knapplc Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 A pic of Mitt was my other choice. I chose to go with Better Off Dead because I'm old, and it's old school. Although in a way Mitt Romney's campaign may be "better off dead" after his 10K gaffe, so there's synergy there. It's a Festivus Miracle. Quote Link to comment
Hercules Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 The argument Husker fans are making about Rex Burkhead having less talent around him is no different than the argument that Robert Griffin III deserves extra credit for the numbers he put up because he put them up at Baylor. Quote Link to comment
ShawnWatson Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Just to recap; You guys say Rex is just as good as Ball or they are somehow comparable. I say they're not and ask you to prove why you think Rex is better..the only thing you can muster is that Ball plays behind a good O-Line. That in no way proves anything about Rex, so I think I've won this pretty handily. Teacher: Joe is much smarter than Tom. Joe has a 4.0 GPA and scored a 1600 on his SAT. Tom has a 3.3 and only got a 1250. Tom's family: Haha that's silly, Tom is just as smart if not smarter! Teacher: Why do you think that? Tom's family: Because Joe's Dad is a college professor! I'm not a scientist but I'm pretty sure that analogy doesn't make sense. Quote Link to comment
Excel Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 So let me get this straight...given an improved offensive line Rex would rush for almost 40 TD's? Quote Link to comment
Excel Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Just to recap; You guys say Rex is just as good as Ball or they are somehow comparable. I say they're not and ask you to prove why you think Rex is better..the only thing you can muster is that Ball plays behind a good O-Line. That in no way proves anything about Rex, so I think I've won this pretty handily. Teacher: Joe is much smarter than Tom. Joe has a 4.0 GPA and scored a 1600 on his SAT. Tom has a 3.3 and only got a 1250. Tom's family: Haha that's silly, Tom is just as smart if not smarter! Teacher: Why do you think that? Tom's family: Because Joe's Dad is a college professor! I'm not a scientist but I'm pretty sure that analogy doesn't make sense. I'm simply trying to illustrate the sort of logic being used in the arugment. If you find it shaky then we agree on something. Quote Link to comment
junior4949 Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 So let me get this straight...given an improved offensive line Rex would rush for almost 40 TD's? It all depends on how many chances one gets. Take Blake Bell from OU for example. He had 10 TD's on just 34 carries. If he had 275 touches, given the downs and distances when he did carry it logically he could have had 80 TD's. Quote Link to comment
Hercules Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 So let me get this straight...given an improved offensive line Rex would rush for almost 40 TD's? I think there are about 10 different RBs in the NCAA who would rush for almost 40 TDs if they had switched spots with Montee Ball this season. Montee Ball isn't even the best player on his own offense. 1 Quote Link to comment
Hercules Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Just to recap; You guys say Rex is just as good as Ball or they are somehow comparable. I say they're not and ask you to prove why you think Rex is better..the only thing you can muster is that Ball plays behind a good O-Line. That in no way proves anything about Rex, so I think I've won this pretty handily. Teacher: Joe is much smarter than Tom. Joe has a 4.0 GPA and scored a 1600 on his SAT. Tom has a 3.3 and only got a 1250. Tom's family: Haha that's silly, Tom is just as smart if not smarter! Teacher: Why do you think that? Tom's family: Because Joe's Dad is a college professor! I'm not a scientist but I'm pretty sure that analogy doesn't make sense. I'm simply trying to illustrate the sort of logic being used in the arugment. If you find it shaky then we agree on something. He was saying that your illustration didn't make sense. Quote Link to comment
Enhance Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Troy Davis? Damn, thanks! Edited. Quote Link to comment
Excel Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Just to recap; You guys say Rex is just as good as Ball or they are somehow comparable. I say they're not and ask you to prove why you think Rex is better..the only thing you can muster is that Ball plays behind a good O-Line. That in no way proves anything about Rex, so I think I've won this pretty handily. Teacher: Joe is much smarter than Tom. Joe has a 4.0 GPA and scored a 1600 on his SAT. Tom has a 3.3 and only got a 1250. Tom's family: Haha that's silly, Tom is just as smart if not smarter! Teacher: Why do you think that? Tom's family: Because Joe's Dad is a college professor! I'm not a scientist but I'm pretty sure that analogy doesn't make sense. I'm simply trying to illustrate the sort of logic being used in the arugment. If you find it shaky then we agree on something. He was saying that your illustration didn't make sense. Well I'm sorry but I think it does. I've made everypoint I think I can make. The evidence shows Ball is one of the best RB's to play CFB, Rex won't be remembered in a few years from now by anyone but Huskers...and thats the way it is. I'm done. Quote Link to comment
