Any Portal News Yet

[TomCat88]

I can’t believe we’re actually doing this regarding Bruggerman. Unbelievable.

He was late on reads, he was inaccurate, could only play under a clean pocket (couldn’t handle pressure) and had no escapability or ability to improvise. The lateness on reads and inability to improvise would lead one to think he didn’t read coverages well. Didn’t seem like he played with a plan. The rest of the evidence would be that prior to MSU and post MSU he did not exhibit any success. Perhaps all of the stops were just bad places for him though.

Finally, I don’t doubt he looked good in practice. That was one of the worst defenses I’ve ever seen at MSU. Maybe some of it was the pressure of game day. Honestly, it doesn’t matter. There’s a long list of players who were practice all stars but couldn’t do it in game. At the end of the day, only game day matters. Hopefully this wasn’t too shallow for yo Tom, doesn’t hardly compare to “somebody told me he was good in practice”, I realize, but it’s the best I can do.

Was it hard for you to do that? You seem put off that you had to provide some generic, boilerplate statements. Is that because you know you're making generic, boilerplate statements and you're afraid someone will point that out?

Actually, arguing? Actually, making a case? Actually, supporting a premise? This a college football board filled with college graduates. While not every college graduate gets a degree in a science, most have to take science classes to get a degree. Most science classes involve proving or providing evidence to support statements or citing other documents. So, if someone makes a statement (misspells a word (did I spell misspell, right?) and doesn't say a word to support a claim, such as, Bruggman wasn't good because everywhere he played he was bad or Bruggman wasn't good because he couldn't grasp the offense here or Bruggman was too slow or his arm was weak or he couldn't find open receivers. Anything! Anything at all! It's not hard to do.

Yes, it was very shallow. Those are all things that anyone could pull of their ass. If you really want to show off your acumen, why not tell us about someone that is bad before they're bad or good before they're good or good despite everyone not thinking they're good. Pick a player that no one thinks is good and tells us why they're good. Or pick a player that's considered good and tell why they actually aren't.

For instance, I don't think Randall Cunningham was all that good when he was with the Vikings. One player came on board (Moss), Johnson (not that good either, but he was having a career year before getting hurt) went down and RC has arguably the best year of his career. He's got Moss, Carter, Reed, a great OL, Robert Smith, LeRoy Hoard and they set the NFL record for points scored. He had a QB rating of 106.0, while his previous best was 91.6. He was 69-51 as a starter for his career, but that year (two years after retiring after a season in which he had his worst season as a starter) he was 13-1.

Pick any player from any sport who was or wasn't as good as everyone thought. Be enlightening, instead of punching down. No one needs to hear you preach to the choir. Tell everyone something they don't think.

[BelligerentBobcat]

I can’t believe we’re actually doing this regarding Bruggerman. Unbelievable.

He was late on reads, he was inaccurate, could only play under a clean pocket (couldn’t handle pressure) and had no escapability or ability to improvise. The lateness on reads and inability to improvise would lead one to think he didn’t read coverages well. Didn’t seem like he played with a plan. The rest of the evidence would be that prior to MSU and post MSU he did not exhibit any success. Perhaps all of the stops were just bad places for him though.

Finally, I don’t doubt he looked good in practice. That was one of the worst defenses I’ve ever seen at MSU. Maybe some of it was the pressure of game day. Honestly, it doesn’t matter. There’s a long list of players who were practice all stars but couldn’t do it in game. At the end of the day, only game day matters. Hopefully this wasn’t too shallow for yo Tom, doesn’t hardly compare to “somebody told me he was good in practice”, I realize, but it’s the best I can do.

Was it hard for you to do that? You seem put off that you had to provide some generic, boilerplate statements. Is that because you know you're making generic, boilerplate statements and you're afraid someone will point that out?

Actually, arguing? Actually, making a case? Actually, supporting a premise? This a college football board filled with college graduates. While not every college graduate gets a degree in a science, most have to take science classes to get a degree. Most science classes involve proving or providing evidence to support statements or citing other documents. So, if someone makes a statement (misspells a word (did I spell misspell, right?) and doesn't say a word to support a claim, such as, Bruggman wasn't good because everywhere he played he was bad or Bruggman wasn't good because he couldn't grasp the offense here or Bruggman was too slow or his arm was weak or he couldn't find open receivers. Anything! Anything at all! It's not hard to do.

Yes, it was very shallow. Those are all things that anyone could pull of their ass. If you really want to show off your acumen, why not tell us about someone that is bad before they're bad or good before they're good or good despite everyone not thinking they're good. Pick a player that no one thinks is good and tells us why they're good. Or pick a player that's considered good and tell why they actually aren't.

