Ketch's 10 Thoughts From the Weekend (Hey, Kirk... this is Tom... I gotta scoop for you...)
- Thread starter Ketchum
- Start date
The way @Ketchum argues he'd be the one getting choked out on the ground yelling "checkmate" with his last gasp of air.
You were embarrassingly exposed in this sequence. You really need to just bow out. I suppose I could recap things if you want.
Please do recap. I've apparently missed the embarrassment.You were embarrassingly exposed in this sequence. You really need to just bow out. I suppose I could recap things if you want.
My pleasure.
1. In response to a post by @JinSOTEX, which stated that I was over the top with my negativity (not one example listed) towards Buechele, you stated:
"SB will make him look foolish. Although, in typical Ketch fashion, he has left himself just a bit of wiggle room to change sides should he be wrong."
2. I then asked you directly to quote JUST ONE thing that you specifically disagree with me on,
JUST ONE EXAMPLE. SURELY, THERE'S ONE?
3. In what I view embarrassing fashion, you stated that you were too "lazy" to come up with even one thing that you knowingly disagree with me on, which shouldn't be rocket science if you have enough common ground with another poster stating that I'm over the top negative on Buechele that you said the words "common ground" twice.
You then went on to completely misrepresent my position on Buechele in a way that didn't jive with a single ounce of reality.
4. I then corrected your incorrect position on my stance on Buechele to the extent that there was very little you could do.
So what happens?
5. You suggest I'm worked up. Rather than address my comments specifically, you vaguely mention that your remarks are based on comments that I have made, yet there are no specific examples. Not one. Just an attempt to change the narrative from your ridiculous positions to me being on tilt, apparently.
You then suggest that I haven't been clear with regards to my comments on Buechele, which is ironic because you're the lazy one that can't be clear with a single specific.
Lazy was your word, for the record, not mine.
p.s. I've literally typed the same thing about Buechele for weeks in every 10TFTW section of comments.
Ok. I see where you're a little confused. My double "common ground" to @JinSOTEX was because he and I have been at odds over the Spurs. It had nothing to do with you. To say I was blasé about your Buechele comments is an understatement. I literallly didn't care, and even if it took me 2 minutes to search, it wasn't worth my time.My pleasure.
1. In response to a post by @JinSOTEX, which stated that I was over the top with my negativity (not one example listed) towards Buechele, you stated:
"SB will make him look foolish. Although, in typical Ketch fashion, he has left himself just a bit of wiggle room to change sides should he be wrong."
2. I then asked you directly to quote JUST ONE thing that you specifically disagree with me on,
JUST ONE EXAMPLE. SURELY, THERE'S ONE?
3. In what I view embarrassing fashion, you stated that you were too "lazy" to come up with even one thing that you knowingly disagree with me on, which shouldn't be rocket science if you have enough common ground with another poster stating that I'm over the top negative on Buechele that you said the words "common ground" twice.
You then went on to completely misrepresent my position on Buechele in a way that didn't jive with a single ounce of reality.
4. I then corrected your incorrect position on my stance on Buechele to the extent that there was very little you could do.
So what happens?
5. You suggest I'm worked up. Rather than address my comments specifically, you vaguely mention that your remarks are based on comments that I have made, yet there are no specific examples. Not one. Just an attempt to change the narrative from your ridiculous positions to me being on tilt, apparently.
You then suggest that I haven't been clear with regards to my comments on Buechele, which is ironic because you're the lazy one that can't be clear with a single specific.
Lazy was your word, for the record, not mine.
p.s. I've literally typed the same thing about Buechele for weeks in every 10TFTW section of comments.
Where I said you seemed worked up was because you ended your response with "you just don't know what you're taking about." Seemed to escalate the issue, especially when I didn't much care, and had only agreed with another poster.
I then responded that many, many posters seem to be confused about your position on Buechele, and as a columnist that's really a reflection on you. You clearly aren't conveying your position well. You then said you can't hold my hand. No, you clearly can't convey your thoughts to the board, as most seem to be confused on where you stand.
