Whatever happened to.......

[hawk-i bob]

If Woodbury averaged 19 ppg and shot 47% from the floor Iowa fans would be thrilled and he'd be considered one of the top players in the country. The Augustana kid shot 4 threes too so it's not like he was just living in the paint the whole game.

*** I was at the Augie game, Jansen is a nice player--good moves...apparently he preferred to make his mark at the D2 level..cause he certainly could have played up a level. I thought he forced his 3's but don't follow him to know if he just was off.

.. if the majority of your shots are put backs or close in 47% is not that great for a post player. In fact if your post player was one of the leaders in shot attempts and was shooting 47%...you better hope your perimeter & penetrators are doing above average when it comes to %.

Shooting percentages are about the end game - winning. I don't want any player (Woodbury included) taking more shots if they are contested or forced shots..just so they can average 19 ppg...no 47% for an inside player isn't good enough. That's what I like about Woody --- he hasn't forced shots. In fact in his first 3 years he averages less than 5 shot attempts per game...while he may end up taking a few more shots this year...I'd prefer he take 8 shots per game at above 50% than taking enough shots to average 19ppg at 47%.

I think we have better offensive alternatives....especially that mood changer called the 3 pointer.

 

[DanL53]

Woodbury is what he is, he does more than the stat sheets show but he's limited to being a role player and isn't going to put the team on his back.

I still don't buy Dan's theory that it would be a bad thing or wouldn't be anything special if he averaged 19ppg and shot 47% from the floor. He'd probably be a first team AA if that was the case

If a shooter hits 60% of his free throws is that good? Would you want him taking a lot of free throws?

I urge you to research some stats of post players and their field goal percentages:

 

[CyCity]

If a shooter hits 60% of his free throws is that good? Would you want him taking a lot of free throws?

I urge you to research some stats of post players and their field goal percentages:

I would take any post player that shot 47% from the floor and was averaging 19 ppg. Obviously your standards are much higher than mine.

 

[SDHawkDoc]

At least games will be starting soon. Then the endless debate about Woodbury's status as a disappointment vs. great center with intangibles will have new and more current information.

 

[DanL53]

At least games will be starting soon. Then the endless debate about Woodbury's status as a disappointment vs. great center with intangibles will have new and more current information.

Good point. Just for clarification though I've never said Woody is a great center.

 

[hawk-i bob]

At least games will be starting soon. Then the endless debate about Woodbury's status as a disappointment vs. great center with intangibles will have new and more current information.

there is no debate IMO..Woodbury is neither a disappointment nor a great center even with intangibles. My only thought is wins just win baby which isn't going to be easy. I'm confident whatever success this team has - Woodbury will be a part of it as he has been over the last 3 years.

 

[hawk-i bob]

I would take any post player that shot 47% from the floor and was averaging 19 ppg. Obviously your standards are much higher than mine.

47% from inside or put backs in order to shoot enough to average 19pts is not high enough...coaches would say the same.
Course this is a generalization considering there are a lot more aspects to the game like rebounding, free throw%, turnovers, blocks, steals, man-man, etc.

47% works if the player is a really good rebounder, shot changer/blocker,etc...but if he is average in those areas at best..he wont be playing enough to avg 19 a game at 47%.

 

[CyCity]

47% from inside or put backs in order to shoot enough to average 19pts is not high enough...coaches would say the same.
Course this is a generalization considering there are a lot more aspects to the game like rebounding, free throw%, turnovers, blocks, steals, man-man, etc.

47% works if the player is a really good rebounder, shot changer/blocker,etc...but if he is average in those areas at best..he wont be playing enough to avg 19 a game at 47%.

Georges Niang disagrees. He seems to play the perimeter about as much as the Augustana kid, shoots less threes than the Augustana kid did though.

Same with Craig Brackins. He was an all conference player and a first round draft pick and his best year he shot 47% from the floor. Like I said, I'm sure almost every Hawk fan would love a post player that could average 19ppg and shot 47% from the floor

 

[DanL53]

Georges Niang disagrees. He seems to play the perimeter about as much as the Augustana kid, shoots less threes than the Augustana kid did though.