For instance, I don't think Randall Cunningham was all that good when he was with the Vikings. One player came on board (Moss), Johnson (not that good either, but he was having a career year before getting hurt) went down and RC has arguably the best year of his career. He's got Moss, Carter, Reed, a great OL, Robert Smith, LeRoy Hoard and they set the NFL record for points scored. He had a QB rating of 106.0, while his previous best was 91.6. He was 69-51 as a starter for his career, but that year (two years after retiring after a season in which he had his worst season as a starter) he was 13-1.

Pick any player from any sport who was or wasn't as good as everyone thought. Be enlightening, instead of punching down. No one needs to hear you preach to the choir. Tell everyone something they don't think.

I’m not going to go look at the games from that year to prove a point. I’m not sure if you expect me to remember more than the basics from those games, but no man, I don’t remember any specific plays. Wasn’t exactly enjoyable to watch in real time, don’t think I care to go back and watch to prove what we all know.

I’m not sure I get your point on preaching to the choir or saying something everybody doesn’t already thing. I was responding to an opinion that I don’t agree with, with my own opinion. If you think being enlightening is just having an opinion that’s contrary to public opinion, well, that explains a lot. If you think your basis of why he was “not bad” was any less shallow than what I said, again, that explains a lot. You’re welcome to your opinion, I’m welcome to mine, and I think I’m done with this discussion now. Nothing to say that we haven’t all said.

Also, winning isn’t a QB stat and anybody who uses that as a primarily argument doesn’t get the game.

[grizzh8r]

Tom, I’ll argue almost anything, but even I’m not going to argue on whether Bruggman was bad or not.

As for the rest of your post, you’re welcome to your opinion. I’ve never claimed to be a smart man.

You don’t have a good argument. It’s shallow and based on a very small sample size. You didn’t attempt to frame it in a way that qualified your statement. Your ability to use the English language has been limited in your time on this board. You rarely bring receipts to support your opinions.

Tom, I always appreciate what you bring to the board, and I almost always agree with you. However, two things I disagree with here. First of all, what vendetta do you suddenly have against BelligerentBobcat? His username makes him sound worse than he is. He actually is a very good contributor to the board. Secondly, I think you are in a small minority if you think Bruggman was a good qb. He never showed it in the games, and at the end of the day, that is the only way to judge a qb.

Do people seriously not know of players that struggle in one place only to blossom in another, or players that are great on one team but then not play well for another? If you think he sucked, you should be able to explain why. It's your statement, you should be able to defend it. I've been proven wrong more than once.

I never said he was a good QB. I said he didn't suck, based on what I saw and was told by people that you would expect would know good from bad. That isn't me saying he's good or great or fair because I don't really know without gathering input on something like this from someone that does know.

BB is fun. I like him a lot. I like Cataholic a lot too.

Ok Tom, I'll play along... At what point in his utterly forgettable journeyman collegiate career did Bruggeman ever "blossom"?

I'll wait...

[Catsrgrood]

I know it’s the offseason, but really? This is what we’re arguing about? Whether or not a guy that was on the team for one year and started half of the games that one season……..9 years ago, was bad, kind of not bad, maybe kind of good?

[TomCat88]

Tom, I’ll argue almost anything, but even I’m not going to argue on whether Bruggman was bad or not.

As for the rest of your post, you’re welcome to your opinion. I’ve never claimed to be a smart man.

You don’t have a good argument. It’s shallow and based on a very small sample size. You didn’t attempt to frame it in a way that qualified your statement. Your ability to use the English language has been limited in your time on this board. You rarely bring receipts to support your opinions.

Tom, I always appreciate what you bring to the board, and I almost always agree with you. However, two things I disagree with here. First of all, what vendetta do you suddenly have against BelligerentBobcat? His username makes him sound worse than he is. He actually is a very good contributor to the board. Secondly, I think you are in a small minority if you think Bruggman was a good qb. He never showed it in the games, and at the end of the day, that is the only way to judge a qb.

Do people seriously not know of players that struggle in one place only to blossom in another, or players that are great on one team but then not play well for another? If you think he sucked, you should be able to explain why. It's your statement, you should be able to defend it. I've been proven wrong more than once.

I never said he was a good QB. I said he didn't suck, based on what I saw and was told by people that you would expect would know good from bad. That isn't me saying he's good or great or fair because I don't really know without gathering input on something like this from someone that does know.

BB is fun. I like him a lot. I like Cataholic a lot too.

Ok Tom, I'll play along... At what point in his utterly forgettable journeyman collegiate career did Bruggeman ever "blossom"?

I'll wait...

OK, here ya go! Have fun:

He didn't blossom. And I never said he did. I said he didn't suck. I didn't say in the urban slang sense where people say something "didn't suck" because they really thought it was awesome. The context was laid out in a way a grade schooler could comprehend. In this case, I stated that MSU has had some uncommon success at QB over the past 15 years with McGhee, Prukop, Murray, McKay, Anderson, Mellott, and Chambers, then said Bruggman and Rovig didn't suck. See the difference yet? Are you still me? If so,...

