Started By
Message
re: 2017 Football Recruiting Thread ["N$D Bryant" Edition]
Posted on 12/22/16 at 1:35 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
Posted on 12/22/16 at 1:35 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
Cam Newton - Backup Plan.
Did we miss on somebody prior? If so, that would make him a backup plan.
1
Posted on 12/22/16 at 1:35 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
When will you guys learn to ignore his cries for attention?... It's every damn day 
Posted on 12/22/16 at 1:38 pm to lowspark12
He's a Snead State alumnus. It will click eventually.
Posted on 12/22/16 at 1:39 pm to jangalang
quote:
Did we miss on somebody prior? If so, that would make him a backup plan.
Or a change in evaluation? (since you seem to place value in the coaches evaluations as important).
So actually McKitty BECAME the backup plan!!!
Posted on 12/22/16 at 1:40 pm to jangalang
quote:
-I never mentioned any position being a need
Did you mention the recruits that were backup plans?
Did you mention we are filling our needs with backup plans?
Does that mean that the recruits that you said are backup plans are the positions of need that we are filling with backup plans according to you?
Come on jangalang. Use your vastly superior knowledge and work through this one. I know you have it in you. My lowly snead state edumacation learned me this one easily. You should have no problem with it.
This post was edited on 12/22/16 at 1:43 pm
Posted on 12/22/16 at 1:45 pm to lowspark12
quote:
When will you guys learn to ignore his cries for attention?... It's every damn day
Just trying to help a fellow Auburn fan use his brain for once. It's purely a humanitarian effort.
This post was edited on 12/22/16 at 1:55 pm
Posted on 12/22/16 at 1:48 pm to WareagleKK
quote:
Or a change in evaluation?
Or Mckitty told our coaches to quit calling.
quote:
So actually McKitty BECAME the backup plan!!!
Say this over and over and you will eventually believe it.
Posted on 12/22/16 at 1:57 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
Did you mention the recruits that were backup plans? Did you mention we are filling our needs with backup plans? Does that mean that the recruits that you said are backup plans are the positions of need that we are filling with backup plans according to you?
Nope. Laboring over this unnecessary rhetoric is ridiculous. You cannot prove me wrong on something I didn't claim, Snead State. Carrying on and beating around the bush won't do anything but prolong your livestock from being fed.
Posted on 12/22/16 at 2:00 pm to jangalang
quote:
You cannot prove me wrong on something I didn't claim, Snead State
Except you did claim it. I quoted it above on the previous page
Then you said beyond Igbinoghene, Canella was our only backup plan. However, that TE was not a position of need. Therefore, we cannot be filling a position of need with backup plans if the backup plans are not at positions of need.
Your cognitive dissonance is amazing.
This post was edited on 12/22/16 at 2:01 pm
Posted on 12/22/16 at 2:17 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
Except you did claim it. I quoted it above on the previous page
I was referencing KK. Because we weren't "crushing" any needs we were moreso filling in the depth chart with warm bodies.
quote:
Then you said beyond Igbinoghene, Canella was our only backup plan.
I certainly didn't say those two were our only backup plans. Again, you choose to read what you want and form unformed conclusions.
quote:
Therefore, we cannot be filling a position of need with backup plans if the backup plans are not at positions of need.
But if KK believes TE is position of need,and since he is the one that qualified his argument to this direction, then I can set forwartth that Canella is a backup plan at his position and that TE isn't a position of need. And I might add that both arguments can be mutually supportive. The idea that I must void one when using the other is fricking retarded.
This post was edited on 12/22/16 at 2:20 pm
Posted on 12/22/16 at 2:29 pm to jangalang
quote:
I was referencing KK. Because we weren't "crushing" any needs we were moreso filling in the depth chart with warm bodies.
You said we were crushing needs with backup plans. Which needs would those be then that we filled with backup plans?
quote:
I certainly didn't say those two were our only backup plans. Again, you choose to read what you want and form unformed conclusions.
I asked you who else were the backup plans. You provided only one. I didn't form an unformed conclusion. You provided an incomplete answer if you believe there are other backup plans in this class offensively. I am not responsible for your inability to make your argument.
quote:
But if KK believes TE is position of need,and since he is the one that qualified his argument to this direction, then I can set forwartth that Canella is a backup plan at his position and that TE isn't a position of need. And I might add that both arguments can be mutually supportive. The idea that I must void one when using the other is fricking retarded.