Enhance Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 So let me get this straight...given an improved offensive line Rex would rush for almost 40 TD's? One doesn't simply compete with Barry Sander's record just by having really good players around him. Ball is still a really good player. Here's a question I pose for debate. Was Ball a Heisman candidate in the wrong season, or are people just not overtly impressed with him? He rushed for twice as many touchdowns and 200+ more yards than Ingram did when he won the Heisman. Yet, Ball finishes fourth in the ballots. And Ingram wasn't exactly going up against bad candidates in 2009. Quote Link to comment
B.B. Hemingway Posted December 12, 2011 Author Share Posted December 12, 2011 Just to recap; You guys say Rex is just as good as Ball or they are somehow comparable. I say they're not and ask you to prove why you think Rex is better..the only thing you can muster is that Ball plays behind a good O-Line. That in no way proves anything about Rex, so I think I've won this pretty handily. Teacher: Joe is much smarter than Tom. Joe has a 4.0 GPA and scored a 1600 on his SAT. Tom has a 3.3 and only got a 1250. Tom's family: Haha that's silly, Tom is just as smart if not smarter! Teacher: Why do you think that? Tom's family: Because Joe's Dad is a college professor! I'm not a scientist but I'm pretty sure that analogy doesn't make sense. I'm simply trying to illustrate the sort of logic being used in the arugment. If you find it shaky then we agree on something. I don't mind your argument on Ball, but that analogy doesn't equate.... Quote Link to comment
B.B. Hemingway Posted December 12, 2011 Author Share Posted December 12, 2011 The question isn't who had the better season. Clearly, that would be Monte Ball; the question is who would you take if the circumstances (QB play, line play, etc.) were the same. And while Ball is a great, fantastic player; I would take Rex Burkhead, without question. I feel the need to point out again, that I think Ball is a GREAT player. Quote Link to comment
B.B. Hemingway Posted December 12, 2011 Author Share Posted December 12, 2011 So let me get this straight...given an improved offensive line Rex would rush for almost 40 TD's? One doesn't simply compete with Barry Sander's record just by having really good players around him. Ball is still a really good player. Here's a question I pose for debate. Was Ball a Heisman candidate in the wrong season, or are people just not overtly impressed with him? He rushed for twice as many touchdowns and 200+ more yards than Ingram did when he won the Heisman. Yet, Ball finishes fourth in the ballots. And Ingram wasn't exactly going up against bad candidates in 2009. BadgerFan won't agree, but those TD numbers are misleading, and Sanders played 12 games.....So yeah.... Quote Link to comment
Excel Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Just to recap; You guys say Rex is just as good as Ball or they are somehow comparable. I say they're not and ask you to prove why you think Rex is better..the only thing you can muster is that Ball plays behind a good O-Line. That in no way proves anything about Rex, so I think I've won this pretty handily. Teacher: Joe is much smarter than Tom. Joe has a 4.0 GPA and scored a 1600 on his SAT. Tom has a 3.3 and only got a 1250. Tom's family: Haha that's silly, Tom is just as smart if not smarter! Teacher: Why do you think that? Tom's family: Because Joe's Dad is a college professor! I'm not a scientist but I'm pretty sure that analogy doesn't make sense. I'm simply trying to illustrate the sort of logic being used in the arugment. If you find it shaky then we agree on something. I don't mind your argument on Ball, but that analogy doesn't equate.... It is a fairly accurate reflection of the argument Husker fans are making. Joe = Ball Tom = Burkhead Grades = Stats Teacher = me/media/outsiders Tom's Family = Huskers Joe's Professor Father = (a positive force affecting grades or stats) The Wisconsin O- Line As far as Tom's family offering a non-sequitor as a response yes...its not made to make sense just as your argument doesn't make sense. Why is X good? Why is X better than Y? Because Y is good for this reason! You see how that doesn't say anything about X? Just like you haven't provided any evidence about Burkhead, only stuff about Ball and the O-Line. That's just it, all the evidence, records and statistics lean heavily on the side of Ball being the better RB. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.