...this is how it works. Someone makes a claim (has an idea, a hypothesis, theory, etc.), then they set about studying that claim to determine whether or not it has any validity. If it does, they report it and others can delve into to either support or disprove it. I said (read carefully now), Bruggman (and Rovig) doesn't suck. Remember that? Remember when you were in college and you were told how that works?

So, like when you go to a movie and don't really dislike or like it...you might say "It didn't suck." In this case, I was told by experts in the field and observed that Bruggman looked good. He then proceeded to not play at a level to keep his spot and was replaced by Chris Murray. If the experts had told me he sucked and then I observed that he sucked and then he went to be replaced by Chris Murray, then I would say "he wasn't good."

Bruggman had a decent game in his first outing at Idaho. The first drive of his career he completed 6 of 8 passes for 66 yards and a 12-yard TD pass. The first drive of the second half of that game ended in a TD after he went 4 for 6 for 56 yards. I don't consider that blossoming but I don't know of any other Bobcat quarterback that has had that good of an opening drive in the Kibbie Dome. Tommy Mellott was 0 for 2 and MSU went 3 and out on his first drive there.

[TomCat88]

I know it’s the offseason, but really? This is what we’re arguing about? Whether or not a guy that was on the team for one year and started half of the games that one season……..9 years ago, was bad, kind of not bad, maybe kind of good?

You bet!!! I'm loving this. Just hitting that extra gear!!!

[TomCat88]

I can’t believe we’re actually doing this regarding Bruggerman. Unbelievable.

He was late on reads, he was inaccurate, could only play under a clean pocket (couldn’t handle pressure) and had no escapability or ability to improvise. The lateness on reads and inability to improvise would lead one to think he didn’t read coverages well. Didn’t seem like he played with a plan. The rest of the evidence would be that prior to MSU and post MSU he did not exhibit any success. Perhaps all of the stops were just bad places for him though.

Finally, I don’t doubt he looked good in practice. That was one of the worst defenses I’ve ever seen at MSU. Maybe some of it was the pressure of game day. Honestly, it doesn’t matter. There’s a long list of players who were practice all stars but couldn’t do it in game. At the end of the day, only game day matters. Hopefully this wasn’t too shallow for yo Tom, doesn’t hardly compare to “somebody told me he was good in practice”, I realize, but it’s the best I can do.

Was it hard for you to do that? You seem put off that you had to provide some generic, boilerplate statements. Is that because you know you're making generic, boilerplate statements and you're afraid someone will point that out?

Actually, arguing? Actually, making a case? Actually, supporting a premise? This a college football board filled with college graduates. While not every college graduate gets a degree in a science, most have to take science classes to get a degree. Most science classes involve proving or providing evidence to support statements or citing other documents. So, if someone makes a statement (misspells a word (did I spell misspell, right?) and doesn't say a word to support a claim, such as, Bruggman wasn't good because everywhere he played he was bad or Bruggman wasn't good because he couldn't grasp the offense here or Bruggman was too slow or his arm was weak or he couldn't find open receivers. Anything! Anything at all! It's not hard to do.

Yes, it was very shallow. Those are all things that anyone could pull of their ass. If you really want to show off your acumen, why not tell us about someone that is bad before they're bad or good before they're good or good despite everyone not thinking they're good. Pick a player that no one thinks is good and tells us why they're good. Or pick a player that's considered good and tell why they actually aren't.

For instance, I don't think Randall Cunningham was all that good when he was with the Vikings. One player came on board (Moss), Johnson (not that good either, but he was having a career year before getting hurt) went down and RC has arguably the best year of his career. He's got Moss, Carter, Reed, a great OL, Robert Smith, LeRoy Hoard and they set the NFL record for points scored. He had a QB rating of 106.0, while his previous best was 91.6. He was 69-51 as a starter for his career, but that year (two years after retiring after a season in which he had his worst season as a starter) he was 13-1.

Pick any player from any sport who was or wasn't as good as everyone thought. Be enlightening, instead of punching down. No one needs to hear you preach to the choir. Tell everyone something they don't think.

I’m not going to go look at the games from that year to prove a point. I’m not sure if you expect me to remember more than the basics from those games, but no man, I don’t remember any specific plays. Wasn’t exactly enjoyable to watch in real time, don’t think I care to go back and watch to prove what we all know.

I’m not sure I get your point on preaching to the choir or saying something everybody doesn’t already thing. I was responding to an opinion that I don’t agree with, with my own opinion. If you think being enlightening is just having an opinion that’s contrary to public opinion, well, that explains a lot. If you think your basis of why he was “not bad” was any less shallow than what I said, again, that explains a lot. You’re welcome to your opinion, I’m welcome to mine, and I think I’m done with this discussion now. Nothing to say that we haven’t all said.

