Started By
Message
re: If Fields is ruled eligible...
Posted on 1/4/19 at 10:39 pm to Lifes Short Go Deep
Posted on 1/4/19 at 10:39 pm to Lifes Short Go Deep
quote:
A backup is just a backup....he is not entitled to anything. Practice throughout the season and competition in preseason aka more practice dictated that Fromm would remain as the starter and Fields would be the backup. If he had established himself or performed better he would have been the starter. It does not matter how high profile a recruit you are you are not entitled anything .....to think otherwise is ludicrous. I believe that he is a prima Donna and his daddy was meddling on overdrive most teams backups don’t see the field , high profile or not, the country is littered with 4 or 5 star recruits on the bench that haven’t earned playing time yet. Alabama and Clemson are rare and unique situations the other 99% have their backs ups not see the field unless injury or mop up duty. This kid and his dad feel was entitled to the job without earning it, if he had earned it he would have been on the field as the starter. Kirby I believe was trying to keep him and daddy happy by allowing him spot duty here and there, but he wasn’t ready to run the full offense more than likely and even if he was he more than likely had not proved he could run it more efficiently and effectively than Fromm. Seems you do not understand how football works or just believe in entitlement
So, Fields, in your opinion, didn't earn the right to run the full offense. But, he earned the right to be put in the game awkwardly with no packages for him to run and very few passing plays for him? Even if Fields was to stay Kirby and co. had completely mishandled him because if you are going to burn a year of his eligibility at least do yourself and your team a favor by developing his skills once he's in the game. People like you and Kirby think you're doing something but all you're doing is screwing yourself. You know Kirby done f-ed right?
1
Posted on 1/4/19 at 10:51 pm to Shaft Williams
He had plays to run, ...and you are looking at this in reverse. You are assuming he was a victim instead of he just wasn’t developed enough yet or possibly not capable or qualified to run the entire playbook, what proof do u have he even understood it....none.
It’s the same argument unqualified people have that they weren’t hired for a job, “they were screwed over” instead of facing the reality that they weren’t qualified....no more No less than they simply weren’t skilled or qualified enough.
What proof do u have that he was even capable of running the full offense or all the packages. There is no proof, in almost 100% of the situations like this the reason they aren’t running the full offense is they aren’t capable yet, also in blow outs you are not going to keep running your offense full tilt, he was in those games to get him game time and to keep the actual starter healthy, learn the game, it will help u grasp concepts like this. He was put in games to keep him and his dad happy.
It’s the same argument unqualified people have that they weren’t hired for a job, “they were screwed over” instead of facing the reality that they weren’t qualified....no more No less than they simply weren’t skilled or qualified enough.
What proof do u have that he was even capable of running the full offense or all the packages. There is no proof, in almost 100% of the situations like this the reason they aren’t running the full offense is they aren’t capable yet, also in blow outs you are not going to keep running your offense full tilt, he was in those games to get him game time and to keep the actual starter healthy, learn the game, it will help u grasp concepts like this. He was put in games to keep him and his dad happy.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News