough of a reason to hate on him.

 

[Angry Ibis]

u guys still talk bout crawford?

No. But using Crawford to talk about Golden.

cant u just talk about golden without referring to an ex-cane. i figured expecting to finish 6 out of 7 in the coastal is enough of a reason to hate on him.

I was merely answering your first question. I stopped caring about Crawford a while ago. And *****ing about Golden as well. Golden is here. He was 6-7, but undefeated against banners and *****ing. I'll worry about crying about it 4 months from now.

 

[hoops156]

u guys still talk bout crawford?

No. But using Crawford to talk about Golden.

cant u just talk about golden without referring to an ex-cane. i figured expecting to finish 6 out of 7 in the coastal is enough of a reason to hate on him.

I was merely answering your first question. I stopped caring about Crawford a while ago. And *****ing about Golden as well. Golden is here. He was 6-7, but undefeated against banners and *****ing. I'll worry about crying about it 4 months from now.

wasnt accusing you of *****ing about either and i do agree w ur point.

 

[Cane Dynasty]

Duke's mom was prophetic.

She's the realest adult that's been around the program in the last 8 years.