RGIII Named Starter

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by fanarchist

Just to clarify. I'm not saying we should use the option as our primary package, or alter the system completely, but instead offer more option looks to disturb defensives predictive abilities. I don't believe the option will be used (if it is at all), as a systemic staple. Moreover what I was eluding to in saying it's a hopeful prospect applies more to the coaching staffs willingness to adopt a less popular package in order to facilitate, and reinforce the strengths of the personel. The hopefulness spawns from the logic that this microcosm could eventually permeate the overall mentality.

Dude. Seriously? This is a football forum not a PhD program. Using a thesaurus doesn't make your points anymore valid or correct than others'.

You could just say you "think the option will be used to keep defenses honest, and using the option would suit our team's strength. Hopefully Shanny continues to employ strategies and tactics based on our personnel." Much more succinct and to the point rather than unclear jargon. Might make you seem less pretentious too.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by hooskins

Dude. Seriously? This is a football forum not a PhD program. Using a thesaurus doesn't make your points anymore valid or correct than others'.

You could just say you "think the option will be used to keep defenses honest, and using the option would suit our team's strength. Hopefully Shanny continues to employ strategies and tactics based on our personnel." Much more succinct and to the point rather than unclear jargon. Might make you seem less pretentious too.

Plus he spelled personnel as personel hehehe

[fanarchist]

Originally Posted by The Goat

Plus he spelled personnel as personel hehehe

I also misused the word elude. Should have been allude, but who's counting.

@hooskins, I don't think the words I use validate my opinion anymore than anyone elses, that's simply the way I write, and have always written since I've been on this site. But your response indicates that you understand, to some degree, what I was getting at, so why don't we talk content, instead of personal attacks and context. I mean this is a "football forum".

[ArtMonkDrillz]

Originally Posted by hooskins

Dude. Seriously? This is a football forum not a PhD program. Using a thesaurus doesn't make your points anymore valid or correct than others'.

You could just say you "think the option will be used to keep defenses honest, and using the option would suit our team's strength. Hopefully Shanny continues to employ strategies and tactics based on our personnel." Much more succinct and to the point rather than unclear jargon. Might make you seem less pretentious too.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by hooskins

Dude. Seriously? This is a football forum not a PhD program. Using a thesaurus doesn't make your points anymore valid or correct than others'.

You could just say you "think the option will be used to keep defenses honest, and using the option would suit our team's strength. Hopefully Shanny continues to employ strategies and tactics based on our personnel." Much more succinct and to the point rather than unclear jargon. Might make you seem less pretentious too.

I'm sure glad you said that. Much more clear, concise, and sufficient.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by hooskins

Dude. Seriously? This is a football forum not a PhD program. Using a thesaurus doesn't make your points anymore valid or correct than others'.

You could just say you "think the option will be used to keep defenses honest, and using the option would suit our team's strength. Hopefully Shanny continues to employ strategies and tactics based on our personnel." Much more succinct and to the point rather than unclear jargon. Might make you seem less pretentious too.

Yeah!! How about next time you talk like the rest of us dumb Americans!!



/facepalm