Originally posted by MattFoleyHawk:
Originally posted by MoneyintheBanks:
Originally posted by MattFoleyHawk:
Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:
Originally posted by MattFoleyHawk:
Originally posted by mthawkeyes:
Had problems with speed rushers at times, so will probably NOT be a LT in the NFL. Might be able to hold up at RT. It's hard to imagine a much better run blocker. If he plays G, he will be a pro bowler by his 3rd or 4th season.
You seem to be confident in your assessment of his technique and abilities. Please list your qualifications. How many hours of film did you watch to make your assessment?
What were the 'problems' with the speed rushers? Did they beat him off the edge? Please cite examples.
If they 'beat' him to the inside, do you know if they were in 'man' or 'zone' protection? Makes a huge difference.
Is it your opinion that if he stays healthy, he has the ability to be a pro bowler, or are you a seer or have a crystal ball?
Are you just repeating what you heard a couple of announcers say?
You may be right, just interested in why you feel qualified to give an opinion and how much merit I should give it.
This post was edited on 3/8 8:14 PM by MattFoleyHawk
Now Matty, you sound as if you are trying to pick a fight here. What exactly drives you to do these things Matty? Why must you just up and lash out for no good reason at all? Do you not have a very fulfilling life Matty? Do you try to make up for that on here Matty? Please tell us Matty.
Lol, there's my sheepboy. Following the sheperd around again, I see. Baaa, Baaa.
What drives 'unqualified', anonymous, fans to make evaluations like they are some kind of talent scout? It's comical. They certainly wouldn't give their 'evaluations' to a college football coach or scout. They would be immediately exposed and embarassed. Most are just repeating what they heard or read, but don't cite their sources in order to give the perception that they are knowledgable, or attempt to impress the flock. Now get back in the heard, until I call you.....
This is an internet message board, why would they have to 'cite their sources'? No one claimed they were qualified. They simply gave their opinion, which I'm pretty sure is legal and common in today's society. So because some Internet try hard bully demands sources, they're supposed to refute their statement because you do or don't agree with it? Also, multiple people agreed with that assessment, so I would say it's somewhat accurate, but because Kirk Ferentz didn't say it himself you won't believe it. But if you watched the Tennessee, Maryland, ISU games (and more) you'll realize that even a beast like Scherff has weaknesses. Quit trying so hard to create chaos. Now back to the asylum before you end up assaulting a female.
How can you express an opinion without being qualified? Duh, I think I'll go on into a cardiology message board and give my opinion on pulmonary heart disease and my assesment of which doctors are performing best after watching a little surgery, lmao. The only things you can genuinely give an opinion about are things that are subjective. RE:"Blue is the prettiest color"....
Stating that 'multiple people agree' is a total ignorant, weak-minded, 'herd' mentality. A bunch of people 'agreed' that Hitler was Time's 'Man of the year' in 1938, lol. Maybe they should have done a little more research and cited some sources, don't ya think...lol. Too bad there weren't some people like me back then, might have saved a lot of lives........
And how absurd to ask if they are supposed to refute it. No, you don't express it in the first place unless you know what you are talking about. Go back into your 'trance' now little sheep. Follow the herd. Follow the 'message board' brain drain....
I've got a female to assault before I get back to the asylum....
You continue to disappoint me. Awaken, son........