SC QB - Best one two punch in the nation, ESPN

[cofcgamecock9]

Originally Posted by me4USC

If you think I'm going to go back through the threads searching for the things that were said, you are nuttier than a fruitcake. Besides, knowing that you keep some sort of collection of my posts, I'm not giving you more ammunition if I can help it.

I haven't used the word "bash" in a couple of months at least. Things have calmed down on the boards.

People's feelings and opinions change over the course of time, and mine have in some respects. Please stop quoting what I may have said two months or more ago. You ARE the only person hounding me. Others have disagreed from time to time, but that's the nature of a board. It's for discussion. You have moved past stating a disagreement with my opinion into attacking me personally.

Where have I attacked you personally? You are absolutely posting things that are not being said on this board and I am going to call attention to them. No one is saying the things that your posting. That is not attacking you personally. That is pointing out an inconsistency. Look, if you want to keep thinking that everyone has it out for Dylan, then go for it. But not one person has stated that they "had no confidence in Dylan," yet you posted that it had been said.

[cofcgamecock9]

Sorry to all of you... I will stop with this now because I know it gets old. I really do, so I apologize that you have to weed through my "whining" and arguing.

I just don't like that this poster keeps posting these things that aren't there. Trust me, I have searched for them. Yes, I know that sounds like a personal problem.

But people are simply not talking about Dylan in the way she expresses it. It isn't happening and that gets frustrating. Not one person has said anything even remotely close to her comment that some posters have said "they have no confidence in Dylan." She constantly posts that people say this or that about Dylan and I have seen NOTHING but support of Dylan since the Clemson and bowl games. Not one person has said the things she claims and I read every single post.

But I really am done harping on it. It isn't fair to other visitors to the board.

So I apologize.

In regards to my opinion, I know Steve Spurrier will start and play the guy that gives us the best chance to win and that is my ONLY OPINION on the matter. That is all I have ever thought.

[me4USC]

Thompson is still an unproven commodity to me....you can't cut your teeth on Clemson and mop up time and expect the next year to be slinging it against Florida and Georgia.

This was posted in this thread.

I understand your point. Many people here are not sold in Thompson.

This was also posted on this thread.

No need to jump on this guy.

Some people are not completely sure of THompson. All you can say is we'll see this fall.

Another posting on this thread.

I am not the only one who thinks people don't have confidence in Thompson, yet I am one of the few being harangued.

[cofcgamecock9]

Originally Posted by me4USC

Thompson is still an unproven commodity to me....you can't cut your teeth on Clemson and mop up time and expect the next year to be slinging it against Florida and Georgia.

This was posted in this thread.

I understand your point. Many people here are not sold in Thompson.

This was also posted on this thread.

No need to jump on this guy.

Some people are not completely sure of THompson. All you can say is we'll see this fall.

Another posting on this thread.

I am not the only one who thinks people don't have confidence in Thompson, yet I am one of the few being harangued.

You just helped prove my point. Everyone of those comments is EXTREMELY different than what you said... Your exact quote was "the ones who have no confidence in him."

Nothing that you posted above is even remotely close to someone saying that "have no confidence in Dylan." And this is what you do repeatedly with how you change around what is ACTUALLY being said about Dylan.

me4usc, lets say you made the following comment in a post... "Some people are not completely sure of Connor Mitch. All you can say is we'll see this fall" (I took that directly from above). So now if I then posted "me4usc says she has no confidence in Connor Mitch," would I be representing what you said fairly? I hope you can see how that would be an unfair representation of your comment.

Bottom line.... no one has said that they have "no confidence" in Dylan Thompson like you posted.

[me4USC]

Originally Posted by cofcgamecock9

You just helped prove my point. Everyone of those comments is EXTREMELY different than what you said... Your exact quote was "the ones who have no confidence in him."

Nothing that you posted above is even remotely close to someone saying that "have no confidence in Dylan."

Not even close.. Thank you for helping me with my point.

Semantics? Really? Seriously? I interpret their words one way, and you interpret them another, and that makes you right and me wrong?

Unproven: http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dic...glish/unproven
unproven (ʌnˈpruːvən )

Definitions

adjective

1. not established as true by evidence or demonstration ⇒ unproven allegations
2. (of a new product, system, treatment, etc) not tried or tested

Oh, yes. I see it all now. He has not proven himself, he has not been tried or tested, but people still have confidence in him. You are absolutely right.


My mistake. When I say someone is "unproven," I am saying that I lack confidence in them because they have not been proven to be effective. You obviously mean that you have confidence in them, though they have not been proven to deserve it.


You should have taught high school English for 25 years instead of me. I miss so many nuances of the language.

[cofcgamecock9]

nm

[bryarx]

The quotes are from people who are giving cautious optimism.

The quotes all sound like people who are impressed, but want to see a little more before handing over the reins.

To say (and i'm not claming Me4USC said this, because haven't read all of this, but the other person is alleging it, and I haven't seen me4USC deny it) that you do not have confidence implies that you have seen what you need to see in order to make a judgement, and that they are not worth your confidence.

While you may call this semantics, the statements do imply different meanings.

