When you characterize my estimate of a 1 in 3 or 4 chance of winning the SEC as "all rainbows and kittens", that sounds like you have quantified the potential with great certainty. I'm not trying to "prove" anything. I'm simply pointing out what I feel are very reasonable reasons for an LSU fan not to be worried about the team this year. And yet, until you made this post, each time the response had been that my characterizations were somehow flawed, irrelevant or silly (cf, "rainbows and kittens"). If you realize there are perfectly reasonable reasons for LSU fans not to worry about the team this year, and choose to be worried nonetheless, that's completely up to you. The last word has no more or less bearing on my opinion than any of the ones that came before it. If that weren't the case, I'd probably still be posting on that other site. ldskule::geaux:ldskule:
A specific incidence? Try three years and over 30 games. My point is this and stop trying to turn it into something else . . . Jefferson has not been able to get us to the next level. There is no evidence that anything has changed in his last year, therefore Jefferson is unlikely to get us there this year. No absolutes, no guarantees. It is very simple . . . until Jefferson or some other quarterback steps up and displays SEC-caliber performance, skepticism will remain about a championship run. In your mind, perhaps you actually think that way. But you must understand that these bogus numbers and this flawed logic mean nothing at all to anyone else. Tell us how you feel and we will accept it. Please stop telling us that we must "logically" feel that way, too. I understand logic pretty well and I do not. No, it doesn't. Don't try to put words in my mouth, I will not allow it. If I wanted to say it was impossible, I would have said so. I understand nuance pretty well, too. "Do not think we can" connotes improbability, not impossibility.
Yes it does. "Do not think we WILL" connotes improbability. "Do not think we can" connotes impossibility.
In my opinion, there are two options... 1. Keep Jefferson in and play to his ability to run the ball.. or 2. Throw Mett to the wolves and hope he can gun them down. Lee really isn't an option, not because he is not as good as (or better than Jefferson, as I believe), but because his upside is so much lower than Mett's.
I think another option is more likely. JJ and Mett. Although I'd like it, I doubt any kind of two QB platoon would happen. But I do think with an option like Mett on the sidelines, Miles will be quicker to get him in if JJ isn't producing. Last year it took a while for him to put Lee in, because Lee isn't really a better option...just a different option.
If all LSU needs is a running QB ala JJ then CLM needs to install the wishbone - at least the first half of said offense might fulfill CLM's best dreams for 2011. Seriously, coaching is not easy. Decisions have to be made continuously throughout the season. Unfortunately LSU cannot claim a muligan and grab a Mauck/Flynn season. We'll need better this year. So everyone needs to wish JJ the best up to the point of DESTROYING THE TV. :geauxtige:LSU231:
We've let this hairsplitter get us to play his game, Fish. In Redspeak, "I do not think we can" states improbability. To state impossibility, I would say "We can't" or "it is impossible"
Just trying to be clear It's not hairsplitting, it's English. Perhaps it's a more literal usage than that to which some are accustomed, and I've already offered my apology if that was the case here. But it is in fact taking your words at their actual meaning. "I do not think we can" is a declarative statement expressing that the speaker is of the opinion that there exists no possibility for "we" to do whatever feat is in question. The only uncertainty allowed for is the possibility that the speaker is wrong in that there actually exists some possibility, whether it actually comes to pass or not. So in order for the statement, "I do not think we can" to be true, the speaker must actually believe that the feat is impossible for "we" to achieve. To express an opinion that "we" are unlikely to achieve the feat in question, the phrasing would be, "I do not think we are likely to", or "I do not think it is likely we can," or some other phrasing where a condition of uncertainty is contained within the clause where the opinion is described. That is simply the way the language works. And until I learn otherwise about a specific person, my habit is to take them at their words as spoken or written. Different usages aren't necessarily wrong or right, but more often than not going by the genuine meaning of the words minimizes misunderstanding (the present case notwithstanding) until I am familiar with their particular usage. Having now been introduced to "Redspeak", I will try and understand your meaning better in the future. For what it's worth, I always try to use words that genuinely mean what I am trying to say. I do not always succeed, and find myself not infrequently apologizing for mispeaking (or miswriting), but that is always my intent. ldskule::geaux:ldskule:
No it isn't. I made a statement and later clarified it for you. Yet you keep trying to tell me what I meant, which you cannot know, and you keep getting it wrong. Let it go, man. It says nothing of the kind. When one says "I think", it means "I believe". "Belief" in no way connotes "there exists no possibility". More obfuscation. When someone doesn't speak plainly, I know he's trying to hide the flaws in his logic. "Obfuscation is the concealment of intended meaning in communication, making communication confusing, intentionally ambiguous, and more difficult to interpret." I don't think you know as much about the language as you think you do. With all due respect, I come here to talk football, chief, not get a really bad English lecture. You don't have to apologize, Joey. We all get each other wrong sometimes. Just stop lecturing me. You can't possibly win an argument trying to tell me my opinion. I'm the world's friggin' expert on my opinion.
