But, you have to admire his commitment.
1 Like
Who mentioned Stafford first? Me?
And Stafford fluffing is interesting?
No one “fluffed” Stafford here. Just a quick question, did you even read the linked article?
Why would anyone do that, when you can turn anything into a Stafford debate?
1 Like
Says the guy with a stain on his Honolulu blue dress…
Did you notice who brought up Stafford first? Hint: it wasn’t me.
Dog pees on the carpet and you beat up the cat…
Ever notice how people who have nothing intellectually in the tank go right for insults over actual discussion?
So yeah, this is well on it’s way to getting locked if we can’t behave.
I’m OK with that, if people come and crap on your threads w/o even taking the time to read the links and stay on point there really isn’t any point.
I tried to discuss the issue you raised, twice. You resorted to being insulting. The first issue was “passes behind the LOS” to which you insulted me and made a conclusory statement. The second was “lack of run game hurt Stafford”.
I also asked you questions that you never responded to.
Then you accused me of “injecting Stafford” into the issue when you clearly raised Stafford first.
I didn’t go straight for the insults. You did, though. Your first post to me was insulting merely because I don’t agree with you about an issue you raised.
I originally agreed with one of your statements from the original post. Go back and read the thread with some objective eyes. I was responding to what you said every time. You did not extend to me the same courtesy.
The issue was turnovers, which means you never read the article or stayed in tune with the discussion I had hoped might follow.
Have at it Adrian, whether you close it or not I could care less. This guy is simply a troll with comprehension issues.
What was that you said about insults?