This argument is the result of confidence being either something you have or do not have as a state you must be in (IE, you either do or don't have confidence in DT), but it is also that can be earned as a process (IE DT has shown great promise, but I'd like to see a little more).

Is it a process or is it absolute and you either do or don't have it? That's what's being argued.

Geez, everyone can admit they are both good quarterbacks!

[me4USC]

Originally Posted by Jubjub Bird

Hi, me4USC, I just want to pipe up and say that I really enjoy your posts. I appreciate what Connor and Dylan have both brought to the table as Gamecocks, but I do really like Dylan's style of play and his personality, so I enjoy reading your positive posts about Dylan.

Regarding another poster on this board who thinks it is his job to make sure Connor and Dylan are discussed on Cockytalk only in a manner that exactly corresponds to what he thinks is appropriate and correct, well, I stopped reading his posts a long time ago. For whatever it's worth.

Keep posting, if you want to.

Thank you!

Your advice is sound.

[me4USC]

Originally Posted by bryarx

The quotes are from people who are giving cautious optimism.

The quotes all sound like people who are impressed, but want to see a little more before handing over the reins.

To say (and i'm not claming Me4USC said this, because haven't read all of this, but the other person is alleging it, and I haven't seen me4USC deny it) that you do not have confidence implies that you have seen what you need to see in order to make a judgement, and that they are not worth your confidence.

While you may call this semantics, the statements do imply different meanings.

This argument is the result of confidence being either something you have or do not have as a state you must be in (IE, you either do or don't have confidence in DT), but it is also that can be earned as a process (IE DT has shown great promise, but I'd like to see a little more).

Is it a process or is it absolute and you either do or don't have it? That's what's being argued.

Geez, everyone can admit they are both good quarterbacks!

The deal is that he searches my posts for one or two words, and then screams about those words taken out of context. I have continually expressed confidence in BOTH quarterbacks.

I did use the words "no confidence," but I did not mean that people had absolutely written him off.

[cofcgamecock9]

Originally Posted by bryarx

The quotes are from people who are giving cautious optimism.

The quotes all sound like people who are impressed, but want to see a little more before handing over the reins.

To say (and i'm not claming Me4USC said this, because haven't read all of this, but the other person is alleging it, and I haven't seen me4USC deny it) that you do not have confidence implies that you have seen what you need to see in order to make a judgement, and that they are not worth your confidence.

While you may call this semantics, the statements do imply different meanings.

This argument is the result of confidence being either something you have or do not have as a state you must be in (IE, you either do or don't have confidence in DT), but it is also that can be earned as a process (IE DT has shown great promise, but I'd like to see a little more).

Is it a process or is it absolute and you either do or don't have it? That's what's being argued.

Geez, everyone can admit they are both good quarterbacks!

Thank you very much! You are much better at explaining it than me.

[bryarx]

Another factor in this is that DT has done everything he can up to this point. He has filled in mid-game when asked to, he has played complete games with results that were impressive. I believe every game he's started he has gone over 300 yards passing. But then again, that's 2 games. He has some gaudy numbers in the other games he has played in (minus FLA I think, though you could say there was less 'bleeding' while he was in).

The sample size is small. That's what gives so much fuel to this fire. Everyone's sample size required to make a decision is skewed one way or another is different. What I like about what I've seen from DT has been his consistency.

Another thing I haven't voiced about DT/CS is that DT is going to live or die by the OL. CS can make do with scrambling if the O-line isn't playing well, DT's game will be much more effected by the play of the OL. Another intangible about the two that is out of their control.

[cofcgamecock9]

Originally Posted by me4USC

The deal is that he searches my posts for one or two words, and then screams about those words taken out of context. I have continually expressed confidence in BOTH quarterbacks.

I did use the words "no confidence," but I did not mean that people had absolutely written him off.

Here is the exact quote in context.

"And then, he surprised me by nailing what he had to do in 15 seconds. If that didn't impress the ones who have no confidence in him (and I'm not talking about you), nothing ever will"

I don't think I took anything out of context. You don't have to be an English teacher to know the "context" of what you were stating above and it is still VERY VERY different than anything that has actually been stated about Dylan.

Look, my only point is still that you are stating these things that simply aren't really being said about Dylan. If it was done once or twice, that is one thing. But you do it consistently and no one is really saying these things.

Thank you bryarx for helping to try to explain it much better than I could. I think you can see that I didn't take her comments out of context as she posted.

I can't wait to see all of our QBs this year. Steve Spurrier has a hell of a job on his hands in trying to decide which one should play the most.

[me4USC]

Originally Posted by bryarx

Another factor in this is that DT has done everything he can up to this point. He has filled in mid-game when asked to, he has played complete games with results that were impressive. I believe every game he's started he has gone over 300 yards passing. But then again, that's 2 games. He has some gaudy numbers in the other games he has played in (minus FLA I think, though you could say there was less 'bleeding' while he was in).

The sample size is small. That's what gives so much fuel to this fire. Everyone's sample size required to make a decision is skewed one way or another is different. What I like about what I've seen from DT has been his consistency.

