Funny, I don't recall writing that we were "screwed". Perhaps you could quote me where I did? I do recall writing that in September our D might very well be down a step or two until the new starters get up to speed, assuming they would. Nor do I recall where I wrote that my point of view on this matter was "unique" to me. Perhaps you would be kind enough to quote where I did. Indeed, ever since I posted about the D being weaker to start the season, many others in the media and on this board have posted the same intelligent thought. As to the 6 or 7, wasn't that a question I just asked as to the article in The Athletic which I can not read and not really a threat to your manhood as you seem to be pretending? Or do I need your permission to post at all on anything? Just wondering. Perhaps a proctologist could help you with your problem? Perhaps not, if it is congenital to your nature.
You understand that is how many people interpret your posts? I obviously am not quoting you verbatim.
But for example, your first post. Why use "". You were clearly being snarky
So, given that "everyone knew it would be seven guys leaving", how is it that they figure six are leaving?
Or this post patting yourself on the back starting thread saying by golly 7 did leave
Who could have forseen that? Or, more exactly to our case, who could not have seen that happening??
Or this post with you saying people argued only six would leave (which was never the case, but odd for someone who always claims they're misrepresented to misrepresent other arguments)
BS, it has been argued on this site, this fall, that only six would leave and even more importantly that their leaving will be either only a small problem or, sillier yet, that it is likely we will be even better on D with the new guys. Just read some of the posts in this thread. IMHO our program is not in any position at all to just assume that "next man up" means things will be better even in September. I, for one, will be delighted and totally surpized if that proves to be true.
Here you are again, patting yourself on the back for "predicting" 7 starters would leave. Considering 6 was 100% going to happen and the only question was Winfield which most agreed would but considered possibility of returning for one more year. Again, by saying "I predicted" you're being a pompous ass that is acting like you had a unique take. The only ?? was Winfield, and there was not one poster here saying he was 100% coming back, no chance he leaves early.
9-3 I predicted due to the number of quality players coming back, the very small number of starters debarting and how those guys had performed so well in last month of the previous season. This coming year I have clearly and sensibly predicted that given that many, many guys (seven out of eleven was my prediction) on our D are not coming back that we might get off to a slower start on D in the early games of the year. Nothing alarming except to those without experience with losing that many starters. I thought the OP was entirely correct in his openning comments.
And here you are again saying we're going to step back (you' later changed your tune and said we'd start slower and proceeded to act like everyone mischaracterized your argument)
We are losing seven starters on D and they played the most minutes precisely because they were the best, most ready guys we had. The backups were backups for exactly the same reasons: less ready, less able. So, IMHO, we will have several games, at least, where the D will be short of where we were this year. I hope I am wrong, but my experience is that you do not replace seven starters without taking a step backwards unless you have a mighty stable of high school All Americans waiting on the bench like Ohio State has.
The argument against you has been:
Winfield
might stay. Which you turned into, people are predicting Winfield will be back. (again, this is rich from a guy who consistently complains about people not reading his argument correctly)
And
Many of Young guys we're expecting to take a jump, as is norm with good college programs (which many here want to believe we're becoming again). Martin/Coughlin/Winfield will be the hardest to replace. It's certainly possible with another camp/growth we could actually see upgrade from 4 returning starters and replacements to offset those loses. It's fair of you to be skeptical of said claim, but as has been pointed out to you (which you've dismissed) teams would be some sort of talent entropy and we'd be doomed because each future player is worse than the guy they're replacing since they couldn't repalce an upper classman as an underclassman.
(see this specific statement: The backups were backups for exactly the same reasons: less ready, less able)
So I say again, and will respond to you every god damn time you snarkly pat yourself on the back as if your take of 7 players leaving (6 via graduation) was something no one else saw coming. Most of us figured it was the likely scenario and are banking on young guys to step up.
It's also why some of us (me included) always make fun of people who predict Wi will be in their demise because they've lost "X" player(s). Wisconsin is Wisconsin because when X leaves, another guy steps right in. Sure, I can see people not giving MN that benefit of the doubt, as we still have to prove it, but there are fans, and fans by nature are optimistic homers, who are optimistic we're in develop/replace stage of program, not that we struck gold with renner/coughlin/martin/barber/winfield etc and will never be able to duplicate the success because of their loss
You can disagree with that. You can be skeptical of that. That is all fair, it's a message board. But that has been the argument, not that we wouldn't lose 7 starters and you're only thinking that.
theathletic.com