Same with Craig Brackins. He was an all conference player and a first round draft pick and his best year he shot 47% from the floor. Like I said, I'm sure almost every Hawk fan would love a post player that could average 19ppg and shot 47% from the floor

This is just talk to hear yourself talk. You also keep pretending that Niang is primarily a post player. If you would bother to do a little research, and honestly accept the facts that you seem to prefer to ignore, Niang plays much more outside the paint than a post. Here, look at his stats, does a post player get that many assists? Shouldn't a post player be a better rebounder?

http://www.big12sports.com/ViewContent.dbml?CONTENT_ID=1029662&DB_OEM_ID=10410#conf.wki

Now, as to field goal percentage of a post player, take a look at some Big Ten Stats:

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-bas...ieldGoalPct/year/2015/id/7/big-ten-conference

Wow. Look at those 2pt percentages! Still think 46% which is what Jansen shot against Woody is good? And think about it. When Iowa comes up against some of the bangers in the middle you seriously don't see why Woody is a big part of the team? He did a better job against a small guy (Jansen) than anyone else on Iowa's team did! A real complaint could be made why didn't Uhl hold his own, or even Wagner?

The truth is, both are learning the college post game this year. It will take a little time. Meanwhile Woody is the best we've got, even against smaller guys which in the past has been the kind of player Woody struggles to defend.

You are trying to make hay out of oats CyCity. Simple as that.

 

[hawkeyemark]

This endless debate about Woodbury in my mind comes down to simply appreciating what you have and not worrying about what you don't which I've begun to realize gets easier as you get older. I wrote in another thread that Woodbury makes the best outlet pass of any Iowa center I can remember and that matters in Fran's offense where he likes to push the ball up the court before the defense can set. Watch Woodbury when he doesn't have the ball in his hands and you will see him doing some really good things like getting into good position on defense as well directing it and setting good screens on offense.

While people told us coming out of high school that we wouldn't get that much scoring out of Woodbury I had thought over time he might start to develop more of an offensive game. Bottom line we don't need that from him and it really doesn't matter.

 

[CyCity]

This is just talk to hear yourself talk. You also keep pretending that Niang is primarily a post player. If you would bother to do a little research, and honestly accept the facts that you seem to prefer to ignore, Niang plays much more outside the paint than a post. Here, look at his stats, does a post player get that many assists? Shouldn't a post player be a better rebounder?

http://www.big12sports.com/ViewContent.dbml?CONTENT_ID=1029662&DB_OEM_ID=10410#conf.wki

Now, as to field goal percentage of a post player, take a look at some Big Ten Stats:

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-bas...ieldGoalPct/year/2015/id/7/big-ten-conference

Wow. Look at those 2pt percentages! Still think 46% which is what Jansen shot against Woody is good? And think about it. When Iowa comes up against some of the bangers in the middle you seriously don't see why Woody is a big part of the team? He did a better job against a small guy (Jansen) than anyone else on Iowa's team did! A real complaint could be made why didn't Uhl hold his own, or even Wagner?

The truth is, both are learning the college post game this year. It will take a little time. Meanwhile Woody is the best we've got, even against smaller guys which in the past has been the kind of player Woody struggles to defend.

You are trying to make hay out of oats CyCity. Simple as that.

Jansen's 2 pt FG percentage was 54% against Iowa. I see a D2 player scoring 19 pts on Woodbury as a negative for him, you view it as a positive, we don't have to agree.

 

[DanL53]

Jansen's 2 pt FG percentage was 54% against Iowa. I see a D2 player scoring 19 pts on Woodbury as a negative for him, you view it as a positive, we don't have to agree.

Let's end this where it began.

"No, just a guy that appreciates basketball. I get a little sick and tired of reading complaints about Woody after a 14 rebound performance where he shot 3-5 and contributed to holding a DII All-American to 19 points while taking 17 shots to get there."

