Oh my. We beat one very poor team from a conference most of us could never name in a list of conferences because they would come to our house and get pummeled for the money (all Div I teams do it), and now we are talking about winning the conference and going to a BCS or national championship.
So let me get this straight.
You are touting Green a "starter" for conference play when the only thing we saw him do was run the ball a few times against a team - which according to you - is a "very poor team from a conference most of us could never name in a list of conferences because they would come to our house and get pummeled for the money"? Nevermind the fact that the game was well out of reach and the FAU defense was just about dead.
Where is your logic in that one buddy? If you are going to say we can't judge the overall team by beating a "poor" FAU team, how the hell are you touting Green a "starter" (by conference play) in a thread you started after seeing him run and pass a few times against "poor" FAU team?
I guess you misunderstand. Your argument is my argument. While some see Lee as entitled unless injured to start ahead of Green for the next two years based on what happened in one "we buy em, we beat em" football game that for all big programs should be called a "pre season" game, I think it was very telling that they burnt Green's shirt to play in that game. If they didn't plan on utilizing Green in a major way; they would have waited to burn the shirt and see how it's going. It's not like they could not have given him the same number of snaps in practice. In my way of thinking it was a decision that they needed Green on the field likely this season --not "in case" but "because". Otherwise it is a boneheaded move to cut a player of Green's ability down to two years of eligibility to mop up this year and next year.
I just found it very telling and asked on another thread if anyone else thought that we would be seeing him start. So shoot me. Start a Zac Lee for the Heiseman thead if that floats your boat. There is NO Quarterback controversy on the team. There is none in the media. There is none on this site. I'm primarily basing my opinion that he will play more than some of the "Zac Lee is our quarterback until 2012" crowd believe on burning the redshirt in the first game. And the fact that he displayed some elusive ability running the ball was good but not the reason I think he will see a lot of playing time this year.
I think they are just bringing him along a little more slowly than Barkley at USC but have the same plan to get his talent on the field sooner rather than later. It could be all wet, but one's opinion should not be so threatening to other Big Red fans. Instead of taking shots at those who think that is the case, why not state your opinion without personal attack. We'll see in the fullness of time if I am right or wrong.
