forums

ESPN article pressure on Rosier

orange&green84 said:
You must have me confused with someone else. Because I've never really defended Kaaya.
Click to expand...

Maybe, the search function is completely useless now, so I can't call people out anymore.

And thanks for actually debating me on the point you were trying to make. Who are your top 5 quarterbacks?
 
Advertisement
Pickle Richt said:
Maybe, the search function is completely useless now, so I can't call people out anymore.

And thanks for actually debating me on the point you were trying to make. Who are your top 5 quarterbacks?
Click to expand...

Don't have any and not going to waste my time. I know Kaaya and Rosier aren't on it.
 
db305 said:
can't really say that because malik wasn't even a game manager. game-managing quarterbacks complete easy dinks and dunks, and don't throw tons of interceptions.
Click to expand...
Malik just set the Miami single season record for total yards and total TDs

This is where the bash Rosier and blame him for everything crowd always runs out of steam. It ends up being impossible to reconcile all those yards and all those scores with a guy who can’t even complete dinks and dunks, and you guys just come off looking like total ******* idiots.

I mean, I think most sensible people can agree that Rosier was inconsistent and that there were games where he had opportunities to help us win but failed. Cool. That’s agreeable. But calling a dude with 3600 yards and 31 TDs garbage all the time is just something I can’t get behind. He averaged almost 15 points a game. Pair a QB with those numbers and a top 25 run game and you have a National Championship.
 
orange&green84 said:
Don't have any and not going to waste my time. I know Kaaya and Rosier aren't on it.
Click to expand...

You're entitled to your opinion, and you're entitled not to defend it. I can spew out garbage in a desperate attempt to get upvotes, but I'd rather believe what I say and know why I believe it. To act like being clutch is somehow laughably worse than being consistent, shows how narrow minded you must be. Most of the greats were considered clutch performers more than they were considered consistent.
 
Pickle Richt said:
You're entitled to your opinion, and you're entitled not to defend it. I can spew out garbage in a desperate attempt to get upvotes, but I'd rather believe what I say and know why I believe it. To act like being clutch is somehow laughably worse than being consistent, shows how narrow minded you must be. Most of the greats were considered clutch performers more than they were considered consistent.
Click to expand...

Most of the greats had over a 54% completion percentage. I never said I was a Kaaya or a Rosier fan.

Yes, I'd rather have a consistent QB, which guess what? Means they can come up at times in the clutch. If you think Rosier's better than what a consistent Division 1 QB is, then this conversation's over.
 
Advertisement
orange&green84 said:
Most of the greats had over a 54% completion percentage. I never said I was a Kaaya or a Rosier fan.

Yes, I'd rather have a consistent QB, which guess what? Means they can come up at times in the clutch. If you think Rosier's better than what a consistent Division 1 QB is, then this conversation's over.
Click to expand...

That's not what consistency means or implies.
 
Pickle Richt said:
Can you back that up at all? Just rewatched some condensed highlights and couldn't find once when they were in an 8 man front. I stopped watching because I realized how stupid it was to even argue this. Most of the time they had 4 down lineman and their LB's were relatively deep.
Click to expand...

bad oline

possibly bad o line coach?

eek
 
Advertisement
Pickle Richt said:
That's not what consistency means or implies.
Click to expand...

Consistency often times means maintaining one's state. If you're in a "clutch" situation, you're going to perform regularly often times in that hypothetic scenario.

You're making a bat **** retarded asinine argument out of nothing and just grasping at this point.
 
orange&green84 said:
Consistency often times means maintaining one's state. If you're in a "clutch" situation, you're going to perform regularly often times in that hypothetic scenario.

You're making a bat **** retarded asinine argument out of nothing and just grasping at this point.
Click to expand...

Lol. All I said was that it's better to be known for being clutch than known for being consistent. You are having an extremely difficult time defending that position, and now saying that the two words are nearly synonymous (which is essentially giving up your point). My argument is simple and clear, and backed up with a lot of examples. Just waiting on you to say something rational in defense of your position. Likely not going to happen.
 
Heres a thought...... Rosier isnt clutch at all. He just has such a laid back/lackadaisical attitude almost to the point of not caring. The pressure doesnt bother him because nothing bothers him (including the need for him to work on his craft) . I mean what explains the attitude of a D2 caliber athlete giving a chance to play/start on a storied program like UM and not even watch film. Your own coach tells u that you will never play for him and your still not motivated.

You still beat the odds, end up becoming a starter and winning nailbiter after nailbiter until your team becomes the #2 team in the country undefeated with one game left against a POS Pitt team and you proceed to **** your pants. And what do you have to say about the pukefest you just served up @Pitt....."I was just going through the motions" .....This cannot and should not ever be the attitude of your QB....Either Rosier changes his attitude or we change Qbs because if not we looking directly at 8-4 easily
 
Pickle Richt said:
Lol. All I said was that it's better to be known for being clutch than known for being consistent. You are having an extremely difficult time defending that position, and now saying that the two words are nearly synonymous (which is essentially giving up your point). My argument is simple and clear, and backed up with a lot of examples. Just waiting on you to say something rational in defense of your position. Likely not going to happen.
Click to expand...