No. We don't have to agree. You think that was a bad performance.

 

[CyCity]

Let's end this where it began.

"No, just a guy that appreciates basketball. I get a little sick and tired of reading complaints about Woody after a 14 rebound performance where he shot 3-5 and contributed to holding a DII All-American to 19 points while taking 17 shots to get there."

No. We don't have to agree. You think that was a bad performance.

I think letting a D2 player but up 19 pts against you as a 4 year starter for a Big 10 program is not good defense. Offensively and on the glass he was fine, he's not going to light up the scoreboard that's not who he is.

 

[unoHawkeye]

I like Woody and cheer really hard for him, but his performance was not good against Augustana. First of all, Augustana shot a ton of threes without following, creating tons of gimme rebounds which inflated his rebounding numbers. Secondly, one thing that Woodbury does very well is get good position on defense. There were numerous times in the game where the Augustana post got position on Woodbury and took a lob pass over the top for easy buckets, or drove by him for layups. I suppose 3/5 shooting is good, but that begs the question "Why didn't he demand the ball or take more shots?"

He's shown glimpses, but arguing how good Woodbury is and using the Augustana game as a basis, where he collected 14 rebounds despite being taller than anybody on the other team by 5 inches, isn't helping the argument. And saying "well at least he didn't get kicked off the team" is silly. By this logic, little Lickliter was better for the Hawkeyes than Sulaimon was for Duke (and this is laughable).

 

[DanL53]

I like Woody and cheer really hard for him, but his performance was not good against Augustana. First of all, Augustana shot a ton of threes without following, creating tons of gimme rebounds which inflated his rebounding numbers. Secondly, one thing that Woodbury does very well is get good position on defense. There were numerous times in the game where the Augustana post got position on Woodbury and took a lob pass over the top for easy buckets, or drove by him for layups. I suppose 3/5 shooting is good, but that begs the question "Why didn't he demand the ball or take more shots?"

He's shown glimpses, but arguing how good Woodbury is and using the Augustana game as a basis, where he collected 14 rebounds despite being taller than anybody on the other team by 5 inches, isn't helping the argument. And saying "well at least he didn't get kicked off the team" is silly. By this logic, little Lickliter was better for the Hawkeyes than Sulaimon was for Duke (and this is laughable).

I see, so:

1) Only Woody took advantage of all those easy rebounds? But the Hawkeyes were burned on the boards otherwise.
2) Numerous times Woody was beaten on defense doesn't equate to the shooting percentage of his opponent. Good night for the guy? Maybe. Great night, no.
3) You serious on why Woody didn't demand the ball or take more shots? We know after three years he's not going to light up the scoreboard.
4) Arguing how good Woody is? Try presenting evidence that he is not the bust, or underachiever, or disappointment that many make him out to be.
5) 14 rebounds is good anytime. And again, where were the other Hawkeyes?
6) A guy transfers, he's gone. So tell me how Sulaimon is going to help Duke?

You might notice all six included a question mark. I'm open to hear explanations.

 

[CyCity]

I see, so:

1) Only Woody took advantage of all those easy rebounds? But the Hawkeyes were burned on the boards otherwise.
2) Numerous times Woody was beaten on defense doesn't equate to the shooting percentage of his opponent. Good night for the guy? Maybe. Great night, no.
3) You serious on why Woody didn't demand the ball or take more shots? We know after three years he's not going to light up the scoreboard.
4) Arguing how good Woody is? Try presenting evidence that he is not the bust, or underachiever, or disappointment that many make him out to be.
5) 14 rebounds is good anytime. And again, where were the other Hawkeyes?
6) A guy transfers, he's gone. So tell me how Sulaimon is going to help Duke?

You might notice all six included a question mark. I'm open to hear explanations.