Also, winning isn’t a QB stat and anybody who uses that as a primarily argument doesn’t get the game.

Yes, having an opinion that is contrary to the norm and being able to explain why your opinion has validity is enlightening. It causes people to say, "Hey, I never looked at it that way! How enlightening! I never would've thought of that on my own."

I know you won't go back and look at anything. You have a history of not doing that. PBJ, plain potato chips, tapioca pudding and a Pepsi for lunch every day.

[TomCat88]

David Ortiz was bad for the Twins, then became one of the best players in Red Sox history.

[bob12]

Am I on the wrong thread?

[TomCat88]

Am I on the wrong thread?

This has been the worst thread in BN.com history. 59 pages of fans worrying/wondering about the one thing they don't need to worry/wonder about. So bad it's entertaining. The title is just pathetic. That's the title a team like No. Colorado fan page would have.

[BLACKnBLUEnGOLD]

Tom, I’ll argue almost anything, but even I’m not going to argue on whether Bruggman was bad or not.

As for the rest of your post, you’re welcome to your opinion. I’ve never claimed to be a smart man.

You don’t have a good argument. It’s shallow and based on a very small sample size. You didn’t attempt to frame it in a way that qualified your statement. Your ability to use the English language has been limited in your time on this board. You rarely bring receipts to support your opinions.

Tom, I always appreciate what you bring to the board, and I almost always agree with you. However, two things I disagree with here. First of all, what vendetta do you suddenly have against BelligerentBobcat? His username makes him sound worse than he is. He actually is a very good contributor to the board. Secondly, I think you are in a small minority if you think Bruggman was a good qb. He never showed it in the games, and at the end of the day, that is the only way to judge a qb.

Do people seriously not know of players that struggle in one place only to blossom in another, or players that are great on one team but then not play well for another? If you think he sucked, you should be able to explain why. It's your statement, you should be able to defend it. I've been proven wrong more than once.

I never said he was a good QB. I said he didn't suck, based on what I saw and was told by people that you would expect would know good from bad. That isn't me saying he's good or great or fair because I don't really know without gathering input on something like this from someone that does know.

BB is fun. I like him a lot. I like Cataholic a lot too.

Ok Tom, I'll play along... At what point in his utterly forgettable journeyman collegiate career did Bruggeman ever "blossom"?

I'll wait...

Texas A&M liked him so much that they made him wear #20 AS A QUARTERBACK and never let him play at all.

[BelligerentBobcat]

I can’t believe we’re actually doing this regarding Bruggerman. Unbelievable.

He was late on reads, he was inaccurate, could only play under a clean pocket (couldn’t handle pressure) and had no escapability or ability to improvise. The lateness on reads and inability to improvise would lead one to think he didn’t read coverages well. Didn’t seem like he played with a plan. The rest of the evidence would be that prior to MSU and post MSU he did not exhibit any success. Perhaps all of the stops were just bad places for him though.

Finally, I don’t doubt he looked good in practice. That was one of the worst defenses I’ve ever seen at MSU. Maybe some of it was the pressure of game day. Honestly, it doesn’t matter. There’s a long list of players who were practice all stars but couldn’t do it in game. At the end of the day, only game day matters. Hopefully this wasn’t too shallow for yo Tom, doesn’t hardly compare to “somebody told me he was good in practice”, I realize, but it’s the best I can do.

Was it hard for you to do that? You seem put off that you had to provide some generic, boilerplate statements. Is that because you know you're making generic, boilerplate statements and you're afraid someone will point that out?

Actually, arguing? Actually, making a case? Actually, supporting a premise? This a college football board filled with college graduates. While not every college graduate gets a degree in a science, most have to take science classes to get a degree. Most science classes involve proving or providing evidence to support statements or citing other documents. So, if someone makes a statement (misspells a word (did I spell misspell, right?) and doesn't say a word to support a claim, such as, Bruggman wasn't good because everywhere he played he was bad or Bruggman wasn't good because he couldn't grasp the offense here or Bruggman was too slow or his arm was weak or he couldn't find open receivers. Anything! Anything at all! It's not hard to do.

Yes, it was very shallow. Those are all things that anyone could pull of their ass. If you really want to show off your acumen, why not tell us about someone that is bad before they're bad or good before they're good or good despite everyone not thinking they're good. Pick a player that no one thinks is good and tells us why they're good. Or pick a player that's considered good and tell why they actually aren't.

For instance, I don't think Randall Cunningham was all that good when he was with the Vikings. One player came on board (Moss), Johnson (not that good either, but he was having a career year before getting hurt) went down and RC has arguably the best year of his career. He's got Moss, Carter, Reed, a great OL, Robert Smith, LeRoy Hoard and they set the NFL record for points scored. He had a QB rating of 106.0, while his previous best was 91.6. He was 69-51 as a starter for his career, but that year (two years after retiring after a season in which he had his worst season as a starter) he was 13-1.