I'm really not. And Rosier hasn't exactly been clutch. Sure, the FSU game he threw a nice pass to Langham to win the game. But the GT game was pure luck as he threw into double coverage and 99 times out of 100, that's either picked or incomplete (and the game's over since that was on 4th down).

If we had a consistent QB last year (a definition you seem to not grasp) whom could also be "clutch" we never even need to rely on these 4th quarter miracle plays. Malik played like absolute dog **** the 1st half of the FSU game. Put in an average D-1 QB and we're likely up 2 TDs by half time.

My argument is that people bring up Malik as "clutch" and say it's better than being consistent. A consistent QB is someone that you can Consistently count on throughout a game. Someone who'll throw for around 62-65% on the year. Someone who can make reads and goes through their progressions when the 1st option isn't open.

No need to be a condescending **** just because I'm not on the Malik bandwagon.
 
Advertisement
orange&green84 said:
I'm really not. And Rosier hasn't exactly been clutch. Sure, the FSU game he threw a nice pass to Langham to win the game. But the GT game was pure luck as he threw into double coverage and 99 times out of 100, that's either picked or incomplete (and the game's over since that was on 4th down).

If we had a consistent QB last year (a definition you seem to not grasp) whom could also be "clutch" we never even need to rely on these 4th quarter miracle plays. Malik played like absolute dog **** the 1st half of the FSU game. Put in an average D-1 QB and we're likely up 2 TDs by half time.

My argument is that people bring up Malik as "clutch" and say it's better than being consistent. A consistent QB is someone that you can Consistently count on throughout a game. Someone who'll throw for around 62-65% on the year. Someone who can make reads and goes through their progressions when the 1st option isn't open.

No need to be a condescending **** just because I'm not on the Malik bandwagon.
Click to expand...


Malweak is a scrub. Don't waste your time arguing with jock sniffers.
 
orange&green84 said:
I'm really not. And Rosier hasn't exactly been clutch. Sure, the FSU game he threw a nice pass to Langham to win the game. But the GT game was pure luck as he threw into double coverage and 99 times out of 100, that's either picked or incomplete (and the game's over since that was on 4th down).

If we had a consistent QB last year (a definition you seem to not grasp) whom could also be "clutch" we never even need to rely on these 4th quarter miracle plays. Malik played like absolute dog **** the 1st half of the FSU game. Put in an average D-1 QB and we're likely up 2 TDs by half time.

My argument is that people bring up Malik as "clutch" and say it's better than being consistent. A consistent QB is someone that you can Consistently count on throughout a game. Someone who'll throw for around 62-65% on the year. Someone who can make reads and goes through their progressions when the 1st option isn't open.

No need to be a condescending **** just because I'm not on the Malik bandwagon.
Click to expand...

I haven't mentioned Malik or Kaaya during this debate of consistency vs. clutch. But I would absolutely prefer someone who can overcome a halftime deficit than one who gives up three straight halftime leads to FSU. And keep on redefining the word or changing the debate. This is going really well for you.
 
Advertisement
QuatroCane said:
I'm gonna giggle MFAO when Rosier comes out next year and hits 65% for 2800yds, 25TD's and 6 ints.
Click to expand...

Crazy to think that our own fans will be rooting against him. Not sure why they'll even watch next year. I'm looking forward to another 10 plus win season and Malik's stats will obviously improve. Less Harris and Langham on the field, Richards will be healthy, Thomas and Harley know the playbook better, and Cager showed signs of finally using his size against Wisconsin. Add in Pope, Hightower, Jordan and Mallory and we should see some big things from the offense this year.
 
Loose Cannon said:
No I don’t. My position has always been that Rosier sucked that game. **** happens. QBs have bad games. But when your QB is having a bad game against a 3-7 team like Pitt and you can’t just line and run the ball to get out of there with an ugly win...instead of only being able to come up with 16 yards from your running backs, you’re just not a very good football team.

Richt’s a QB guy being asked about his decision processing while selecting a starting QB, but my challenge still stands. If anybody can show me a team that won a game with only 16 yards rushing, I’ll admit I was wrong.

The problem is that most people get what I’m saying. Rosier was always going to be that guy who needed a solid support cast; a good run game and great defense in order to find success. These boards were littered last fall after Rosier was named the starter with posts about how we’ll be fine as long as Walton stays healthy or as long as Richards comes back full speed...This was always the reality of the situation. Rosier was always going to need a great supporting effort from other contributors on the team for us to be successful. Who else contributed in that Pitt game? Rosier scored every TD we had. Who else stood out that day and made a contribution to the cause?
Click to expand...
That was Pitts game plan dumb dumb! Stop the run and have Rosier beat them through the air which they knew he couldn’t do!!!! @ss!!
 
Advertisement
Back
Top