Suliamon helped Duke more in 3 years than Woodbury will in 4. Your transfer argument is flawed

 

[unoHawkeye]

I see, so:

1) Only Woody took advantage of all those easy rebounds? But the Hawkeyes were burned on the boards otherwise.
2) Numerous times Woody was beaten on defense doesn't equate to the shooting percentage of his opponent. Good night for the guy? Maybe. Great night, no.
3) You serious on why Woody didn't demand the ball or take more shots? We know after three years he's not going to light up the scoreboard.
4) Arguing how good Woody is? Try presenting evidence that he is not the bust, or underachiever, or disappointment that many make him out to be.
5) 14 rebounds is good anytime. And again, where were the other Hawkeyes?
6) A guy transfers, he's gone. So tell me how Sulaimon is going to help Duke?

You might notice all six included a question mark. I'm open to hear explanations.

1) Yep, everybody else sucked at crashing the boards
2) Jansen shot 1/4 on 3's. Nearly all these threes were wide open because Woodbury (nothing on him, he's not a perimeter defender) couldn't get out to cover him. Without those threes, Jansen shoots 7/13- Over 50%, with several shots being longer 2's
3) So you are saying that 3/5 is a good shooting percentage, but that he shouldn't take more shots because he isn't capable of scoring many more points. This is sound logic... He can shoot 3/5 for six points, but not 6/10 for 12...
4) This is the issue. "Disappointing" is in the eye of the observer. There is no convincing me or others who had higher expectations that Woodbury has failed to live up to them. There is no "evidence" that he has not underachieved, considering everybody had slightly different expectations coming in
5) Nowhere to be seen... That's why we lost. And 14 rebounds is good, the number is just inflated.
6) Why does it matter how Sulaimon is GOING to help Duke? Sulaimon contributed just as much, if not more there in his 2.5 years there as Woodbury has at Iowa, including starting and scoring 10 ppg on an Elite 8 team. Now he's going to go have a major impact on a very good Maryland team.

 

[hawk-i bob]

1) Yep, everybody else sucked at crashing the boards
2) Jansen shot 1/4 on 3's. Nearly all these threes were wide open because Woodbury (nothing on him, he's not a perimeter defender) couldn't get out to cover him. Without those threes, Jansen shoots 7/13- Over 50%, with several shots being longer 2's
3) So you are saying that 3/5 is a good shooting percentage, but that he shouldn't take more shots because he isn't capable of scoring many more points. This is sound logic... He can shoot 3/5 for six points, but not 6/10 for 12...
4) This is the issue. "Disappointing" is in the eye of the observer. There is no convincing me or others who had higher expectations that Woodbury has failed to live up to them. There is no "evidence" that he has not underachieved, considering everybody had slightly different expectations coming in
5) Nowhere to be seen... That's why we lost. And 14 rebounds is good, the number is just inflated.
6) Why does it matter how Sulaimon is GOING to help Duke? Sulaimon contributed just as much, if not more there in his 2.5 years there as Woodbury has at Iowa, including starting and scoring 10 ppg on an Elite 8 team. Now he's going to go have a major impact on a very good Maryland team.

3) Fran would tell you he doesn't have a problem with Woody taking more shots...but they need to be "good" shots...that goes for everyone. You don't know that Woody would have shot 6/10...no more than DanL knows he wouldn't. What we do know is he shot 3/5.

Its' really Woody's decision within the framework of the offense that Fran is running. What you don't want is all of sudden Woody decides to take bad shots just to take more shots...

4)....you just like the rest took Woodbury's rivals ranking before he got to Iowa as the gospel - that's on you..ever stop to think maybe you & rivals were wrong? Your expectations were based on what? Yep there is no evidence your expectations had any merit at all in the first place.

Having a nephew who played college BB & was Baer's head coach in high school...I'll relay his perspective..."Woodbury does a lot of things that doesn't go notice by the average joe. He doesn't have to score to be effective for the team. Iowa would be in a world of hurt if they didn't have Woodbury's interior defensive presence".