Another thing I haven't voiced about DT/CS is that DT is going to live or die by the OL. CS can make do with scrambling if the O-line isn't playing well, DT's game will be much more effected by the play of the OL. Another intangible about the two that is out of their control.

I agree that the O line is much more important to Thompson's play than it is to Shaw's. However, I think our O line this season will be much improved. I actually thought they improved during this past season.

[bryarx]

Originally Posted by me4USC

I agree that the O line is much more important to Thompson's play than it is to Shaw's. However, I think our O line this season will be much improved. I actually thought they improved during this past season.

If the O-Line is improved this year - then it raises DT's stock imo.

DT with time > CS with time

[me4USC]

Originally Posted by Cock Kool-Aid

lol... I just feel like a lot of posters have the attitude of "throw Thompson in there, he'll carve 'em up". It's easy to feel that way after the way he played vs Clemson and Michigan. Those were two huge and emotional W's that he sealed for us. I just feel that some of the confidence seems a bit premature.

I am in no way comparing him to Shaw.

I don't feel that we should "throw Thompson in there, and he'll carve 'em up," obviously, or I wouldn't have been yelling at my TV at the end of the Outback. I would have been saying, "Finally, he's putting Thompson back in." I thought it was too much pressure for the little experience which he had had up to that point. After all, that wasn't Wofford. That was Michigan in a bowl game on national TV. He surprised me when he threw those passes.

The deal with experience is that you don't have it until you get it. He'll never have experience unless he's given the chance to play more. Those who want him limited because Shaw has more experience don't seem to realize that at one time, Shaw was also inexperienced. I'm not talking about benching Shaw or making Thompson the starter in his place. I'm talking about letting him have more playing time so that he's ready when he has to perform.

If I were truly emotionally invested in Thompson, I wouldn't want him to play at all. As soon as he makes a mistake, and he will, the criticism will be scathing. A backup QB is much more popular at times than the starter is.

[b381l]

Strictly as a passer Shaw is a 4 to 4.5.....Thompson is a 6.5 to 7.
This does not take into consideration either of their running skills.

[highpockets12]

we should be grateful.Never have we been in such good shape at this position.Sos knows what he has ,and we will have to trust he will use the proper weapon at the proper time.I hope all this bickern doesn`t start conflict between two people that have so much support & respect for each other .Not that many years ago ,it was Smelly & Beecher.Fans were hell bent on Beecher. We all remember how that played out. Talk about a deer in the headlights. Wound up with party animal and no back up come on ,united we stand,

[qcgamecock]

Originally Posted by me4USC

Semantics? Really? Seriously? I interpret their words one way, and you interpret them another, and that makes you right and me wrong?

Unproven: http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dic...glish/unproven
unproven (ʌnˈpruːvən )

Definitions

adjective

1. not established as true by evidence or demonstration ⇒ unproven allegations
2. (of a new product, system, treatment, etc) not tried or tested

Oh, yes. I see it all now. He has not proven himself, he has not been tried or tested, but people still have confidence in him. You are absolutely right.


My mistake. When I say someone is "unproven," I am saying that I lack confidence in them because they have not been proven to be effective. You obviously mean that you have confidence in them, though they have not been proven to deserve it.


You should have taught high school English for 25 years instead of me. I miss so many nuances of the language.

You must be a much better teacher than gauge of football talent! To say Thompson is unproven means you think Dylan has not proven to be effective, what is his record as a starter, who did he beat, has he played on national TV, has he played in front of a hostile crowd, has he led the team to a win in the last minutes? So Dylan has proven nothing to you, that is what unproven would be and once again no team in the country will have a more proven backup in the country be that be Thompson or Shaw! Dylan proved he can stand in the pocket, he could take a hit, he has no fear of the stage, he proved he is accrurate, proved he knows the offense, proved he is a great teammate, he is coachable and most important he proved something to the head ball coach who had confidence enough in him to start him going to Clemson for a huge game for the future of GAMECOCK football. Sorry for some reason he has proved nothing to you?

[qcgamecock]

Originally Posted by me4USC

I don't feel that we should "throw Thompson in there, and he'll carve 'em up," obviously, or I wouldn't have been yelling at my TV at the end of the Outback. I would have been saying, "Finally, he's putting Thompson back in." I thought it was too much pressure for the little experience which he had had up to that point. After all, that wasn't Wofford. That was Michigan in a bowl game on national TV. He surprised me when he threw those passes.

The deal with experience is that you don't have it until you get it. He'll never have experience unless he's given the chance to play more. Those who want him limited because Shaw has more experience don't seem to realize that at one time, Shaw was also inexperienced. I'm not talking about benching Shaw or making Thompson the starter in his place. I'm talking about letting him have more playing time so that he's ready when he has to perform.

If I were truly emotionally invested in Thompson, I wouldn't want him to play at all. As soon as he makes a mistake, and he will, the criticism will be scathing. A backup QB is much more popular at times than the starter is.

End of discussion, you just said Thompson proved something to you when he came into the Michigan game while you yelled at the TV, so the Clemson game is like a woffford game?
NM

[pantera17]

Something we can all agree on. They both win.