Because I literally gave zero shits about the issue, I bowed out by saying you seem too worked up (2 snarky comments out of 2 posts) - as another poster agreed. You then decided you've won some battle of wits that one of us wasn't even competing in.
Truly priceless. You won an argument with yourself. Now that you've accomplished that, start writing more clearly so half your subscribers don't think you're so off base.
whatever helps you sleep tonight.
for the record, you're apparently still too lazy to cite a single specific example.
Sleep like a baby.
For the record, you can't explain why so many posters are apparently confused by your position. Why is that?
They lack reading comprehension skills and our at times unable to see reality because of their fandom.
Those are the direct attributes of the handful of people in this thread that can't figure it out. Oh, and laziness, right?
oh, we're just busting each other's balls. Nothing to walk away from. JS gives it a LOT, so he can take a little back.
It's not everyone. Far from it. There are a handful of the same people that confuse it every week, regardless of what is actually said.
Like I said, I can't hold everyone's hand. At some point, stop being lazy and pay attention.
I would put the odds of both Zaire coming here and starting over Shane at pretty close to 0. Same as the odds last year after the spring game of Swoopes starting over Shane.
Malik Zaire kryptonite is pressure. The reason why he had his best passing game was against Texas. Charlie had a contain scheme where we were more worried about MZ running than passing. Every other defense rushed the QB and Zaire couldn't pass very well. It's why they went with Kizor. He could still pass against a standard defense. MZ couldn't say the same.
Do you prefer holding hands with or kissing cousins (or both)? Please respond clearly so we know exactly where you stand on this matter.
That is my poor attempt to break up this battle of wits and no shits given contest.
Zaire has had one good game and it was at home against the #94 ranked defense for 2015. I just don't see removing an up and coming QB for a veteran guy that has not showed much. If he can win the job, that's great, but I would be surprised.
It comes down to who can help win the most games THIS season. Herman isn't as all-in with returning starter THIS year as some of you.
At the risk of being labeled "lazy" interesting that the OP listed 5 things he believed to be true based on what they've reported on Zaire over the 6 weeks and yet not one of them revolved around @Anwar Richardson's not so small and very recent reporting of no contact from Herman to Zaire. Maybe he thinks @Anwar Richardson is FOS. Personally, I lean pretty much towards only @Anwar Richardson reporting on this topic.
Maybe. I just don't understand the line of reasoning for bringing him in next year with the exception of being an insurance policy, which Zaire already stated he doesn't want to be.
Will Zaire help us win a national championship next year? No. Will he net us some wins Shane wouldn't have gotten us? I doubt it, but who knows. What I do know is if Shane doesn't start, he's our backup, which would then create a logjam at QB the following year, which would likely lead to either he or Sam transferring. If Shane starts next year and Sam redshirts, then there would be 2 years separation between the 2 with 2 other high profile QB's coming in the following year
That is also true. You're arguing with yourself after taking a couple of Ls recently.
Your mere presence in this thread at this stage of the thread, along with your refusal to address a couple of items presented to you in the podcast thread, would seem to indicate otherwise.
But, hey, have a great Tuesday. Maybe you can start a thread taking shots at McComas for his not reporting that Andrew Jones was leaning towards leaving.
Couple of items? Ok, great, so you said "not a walk in the park" and not "more difficult." Doesn't change the fact you "research" on our schedule is a bit lacking given you made the statement. Not to mention you conveniently skewed things to favor your opinion of the schedule. Like I said, kudos to Athlon for acknowledging the schedule is actually favorable. Getting games like Okie Lite and KSU at home is far more important than having ISU and RU at home. I figured that was common sense, but apparently not. Sure, we got WVU at home, but they also lost quite a bit. I'm not really concerned about SC being a tougher game than ND. It's one game of 12. Bottom line is our schedule is not some daunting task allude to it being.