Woodbury is Iowa's Defensive MVP ... hopefully he can help teach the likes of Uhl & Wagner to get better..cause the team will need it when Woody isn't on the floor...regardless of how many shots he takes & of your expectations.

 

[HoustonREDHawk]

Calm down. How many damn times do you double post and no one complains?

I have been getting error messages when I post, and hadn't noticed that my reposts were creating double posts.

Dan, I usually appreciate and agree with your posts, but sometimes you keep beating a dead horse after it has been processed into dog food, eaten by your dog, and grunted into your neighbor's yard. I understand that it is difficult not to respond to stupid posts, like pronouncing Woody to be the most disappointing recruit ever, but continuing to argue with an idiot just brings you down to their level.

 

[hawk-i bob]

I have been getting error messages when I post, and hadn't noticed that my reposts were creating double posts.

Dan, I usually appreciate and agree with your posts, but sometimes you keep beating a dead horse after it has been processed into dog food, eaten by your dog, and grunted into your neighbor's yard. I understand that it is difficult not to respond to stupid posts, like pronouncing Woody to be the most disappointing recruit ever, but continuing to argue with an idiot just brings you down to their level.

as does the Woody bashers keep beating the same dead horse....over & over & over...going on 4 years now.....why do you call DanL out? I wish I had the ability to ignore player bashing posts...I'll give you that but as long as they are allowed on this site..I'm responding in the most respectful way I can.

You'd at least think they would have given it a break after a 14 rebound zero Turnovers performance. Had they done so I have a feeling you would have never heard from DanL.

 

[hawk-i bob]

Kakert....
I'm not as down on Woody as basically everyone else because my expectations have always been reasonable with him and I don't try and project him into something he's not on the floor.

can't be said any better than that...

 

[IronFist1776]

No, just a guy that appreciates basketball. I get a little sick and tired of reading complaints about Woody after a 14 rebound performance where he shot 3-5 and contributed to holding a DII All-American to 19 points while taking 17 shots to get there.

DanL, please just let it go. Woody wasn't the next Raef and that's OK. But bringing up how much of a bust Woody isn't, seems desperate. He isn't a bust but no way has he lived up to expectations. You can argue whether expectations are fair or unfair but being offered by UNC is bound to make people dream big. The AZ big you you referenced plays great defense, and is fast and mobile and blocks shots. If Woody could move like that and do that, I'd think he would have had a better career up till now. That being said, he's not a bust, just not the stud people envisioned because UNC offered him. As long as people aren't being mean spirited in their criticism, who cares what they say?

 

[IronFist1776]

Yeah, transfers are great success stories. Especially ones who get thrown off their team first.

Well, he did get thrown off a team coached by the biggest cheater and two faced scumbag in NCAA basketball history, Ratface Krazooski, so he can't be all bad. Even Uthoff was treated by Bo as if he was kicked off the Wiscy team but I'd bet that you think he's a fine young man and not anywhere near a disappointment as a player or recruit so I don't understand your equivocation. DanL, you're letting the few Woody bashers ruin your excitement for the upcoming season. Why not ignore it/deal w/ it and do what you you do best (post/start interesting topics or threads)? These desperate Woody appreciation threads only gives Woody bashers more opportunities to trash him. We all know what Woody can and can't do. Let's move on.

 

[hawk-i bob]

DanL, please just let it go. Woody wasn't the next Raef and that's OK. But bringing up how much of a bust Woody isn't, seems desperate. He isn't a bust but no way has he lived up to expectations. You can argue whether expectations are fair or unfair but being offered by UNC is bound to make people dream big. The AZ big you you referenced plays great defense, and is fast and mobile and blocks shots. If Woody could move like that and do that, I'd think he would have had a better career up till now. That being said, he's not a bust, just not the stud people envisioned because UNC offered him. As long as people aren't being mean spirited in their criticism, who cares what they say?

yet we are suppose to read posts of how much a bust Woodbury is...I see....seems fair to me.