Pick any player from any sport who was or wasn't as good as everyone thought. Be enlightening, instead of punching down. No one needs to hear you preach to the choir. Tell everyone something they don't think.

I’m not going to go look at the games from that year to prove a point. I’m not sure if you expect me to remember more than the basics from those games, but no man, I don’t remember any specific plays. Wasn’t exactly enjoyable to watch in real time, don’t think I care to go back and watch to prove what we all know.

I’m not sure I get your point on preaching to the choir or saying something everybody doesn’t already thing. I was responding to an opinion that I don’t agree with, with my own opinion. If you think being enlightening is just having an opinion that’s contrary to public opinion, well, that explains a lot. If you think your basis of why he was “not bad” was any less shallow than what I said, again, that explains a lot. You’re welcome to your opinion, I’m welcome to mine, and I think I’m done with this discussion now. Nothing to say that we haven’t all said.

Also, winning isn’t a QB stat and anybody who uses that as a primarily argument doesn’t get the game.

Yes, having an opinion that is contrary to the norm and being able to explain why your opinion has validity is enlightening. It causes people to say, "Hey, I never looked at it that way! How enlightening! I never would've thought of that on my own."

I know you won't go back and look at anything. You have a history of not doing that. PBJ, plain potato chips, tapioca pudding and a Pepsi for lunch every day.

The whole premise of your “theory” is that the experts (a coaching staff who in their entire tenure here never found or developed a capable starting QB) said that the QB looked good in practice (where he was going up against a horrid defense) and that opinion matters more than what we actually saw in games. Tom, that’s not heightened thinking! It’s not enlightenment! It’s ignoring the factual reality because the “experts” said something. It’s ignoring those same “experts” benched said QB for an inexperienced 17 year old true freshman who didn’t know the offense! I suppose it’s great thinking if you’re into Skip Bayless, Stephen A Smith and the like, but that’s not really my cup of tea. Now if you wanted to say that Bruggman wasn’t as bad as he looked at MSU, I wouldn’t argue with you at all. We all know that the supporting cast makes a large difference on performance (which is why QB wins is a garbage statistic), but a good QB will still look good on a bad team. We didn’t see that with Bruggman.

Also, really weird you know my exact lunch order. Do I need to call HR to discuss your stalking? Let’s just keep it love notes at a distance, please.

[tetoncat]

Tom, I’ll argue almost anything, but even I’m not going to argue on whether Bruggman was bad or not.

As for the rest of your post, you’re welcome to your opinion. I’ve never claimed to be a smart man.

You don’t have a good argument. It’s shallow and based on a very small sample size. You didn’t attempt to frame it in a way that qualified your statement. Your ability to use the English language has been limited in your time on this board. You rarely bring receipts to support your opinions.

Tom, I always appreciate what you bring to the board, and I almost always agree with you. However, two things I disagree with here. First of all, what vendetta do you suddenly have against BelligerentBobcat? His username makes him sound worse than he is. He actually is a very good contributor to the board. Secondly, I think you are in a small minority if you think Bruggman was a good qb. He never showed it in the games, and at the end of the day, that is the only way to judge a qb.

Do people seriously not know of players that struggle in one place only to blossom in another, or players that are great on one team but then not play well for another? If you think he sucked, you should be able to explain why. It's your statement, you should be able to defend it. I've been proven wrong more than once.

I never said he was a good QB. I said he didn't suck, based on what I saw and was told by people that you would expect would know good from bad. That isn't me saying he's good or great or fair because I don't really know without gathering input on something like this from someone that does know.

BB is fun. I like him a lot. I like Cataholic a lot too.

Ok Tom, I'll play along... At what point in his utterly forgettable journeyman collegiate career did Bruggeman ever "blossom"?

I'll wait...

OK, here ya go! Have fun:

He didn't blossom. And I never said he did. I said he didn't suck. I didn't say in the urban slang sense where people say something "didn't suck" because they really thought it was awesome. The context was laid out in a way a grade schooler could comprehend. In this case, I stated that MSU has had some uncommon success at QB over the past 15 years with McGhee, Prukop, Murray, McKay, Anderson, Mellott, and Chambers, then said Bruggman and Rovig didn't suck. See the difference yet? Are you still me? If so,...

...this is how it works. Someone makes a claim (has an idea, a hypothesis, theory, etc.), then they set about studying that claim to determine whether or not it has any validity. If it does, they report it and others can delve into to either support or disprove it. I said (read carefully now), Bruggman (and Rovig) doesn't suck. Remember that? Remember when you were in college and you were told how that works?