This isn't difficult. If you want to make an argument that we are filling positions of need with backup plans, then give those positions. I have given you ample opportunity to do so. I even provided you Canella, yet you decided to argue against yourself that one of our backup plans was a position of need. You are voiding one because you are actively proving your original argument wrong, not because both sides can't be argued. You argued one and then argued against it, therefore you defeated your own argument.
This post was edited on 12/22/16 at 2:31 pm
Posted on 12/22/16 at 2:38 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
I asked you who else were the backup plans. You provided only one. I didn't form an unformed conclusion. You provided an incomplete answer.
I didn't ask you to assume I gave an exhaustive list of positions. Again, you suck at this.
quote:
I even provided you Canella, yet you decided to argue against yourself that one of our backup plans was a position of need.
Obvious you're the one that is finding it difficult. I never implied or explicitly stated that "one of our backup plans was a position of need. "That doesn't make grammatical sense for one. And again, I was arguing under KK's parameters that the TE position was in need. I later made my secondary argument that the TE position wasn't actually a need.
Dig those heels into the ground, Snead State, while I continue to cockpunch you in the throat and make you like it.
Posted on 12/22/16 at 2:42 pm to jangalang
So what's the constant dribble about Snead State? Thinking you must be from my area to even know what Snead is. You mad bc you got kicked out of there. You take up 3 pages arguing a stupid point about who's a backup plan. Geezus why aren't you in the NFL as a talent guru skankalang. I'm sure your prior involvement as a band geek would be beneficial.
Posted on 12/22/16 at 2:45 pm to jangalang
quote:
Again, you suck at this.
Says the person that when asked a question, doesn't provide a full answer.
quote:
I never implied or explicitly stated that "one of our backup plans was a position of need
Well, actually, saying we are crushing our needs with backup plans does explicitly state that our backup plans are at positions of need. Unless you don't understand what explicitly means.
quote:
again, I was arguing under KK's parameters that the TE position was in need
Well then, what needs did you mean when you said we were filling them with backups? I've asked you multiple times and you've yet to give a single example.
quote:
Dig those heels into the ground, Snead State, while I continue to cockpunch you in the throat and make you like it.
It is funny you see it this way considering I've gotten you to prove yourself wrong multiple times now.
Posted on 12/22/16 at 2:47 pm to BIG_Poppy
quote:
So what's the constant dribble about Snead State?
He thinks he is being funny trying to insult my intelligence to discredit my posts, all the while arguing against his original quoted post.
Posted on 12/22/16 at 2:50 pm to jangalang
quote:
I was referencing KK. Because we weren't "crushing" any needs we were moreso filling in the depth chart with warm bodies.
All American JUCO TE
5 star offensive tackle
top 150 offensive tackle.
top 10 guard
Studham
Devan the dude
None of those were backup plans. Any argument made henceforth is null and void, jang.
Next subject guise?
Posted on 12/22/16 at 2:53 pm to WareagleKK
quote:
WareagleKK
At least someone else is in here to witness the cognitive dissonance going on.
Jangalang:
Posted on 12/22/16 at 2:54 pm to jangalang
quote:
Did we not want Mckitty?
He was concerned with our passing game from day 1
Posted on 12/22/16 at 2:55 pm to jangalang
quote:
Is Tamorrion really an Auburn lock
We've made him a priority.
FSU has others ahead of him
Posted on 12/22/16 at 2:59 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
Says the person that when asked a question, doesn't provide a full answer.
You have been supplying rhetorical questions all day. Forgive me if I ignored a question seeking an answer in return. (Not)
quote:
Well then, what needs did you mean when you said we were filling them with backups?
I didn't specify one need. Not one. Do you not get that. I said Sal would be a backup plan if TE was considered a need.
quote:
Well, actually, saying we are crushing our needs with backup plans does explicitly state that our backup plans are at positions of need.
That is called sarcasm. And you haven't proven me wrong about anything. The way that you keep repeating yourself makes me believe you're trying to convince yourself that you're winning the argument. You're not.
Page 191 of 312
Latest Auburn News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News