 

[DanL53]

Alright, I think I just had an epiphany.

I'm a drink that goes down better when the Hawkeyes are winning. We just lost an exhibition game to a DII team, and there's nothing I can say to alleviate concerns or in Woody's case outright blame as if he was the cause of it.

I'm ok waiving the pompom when things are going well. Should just shut up after a loss. And especially, most importantly, stop dropping the pompom and raising a middle finger at the lemon suckers.

But...that...takes...away...so...much...of...my...fun. I'll try. No promises.

 

[SDHawkDoc]

I appreciate your responses, Dan. You see it as important to defend these kids who are giving their best for the university we support. That is certainly admirable.
While I may not agree with your conclusions, I understand the reasoning.
As for Woodbury specifically, he certainly isn't the cause of all the teams issues. While I would like for him to be a more effective offensive player and a more consistent rebounder, it is well past time for people to accept what he is rather than dwelling on any unfulfilled promises they had laid on him.

 

[Ronman]

Clone fans have made it a mission to mock and denigrate Woodbury from the second he signed on with the Hawks. Of course, it's not like they are that knowledgeable about the sport. They did the same with Marble and White.

 

[unoHawkeye]

Alright, I think I just had an epiphany.

I'm a drink that goes down better when the Hawkeyes are winning. We just lost an exhibition game to a DII team, and there's nothing I can say to alleviate concerns or in Woody's case outright blame as if he was the cause of it.

I'm ok waiving the pompom when things are going well. Should just shut up after a loss. And especially, most importantly, stop dropping the pompom and raising a middle finger at the lemon suckers.

But...that...takes...away...so...much...of...my...fun. I'll try. No promises.

I don't think many (at least not me) are blaming Woodbury alone for the loss. Uthoff was non-existent, as was the bench. The defense as a whole sucked. I wouldn't say (having watched the game) I'd be impressed with Woodbury's performance either though.

 

[hawk-i bob]

I appreciate your responses, Dan. You see it as important to defend these kids who are giving their best for the university we support. That is certainly admirable.
While I may not agree with your conclusions, I understand the reasoning.
As for Woodbury specifically, he certainly isn't the cause of all the teams issues. While I would like for him to be a more effective offensive player and a more consistent rebounder, it is well past time for people to accept what he is rather than dwelling on any unfulfilled promises they had laid on him.

spot on...

 

[MrAugustana]

Fun to see you guys are still talking about the Augustana game.

Just to jump in and defend Jansen for a second, 17 shots to score 19 points isn't ideal, but he also scored those 19 points in 25 minutes of play due to the aforementioned foul trouble. On the one hand, you could say "if he'd played his usual 35 minutes, he would've had an even worse shooting percentage," but I'm not sure I'd agree. Jansen is actually a solid 3-point shooter (hit the second-most threes on our team last year, shooting 39% with 58 made threes) and can be somewhat of a streak shooter. He just happened to go 1-4 against you guys, making it look like he was going outside of his skill set. I think if he'd been in a better rhythm instead of the constant in-and-out of foul trouble, his overall shooting percentage might've been a little better. Then again, it might've been worse too.

That being said, it's interesting to me that so many people think a consistent 19 ppg on 47% shooting wouldn't be impressive numbers at your level. I get that he's a big man and, yes, based on some of the solid reasoning that's been presented, big men should shoot a slightly higher percentage than that, but it's not like he had some off-night Kobe Bryant statline of 19 points on 4-21 shooting and a bunch of free throws.

I know none of this matters because we're supposed to be bemoaning/defending Woodbury for the 413th thread on this forum, but I figured I'd jump in since Augustana was being discussed. Hope that's ok.

 

[DanL53]

Fun to see you guys are still talking about the Augustana game..

You do know that the dates of posts are listed and no one had said a word since last Thursday?

 

[MrAugustana]

You do know that the dates of posts are listed and no one had said a word since last Thursday?

My apologies. I didn't realize this thread was that old.