So, like when you go to a movie and don't really dislike or like it...you might say "It didn't suck." In this case, I was told by experts in the field and observed that Bruggman looked good. He then proceeded to not play at a level to keep his spot and was replaced by Chris Murray. If the experts had told me he sucked and then I observed that he sucked and then he went to be replaced by Chris Murray, then I would say "he wasn't good."

Bruggman had a decent game in his first outing at Idaho. The first drive of his career he completed 6 of 8 passes for 66 yards and a 12-yard TD pass. The first drive of the second half of that game ended in a TD after he went 4 for 6 for 56 yards. I don't consider that blossoming but I don't know of any other Bobcat quarterback that has had that good of an opening drive in the Kibbie Dome. Tommy Mellott was 0 for 2 and MSU went 3 and out on his first drive there.

Your posts the last few days have been odd. Very defensive and argumentative. I agree with the main premises but others are allowed different opinions. As a journalist I am surprised you don't understand that and let it go.

[TomCat88]

I can’t believe we’re actually doing this regarding Bruggerman. Unbelievable.

He was late on reads, he was inaccurate, could only play under a clean pocket (couldn’t handle pressure) and had no escapability or ability to improvise. The lateness on reads and inability to improvise would lead one to think he didn’t read coverages well. Didn’t seem like he played with a plan. The rest of the evidence would be that prior to MSU and post MSU he did not exhibit any success. Perhaps all of the stops were just bad places for him though.

Finally, I don’t doubt he looked good in practice. That was one of the worst defenses I’ve ever seen at MSU. Maybe some of it was the pressure of game day. Honestly, it doesn’t matter. There’s a long list of players who were practice all stars but couldn’t do it in game. At the end of the day, only game day matters. Hopefully this wasn’t too shallow for yo Tom, doesn’t hardly compare to “somebody told me he was good in practice”, I realize, but it’s the best I can do.

Was it hard for you to do that? You seem put off that you had to provide some generic, boilerplate statements. Is that because you know you're making generic, boilerplate statements and you're afraid someone will point that out?

Actually, arguing? Actually, making a case? Actually, supporting a premise? This a college football board filled with college graduates. While not every college graduate gets a degree in a science, most have to take science classes to get a degree. Most science classes involve proving or providing evidence to support statements or citing other documents. So, if someone makes a statement (misspells a word (did I spell misspell, right?) and doesn't say a word to support a claim, such as, Bruggman wasn't good because everywhere he played he was bad or Bruggman wasn't good because he couldn't grasp the offense here or Bruggman was too slow or his arm was weak or he couldn't find open receivers. Anything! Anything at all! It's not hard to do.

Yes, it was very shallow. Those are all things that anyone could pull of their ass. If you really want to show off your acumen, why not tell us about someone that is bad before they're bad or good before they're good or good despite everyone not thinking they're good. Pick a player that no one thinks is good and tells us why they're good. Or pick a player that's considered good and tell why they actually aren't.

For instance, I don't think Randall Cunningham was all that good when he was with the Vikings. One player came on board (Moss), Johnson (not that good either, but he was having a career year before getting hurt) went down and RC has arguably the best year of his career. He's got Moss, Carter, Reed, a great OL, Robert Smith, LeRoy Hoard and they set the NFL record for points scored. He had a QB rating of 106.0, while his previous best was 91.6. He was 69-51 as a starter for his career, but that year (two years after retiring after a season in which he had his worst season as a starter) he was 13-1.

Pick any player from any sport who was or wasn't as good as everyone thought. Be enlightening, instead of punching down. No one needs to hear you preach to the choir. Tell everyone something they don't think.

I’m not going to go look at the games from that year to prove a point. I’m not sure if you expect me to remember more than the basics from those games, but no man, I don’t remember any specific plays. Wasn’t exactly enjoyable to watch in real time, don’t think I care to go back and watch to prove what we all know.

I’m not sure I get your point on preaching to the choir or saying something everybody doesn’t already thing. I was responding to an opinion that I don’t agree with, with my own opinion. If you think being enlightening is just having an opinion that’s contrary to public opinion, well, that explains a lot. If you think your basis of why he was “not bad” was any less shallow than what I said, again, that explains a lot. You’re welcome to your opinion, I’m welcome to mine, and I think I’m done with this discussion now. Nothing to say that we haven’t all said.

Also, winning isn’t a QB stat and anybody who uses that as a primarily argument doesn’t get the game.

Yes, having an opinion that is contrary to the norm and being able to explain why your opinion has validity is enlightening. It causes people to say, "Hey, I never looked at it that way! How enlightening! I never would've thought of that on my own."

I know you won't go back and look at anything. You have a history of not doing that. PBJ, plain potato chips, tapioca pudding and a Pepsi for lunch every day.

