garizzalies said:
The funniest thing about PR's delusional posts is not that a third grader can tell he's wrong, it's that he took the uncle Rico theory even farther. Most times you will hear, "if he started, we would have won." A third grader knows that is speculation. But PR doesn't stop there. He claims if BG started the week prior, @NCU, BG would have beat the cats the next week--a game BG did in fact start. When you deny the actual truth and live in some alternate universe, it's beyond speculation and into the realm of unadulterated crazy-talk.
So, I take it that you don't think that playing your best player at key positions, like QB, increases the chances of a team winning? You don't think that indicating that a QB and captain would start, and then not starting him, doesn't impact him and others on the team? You don't believe in momentum, i.e. a win at UNC helping propel UM to a win the next week? You don't believe a loss by UM at UNC, didn't give MSU my reason for more hope, seeing that the Griz were more beatable than they may have thought? You don't think that giving a player coming back from injury an earlier game to get back to game-ready condition is helpful? Hum, smells like a never-played-the-gamer.
What's your basis for saying that UM would have lost against UNC if BG had started/played? Let's see your "speculation". And let's see your explanation for saying that had UM and BG beaten UNC, that they wouldn't have beaten the Cats.
Do you really think that key players and captains on a football team are not generally in better positions to talk about games, than fans on a message board? Talk about posters with high opinions of themselves, thinking that they know more about particular games and outcomes than players on the team.