 

[DanL53]

My apologies. I didn't realize this thread was that old.

That's OK. I'll say this. Your team has quite a bit to be proud of. And you did Iowa a favor giving us a nice wakeup call. I think it is really sad that it's hard for you to find D1 teams willing to play you but I can certainly see why.

As to the Woody stuff, well everybody has an opinion. Your guy Jansen will have much better games against other guys.

 

[clickhere 01]

http://www.wusports.com/news/2015/11/13/MBB_1113152020.aspx

 

[hawk-i bob]

http://www.wusports.com/news/2015/11/13/MBB_1113152020.aspx

yep not a word...

 

[HoustonREDHawk]

yep not a word...

I guess it is good the Hawks don't also play the Ichabods.

 

[hooper56]

I admit I am somewhat disappointed that Woody did not make himself much bigger and stronger but he has gotten better. He is still an effective player for the Hawkeyes. He could have been better I think, had he wanted to. He is far from a bust.

 

[The Sleeping Dog]

First, unlike other guys that smelled greener pastures Woody chose Iowa at a time we were in the toilet. The kid earned his scholly just by signing because it gave an imprimatur of competitive progress and was part of the first high profile class in a decade. Every Iowa BBall fan owes a great deal to Woody.

Tremendous defensive player...and don't cite one or two games where a guy just went off as that's true for almost every player that's ever laced up BBall shoes. Much of the offense smoothly runs through him. Great screens and good rolls, sadly doesn't seem to have the right touch inside.

A good but not great player. A solid starter whose been integral to team improvement every year of his career. You cannot say enough good about the kid.

 

[MrAugustana]

http://www.wusports.com/news/2015/11/13/MBB_1113152020.aspx

yep not a word...

I'm sorry. Was the "not a word" a shot at me for not responding sooner?

First things first, DanL53...am I allowed to respond to this? I know it was posted Tuesday and Wednesday, which is now a full two to three days ago, I just only happened to see it today. But I'd love to respond if it's not too late. (Just messing with you, Dan.)

Next things next, clickhere01 and hawk-i-bob, I actually addressed our loss to Washburn in a thread a few minutes ago before I saw these posts. If you're interested in what I said: http://iowa.forums.rivals.com/threads/fran-is-excited.60776/#post-1293554

If you're not, that's fine too. But I actually tried to be positive and encouraging to both my program and yours.

Anyway, if your point is to try to bash Augie for losing a game (and take a shot at me for not responding to the link that was posted because I didn't comment on it), what a sad/lame way to put someone down. "Haha, hey guys, check it out... the lower-division team that beat our high major conference team and made national news doing it--even though it totally, totally didn't count--lost a game that a tiny portion of people care about or commented on. Losers!"

Sick burn. Got us good.

 

[DanL53]

I'm sorry. Was the "not a word" a shot at me for not responding sooner?

First things first, DanL53...am I allowed to respond to this? I know it was posted Tuesday and Wednesday, which is now a full two to three days ago, I just only happened to see it today. But I'd love to respond if it's not too late. (Just messing with you, Dan.)

Next things next, I actually addressed that in a thread a few minutes ago before I saw these posts. If you're interested in what I said: http://iowa.forums.rivals.com/threads/fran-is-excited.60776/#post-1293554

If you're not, that's fine too. But I actually tried to be positive and encouraging to both my program and yours.

Anyway, if your point is to try to bash Augie for losing a game (and take a shot at me for not responding to the link that was posted because I didn't comment on it), what a sad/lame way to put someone down. "Haha, hey guys, check it out... the lower-division team that beat our high major conference team and made national news doing it--even though it totally, totally didn't count--lost a game that a tiny portion of people care about or commented on. Losers!"

Sick burn. Got us good.

Oh heck yeah MrAugustana, as far as I'm concerned you can post now that were all buddies. Of course I'm just another poster so it doesn't matter what I think.

As far as I'm concerned you guys make for a great exhibition game and I would love to have you back anytime.