The whole premise of your “theory” is that the experts (a coaching staff who in their entire tenure here never found or developed a capable starting QB) said that the QB looked good in practice (where he was going up against a horrid defense) and that opinion matters more than what we actually saw in games. Tom, that’s not heightened thinking! It’s not enlightenment! It’s ignoring the factual reality because the “experts” said something. It’s ignoring those same “experts” benched said QB for an inexperienced 17 year old true freshman who didn’t know the offense! I suppose it’s great thinking if you’re into Skip Bayless, Stephen A Smith and the like, but that’s not really my cup of tea. Now if you wanted to say that Bruggman wasn’t as bad as he looked at MSU, I wouldn’t argue with you at all. We all know that the supporting cast makes a large difference on performance (which is why QB wins is a garbage statistic), but a good QB will still look good on a bad team. We didn’t see that with Bruggman.

Also, really weird you know my exact lunch order. Do I need to call HR to discuss your stalking? Let’s just keep it love notes at a distance, please.

What is my "theory?" LOL. You and others leave "that" out (about five times now), so I'm not sure if you know what it (he didn't suck) is. If I was trying to discredit someone's theory, I would first state what that theory is to eliminate any confusion about what we're discussing. You have left part of the "whole" premise also. So, you've left out what the theory is and didn't include everything in the premise, which means you're taking it out of context. This is what you seemingly always do. You have a hard time using words or reading them. You don't know what you're talking about or what I'm talking about, yet you persist. It's funny. You're backing off your original statement behind that smokescreen.

Are you saying Bruggman wasn't as bad as he looked at MSU or what do you mean by that exactly. If you wouldn't argue that, then where exactly is the line? I would like to know the difference between "didn't suck" and "wasn't as bad as he looked at MSU" is. I think he could've looked even worse than he did at MSU. Aside from Herbert, his targets were D'Agostino and Paige.

MSU has had QBs that never started a game in their careers and transferred to NAIA schools and didn't do all that well there either. Yet, there are fans (you?) here that think they never got a fair shot and not only didn't suck but were actually really good.




I don't watch sports much unless a team I like is playing. Never watch sports talk shows.

[iaafan]

I don’t know how good Bruggeman was but anyone saying that the coaches were lousy at coaching quarterbacks can only mean that in terms relative to other coaches at the same level. Rest assured Choate, his OC and quarterback coach have all forgotten more about coaching quarterbacks that this entire board collectively knows about quarterbacking. To think otherwise is a new level of delusion.

[BelligerentBobcat]

I don’t know how good Bruggeman was but anyone saying that the coaches were lousy at coaching quarterbacks can only mean that in terms relative to other coaches at the same level. Rest assured Choate, his OC and quarterback coach have all forgotten more about coaching quarterbacks that this entire board collectively knows about quarterbacking. To think otherwise is a new level of delusion.

Obviously they’re not being compared to Joe Schmo off the street, but to their peers. That goes for everything we discuss. Tyler Bruggman is Aaron Rodgers compared to me. I would, without a doubt, be the worst football player in Montana State history. When we discuss coaches and players, the comparison is not to us, but to their peers.

[BelligerentBobcat]

I can’t believe we’re actually doing this regarding Bruggerman. Unbelievable.

He was late on reads, he was inaccurate, could only play under a clean pocket (couldn’t handle pressure) and had no escapability or ability to improvise. The lateness on reads and inability to improvise would lead one to think he didn’t read coverages well. Didn’t seem like he played with a plan. The rest of the evidence would be that prior to MSU and post MSU he did not exhibit any success. Perhaps all of the stops were just bad places for him though.

Finally, I don’t doubt he looked good in practice. That was one of the worst defenses I’ve ever seen at MSU. Maybe some of it was the pressure of game day. Honestly, it doesn’t matter. There’s a long list of players who were practice all stars but couldn’t do it in game. At the end of the day, only game day matters. Hopefully this wasn’t too shallow for yo Tom, doesn’t hardly compare to “somebody told me he was good in practice”, I realize, but it’s the best I can do.

Was it hard for you to do that? You seem put off that you had to provide some generic, boilerplate statements. Is that because you know you're making generic, boilerplate statements and you're afraid someone will point that out?

Actually, arguing? Actually, making a case? Actually, supporting a premise? This a college football board filled with college graduates. While not every college graduate gets a degree in a science, most have to take science classes to get a degree. Most science classes involve proving or providing evidence to support statements or citing other documents. So, if someone makes a statement (misspells a word (did I spell misspell, right?) and doesn't say a word to support a claim, such as, Bruggman wasn't good because everywhere he played he was bad or Bruggman wasn't good because he couldn't grasp the offense here or Bruggman was too slow or his arm was weak or he couldn't find open receivers. Anything! Anything at all! It's not hard to do.

Yes, it was very shallow. Those are all things that anyone could pull of their ass. If you really want to show off your acumen, why not tell us about someone that is bad before they're bad or good before they're good or good despite everyone not thinking they're good. Pick a player that no one thinks is good and tells us why they're good. Or pick a player that's considered good and tell why they actually aren't.

