Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Tinderbox?


Darth Urious

Recommended Posts

I guess a catholic mod got butthurt ( but this time the priest wasn't involved )

so no more tinderbox.

Although iirc the tinderbox title was " politics, religion & heated debate " ...guess it got to heated for some.

This was one of my thoughts, but most are thick skinned enough to not take it to that extreme... pstall also made a post that I think could have been part of it... not that I didn't agree with him or anything... about people not having anything to post if it weren't for white conservatives existing...

Who cares... They'll just take it to the Lounge, I guess... because I know there are some that rarely even bother with other subforums and constantly stay in the tinderbox...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what you are saying is that Belo was behind 9/11.

no no no...

rearrange the letters in belo and you get elbo... which is oddly similar to elbow...

we all know that the elbow is where you find the funny bone, and that funny bone is a euphemism for clown sex...

well then, one can easily deduce that clown sex is a glaring part of the secret society behind the Federal Reserve, in that we are trading in funny money...

all things tied in together, belo controls the money, and the Tinderbox wasn't gaining enough interest to be bailed out...

the more you know...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for the record. not one time has there been a thread in the tinderbox that made me want to stop coming to the huddle.

Well, the Tommy Jone thing came close.

i simply made an observation at the potential bandwidth gained if there were no white, conservative politicians.

looks like that was usurped by just removing the tbox. which is fine by me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • We've got another viral Panthers song The dab is back Jags Week 1, Ohio State National Title, JLo got divorced...   Nature is healing, it's Super Bowl time
    • Its too late for that.  Time has run out.  You dont give him a ext if he plays "decent".  He played "decent" at the end of last year and look what happened.  
    • I’m not necessarily advocating sticking with Bryce. His highs show the ability is there, but there’s enough bad film out there to doubt that he can consistently enough play at a high enough level. But this video from Brett Kollman is a pretty good argument to give it a bit more time, whether that be rolling with Bryce just next year or picking up his 5th year option (not extending him).      The gist is that the structural (wider hashes) and rule (3 yd vs 1 yd thresholds for intelligible offensive lineman downfield penalties) differences in the college and NFL have led to wildly different play calling and scheme diets in college. There is much more shotgun and RPO calls in college and screen/quick throws. This simply doesn’t set up young QBs to be able to play under center, which is more preferred in the NFL due to RBs being able to more effectively run out of that formation.  They don’t know how to do it and have to learn. Yes, the NFL has trended more toward college style offense in the last decade or so, but it isn’t that pronounced and is more out of necessity than desire. And on top of all that, they ask the young QBs to do all this learning with coaching and other personnel churn going on around them.  Bad results lead to coaches getting fired and new ones with different ideas on scheme and footwork and different terminology and playbooks coming in. It makes it harder on those young QBs to learn.     So we may drop Bryce for a young QB starter in the draft and be in a similar situation. With a QB who is going to take years to learn how to operate in an NFL style offense and will struggle along the way.  So you have to weigh whether the struggles we see from Bryce are more due to this learning process vs solely physical limitations on his part. It’s almost undoubtedly a bit of both, but the answer to that question I think dictates your strategy at QB over the next few years. And of course, you have to consider what the alternatives available are.    I’m neither a Bryce hater or a Bryce Stan and I don’t have an answer to that question. But I do fear that if we move on from him, unless it’s for an established player, we’re just in for continued frustration on the QB front because it’s going to take a few years for a college QB to develop (Drake Maye’s don’t grow on trees). 
×
×
  • Create New...