1HuskrFan said:
You must be a young kid to have Manziel as your favorite player after just one yr. To compare him to some of the super stars that have come before him and played great for 3 to 4 yrs. this kid hasn't really done anything yet. No conference titles, NC or any type of hardware and you have him as the greatest in college football history. You sir have a very limited exposure to the real football. The kid had an amazing freshmen yr, won the heisman due to the fact wasn't any competition for the award this yr. You could say he won by default.We'll see what his encore is like in 13. My guess is he'll have his head handed to him. He won't sneak up on anyone next yr. TAMU gets lit up next yr, I see at least 4 losses, and a couple of close wins that could be losses.
1HuskrFan said:
I didn't make an accusation to my knowledge about anyone or anything. I simply voiced my opinion which you took exception to.
1HuskrFan said:
Taylor doesn't play defense, so why would his numbers be different if the defense is better. The team win loss record may be better, but taylors numbers would stay the same.
Appreciate the condescension towards a comment that was in no way directed towards you. I'm not sure what your standards are for a 'young kid' but I don't really care what they are, you're welcome to go to my profile and deduce it for yourself if I meet your qualifications (I'll save you some trouble, I'm 21 years old). Regardless of my age I have read up on and watched film of professional and college teams and players back decades before I was born and played the game for 9 years of my life, but I'm a "young kid" so they might not matter by your judgment. The difference is the lack of intellect between you and I, which is something that is not beholden to age, unlike experience. I'd be thoroughly comfortable to PM you for a stick-measuring contest on academic and professional credentials because I have my guesses about what kind of person you are based on your unsophisticated manner of posting, which is very juvenile in tone. Even though you are quite older, you probably lack a high intellectual capacity and the ability to think intuitively. Heck, you don't even have proper reading comprehension skills. So let's begin:
Quote #1. You failed to address any portion of my response to someone else's question other than the very last sentence of it. Even then you failed to comprehend it correctly. Where in that sentence did I "compare him to the super stars" or call him the "best in college football history"? Go back and re-read my post. I said Manziel has been my favorite non-husker so far in college football history. Favorite as in FAVORITE TO WATCH, as in exciting and flashy, as in I enjoy watching his ability to scramble around, improvise & extend plays. Favorite and best are two distinct adjectives. I am entitled to my opinion. I do not think Manziel is the best player in college football history, that would be Barry Sanders in my opinion. But in your rush to throw your stick around into an exchange that didn't involve you, you were motivated by the desire to condescend from your high-horse. Because that one time you rode the bench and were Johnny Rodgers' towel boy at Omaha Tech 44 years ago makes you the resident Huskerboard football expert. Maybe because senility might be creeping in you haven't realized there's a resource called the internet which gives anyone the ability to read up on college football history, which I have made judicious use of, since it is a passion of mine. Here's something I've learned that your rapidly deteriorating brain will never accept, college football players are only going to get better and better in the future. Genetically and developmentally players are more athletic today than they were even 10-15 years ago. If you transported Bobby Reynolds, Jeff Kinney, or Johnny Rodgers from back in time to today, they would all be riding the bench behind Ameer Abdullah and Braylon Heard. And in 30 years time, Ameer and Braylon today will look average athletically because players will be athletic superfreaks by that time. The best players in history have yet to come. Rich Glover was an all-american at 6'1 240 pounds. Tell me how many 6'1 240 linemen you see these days period. But I understand historical context and can still appreciate Rich Glover because he was dominant for his time, something that you think is impossible for "young kids" to be capable of understanding.
Quote #2: Further indication that maybe senility might be creeping in because you seemed to have forgot that I was simply voicing an opinion as well. And it was an opinion that you completely misinterpreted.
Quote #3: This is where I think your intuitive understanding of the game is severely limited. You lack the ability to think critically and have digested football at face value for 44 years because you are limited in intellect. Because if you were truly intelligent you would realize that the two are not unrelated, but rather very much intertwined. Field position plays a huge role in QB and offensive stats. Tim Beck has continually said in 2011 he had to have Taylor throw it around a lot because they were behind in score early, which is the defense's fault for allowing scores. When the team is down, the quarterback takes on high-risk, high-reward throws at a greater pace. Turnovers by the offense affect the defense by giving them a short field to defend. Hurry up-offenses force your own defense onto the field longer. There's a million pieces of evidence that offensive and defensive performances are related. Yet, after 44 years of supposed vast football experience you make one of the most elementary statements I have heard. I have honestly heard better musings from twelve year olds than that farce of a statement you just tried to pass off as analysis.
