Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 minute ago, Certified Sunshine Pumper said:

Crazy I can't have a different opinion then you. Please enlighten me on what's needed to make "football my thing" ....

You didnt watch Rourke look like a peewee QB in our most important games? 

Answer the question... what did Rourkes alleged immaculate completion percentage do against the top teams? 

Scrub 

If your main takeaway was that all Indiana needed was a mobile quarterback to beat Ohio State and Notre Dame, then football isn't your thing.  It is and always starts with the line.  Quarterback mobility means almost nothing if the pressure is immediate.  

brush

Posted
1 minute ago, RaceToTheTop said:

If your main takeaway was that all Indiana needed was a mobile quarterback to beat Ohio State and Notre Dame, then football isn't your thing.  It is and always starts with the line.  Quarterback mobility means almost nothing if the pressure is immediate.  

brush

Is that what was said? 

lol yeah you're an idiot.  Take your **** somewhere else.  

Posted
3 minutes ago, RaceToTheTop said:

If your main takeaway was that all Indiana needed was a mobile quarterback to beat Ohio State and Notre Dame, then football isn't your thing.  It is and always starts with the line.  Quarterback mobility means almost nothing if the pressure is immediate.  

brush

Acting like "upfront" isnt understood as the first thing to upgrade just makes you unserious. Lol couldn't be laughing harder at you. 

Posted
1 minute ago, NashvilleHoosier said:

Man…reading this back and forth we are soooo a football school. 

Only ever cared about football, truthfully, being born in Indiana made me think basketball mattered. 

Posted
1 hour ago, Certified Sunshine Pumper said:

 No, I don’t think I am. 

We won't ever beat a top team without a QB that can move. Rourke was awful in evading pressure against ND. 

Just learned about this game “foot ball” and the QB with the most championships, Thomas Brady. Based on this comment he must’ve been a world championship sprinter, no reason to double-check this assumption

Posted

I love mobile QBs, I kid. But there are lots of ways to win in this game. Would assume the pedigree of the staff and offense will mean they’ll have a good QB and maximize him. I’m with @Lebowski, give me those big boys up front, and lots of them.

Also hoping that the longer we employ Bolstad, the more we’ll pop up some of those grow-a-guard all-conference former walk-on OL types that Wisconsin and Iowa always mauled with. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, lillurk said:

Just learned about this game “foot ball” and the QB with the most championships, Thomas Brady. Based on this comment he must’ve been a world championship sprinter, no reason to double-check this assumption

True for Brady, but Rourke and Mendoza are not the college equivalent of Brady.

There are lots of styles that can succeed in college, but like Cerified Sunshine, I’m a fan of dual threat guys.

Posted
5 minutes ago, lillurk said:

Just learned about this game “foot ball” and the QB with the most championships, Thomas Brady. Based on this comment he must’ve been a world championship sprinter, no reason to double-check this assumption

Tom Brady wouldn’t beat my grandma in a sprint but he had elite mobility within the pocket. 

Posted
22 minutes ago, lillurk said:

Just learned about this game “foot ball” and the QB with the most championships, Thomas Brady. Based on this comment he must’ve been a world championship sprinter, no reason to double-check this assumption

Comparing the Patriots and IU football is WILD. Wow 

Posted
4 minutes ago, Certified Sunshine Pumper said:

Comparing the Patriots and IU football is WILD. I can't imagine a more ill informed comparison. Try again 

 

2 minutes ago, Certified Sunshine Pumper said:

Comparing Tom Brady and what IU needs at QB is like... absolutely mind boggling. To each their own. I cant believe I just read that. 

I didn’t do that, but you said IU won’t beat an elite team without a mobile QB. I assume everyone here can simply read for themselves.

 As I said in my follow-up post, 1. I like mobile QBs, but 2. Lots of ways to win in football, and absolutes like “we’ll never X without Y” just aren’t borne out by the evidence unless Y = “scoring more points than the opponent.”

Perhaps setting aside the evident big feelings would be helpful. Mac Jones is very immobile. Joe Burrow and Stetson Bennett aren’t much different than Rourke in that regard.

Posted
5 minutes ago, lillurk said:

 

I didn’t do that, but you said IU won’t beat an elite team without a mobile QB. I assume everyone here can simply read for themselves.

 As I said in my follow-up post, 1. I like mobile QBs, but 2. Lots of ways to win in football, and absolutes like “we’ll never X without Y” just aren’t borne out by the evidence unless Y = “scoring more points than the opponent.”

Perhaps setting aside the evident big feelings would be helpful. Mac Jones is very immobile. Joe Burrow and Stetson Bennett aren’t much different than Rourke in that regard.

Correct. We won't. Mac Jones played with Jaylen Waddle and Devonts Smith lol 

Lololol Stetson Bennett and Joe Burroe are IMMENSELY better athletes/have an understanding of how to escape, cmon on man. At this point, I'm truly not trying to disrespectful, but are you serious?  

Posted
2 minutes ago, Certified Sunshine Pumper said:

Correct. We won't. Mac Jones played with Jaylen Waddle and Devonts Smith lol 

Lololol Stetson Bennett and Joe Burroe are IMMENSELY better athletes/have an understanding of how to escape, cmon on man. At this point, I'm truly not trying to disrespectful, but are you serious?  

Yes, totally serious, you said IU would never beat an elite team without a mobile QB, but lots of elite teams lose to non-elite teams all the time when the non-elite teams have relatively stationary QBs.

You are arguing for a preference: mobile QB over immobile one. Basically everyone shares that; if Peyton Manning had Mike Vick’s legs he’d be better. I and most others share your preference. But your logic (x can’t happen without y) is not sound.

Posted
3 minutes ago, lillurk said:

Yes, totally serious, you said IU would never beat an elite team without a mobile QB, but lots of elite teams lose to non-elite teams all the time when the non-elite teams have relatively stationary QBs.

You are arguing for a preference: mobile QB over immobile one. Basically everyone shares that; if Peyton Manning had Mike Vick’s legs he’d be better. I and most others share your preference. But your logic (x can’t happen without y) is not sound.

Bruh.. like stop talking about NFL teams. Absolutely irrelevant. Truly an awful comparisons.

Did you not watch our ND and OSU games? Do you not remember how Bama has been beaten? Moblie QBs. 

No more from me, you all have made this a crazy discussion. Of course we need a QB with more legs than Rourke. Bringing up Brady, Manning, and Vick? Tf

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...