For instance, I don't think Randall Cunningham was all that good when he was with the Vikings. One player came on board (Moss), Johnson (not that good either, but he was having a career year before getting hurt) went down and RC has arguably the best year of his career. He's got Moss, Carter, Reed, a great OL, Robert Smith, LeRoy Hoard and they set the NFL record for points scored. He had a QB rating of 106.0, while his previous best was 91.6. He was 69-51 as a starter for his career, but that year (two years after retiring after a season in which he had his worst season as a starter) he was 13-1.

Pick any player from any sport who was or wasn't as good as everyone thought. Be enlightening, instead of punching down. No one needs to hear you preach to the choir. Tell everyone something they don't think.

I’m not going to go look at the games from that year to prove a point. I’m not sure if you expect me to remember more than the basics from those games, but no man, I don’t remember any specific plays. Wasn’t exactly enjoyable to watch in real time, don’t think I care to go back and watch to prove what we all know.

I’m not sure I get your point on preaching to the choir or saying something everybody doesn’t already thing. I was responding to an opinion that I don’t agree with, with my own opinion. If you think being enlightening is just having an opinion that’s contrary to public opinion, well, that explains a lot. If you think your basis of why he was “not bad” was any less shallow than what I said, again, that explains a lot. You’re welcome to your opinion, I’m welcome to mine, and I think I’m done with this discussion now. Nothing to say that we haven’t all said.

Also, winning isn’t a QB stat and anybody who uses that as a primarily argument doesn’t get the game.

Yes, having an opinion that is contrary to the norm and being able to explain why your opinion has validity is enlightening. It causes people to say, "Hey, I never looked at it that way! How enlightening! I never would've thought of that on my own."

I know you won't go back and look at anything. You have a history of not doing that. PBJ, plain potato chips, tapioca pudding and a Pepsi for lunch every day.

The whole premise of your “theory” is that the experts (a coaching staff who in their entire tenure here never found or developed a capable starting QB) said that the QB looked good in practice (where he was going up against a horrid defense) and that opinion matters more than what we actually saw in games. Tom, that’s not heightened thinking! It’s not enlightenment! It’s ignoring the factual reality because the “experts” said something. It’s ignoring those same “experts” benched said QB for an inexperienced 17 year old true freshman who didn’t know the offense! I suppose it’s great thinking if you’re into Skip Bayless, Stephen A Smith and the like, but that’s not really my cup of tea. Now if you wanted to say that Bruggman wasn’t as bad as he looked at MSU, I wouldn’t argue with you at all. We all know that the supporting cast makes a large difference on performance (which is why QB wins is a garbage statistic), but a good QB will still look good on a bad team. We didn’t see that with Bruggman.

Also, really weird you know my exact lunch order. Do I need to call HR to discuss your stalking? Let’s just keep it love notes at a distance, please.

What is my "theory?" LOL. You and others leave "that" out (about five times now), so I'm not sure if you know what it (he didn't suck) is. If I was trying to discredit someone's theory, I would first state what that theory is to eliminate any confusion about what we're discussing. You have left part of the "whole" premise also. So, you've left out what the theory is and didn't include everything in the premise, which means you're taking it out of context. This is what you seemingly always do. You have a hard time using words or reading them. You don't know what you're talking about or what I'm talking about, yet you persist. It's funny. You're backing off your original statement behind that smokescreen.

Are you saying Bruggman wasn't as bad as he looked at MSU or what do you mean by that exactly. If you wouldn't argue that, then where exactly is the line? I would like to know the difference between "didn't suck" and "wasn't as bad as he looked at MSU" is. I think he could've looked even worse than he did at MSU. Aside from Herbert, his targets were D'Agostino and Paige.

MSU has had QBs that never started a game in their careers and transferred to NAIA schools and didn't do all that well there either. Yet, there are fans (you?) here that think they never got a fair shot and not only didn't suck but were actually really good.




I don't watch sports much unless a team I like is playing. Never watch sports talk shows.

I genuinely don’t understand the animosity you’re showing Tom. I’m not trying to prove I have a doctorate here. This isn’t as complicated as it’s getting made out to be, and I’ll leave it at that. I don’t think I’ve ever said anything about a player not getting a fair shot here, but if you can show me where I’ve said that, or any proof of any of the shots you’ve been taking at me, I’m more than willing to admit I’m wrong. Like I said before, I’m not claiming to be a smart person. I just like to talk football. Again, not sure where this animosity is coming from, but if I’ve offended you, I apologize.

[nanacat]

Ladies, ladies, you're all pretty.

Good grief, is it fall yet???

[ClowderUp]

Bruggman reading this right now - wtf did I do?

[BelligerentBobcat]

Bruggman reading this right now - wtf did I do?