Dino / Wax / Shrader Game 13 Press Conference | Pinstripe / Minnesota

[SuFTW]

Why would it?

Exactly

 

[Cusefan69]

The comment says nothing about Sellers.

I realize that, was just speculating. The comment said nothing about oline either. I was just thinking out loud what he maybe he was thinking with that comment I quoted.

 

[David321]

For all those who say this bowl (or bowls in general) doesn’t matter, listen to Wax’s interview.

 

[SuFTW]

I realize that, was just speculating. The comment said nothing about oline either. I was just thinking out loud what he maybe he was thinking with that comment I quoted.

I don’t think he had Sellers in mind, I don’t think he would go there as to his backup should or would be. And don’t forget Lamson was recruited using Dungey’s highlights, he has some mobility too.

 

[hoopsupstate]

You'd have to think that if Tucker was playing in the bowl and/or returning next year that he would have been included in this presser no?

It might be because he’s a terrible interview. The definition of dull.

 

[David321]

It might be because he’s a terrible interview. The definition of dull.

4d chess bro

 

[Cusefan69]

I don’t think he had Sellers in mind, I don’t think he would go there as to his backup should or would be. And don’t forget Lamson was recruited using Dungey’s highlights, he has some mobility too.

Ok? I mean he was talking about recruiting and talking about when he went down I think soooooooo I asked "I wonder what he was thinking?" What was he thinking then do you think?

 

[qdawgg]

For all those who say this bowl (or bowls in general) doesn’t matter, listen to Wax’s interview.

Who has ever said bowls don’t matter?

 

[David321]

Who has ever said bowls don’t matter?

Many when using the words “meaningless bowls”, they’re typically talking about anything below the NY6.

 

[Jake]

You'd have to think that if Tucker was playing in the bowl and/or returning next year that he would have been included in this presser no?

I think a bigger indication is Garrett mentioning LaQuint.

 

[Jake]

Babers: “This is a warm weather bowl for Minnesota”.

Hahaha.,Subtle jab.

 

[007]

I think a bigger indication is Garrett mentioning LaQuint.

Yup. Right there in the open waving a hand...and people are still wondering.

 

[Jake]

Yup. Right there in the open waving a hand...and people are still wondering.

Dino also projecting that we may not see Sean again in uniform. The hints are all over the place.

 

[Entropic]

Yup. Right there in the open waving a hand...and people are still wondering.

Yeah now DB is going to be upset because we lost that competitive advantage. Now MN can pull all the tape on Allen. That's about 8 minutes of tape for them to go through.

 

[Trueblue25]

Wax is back next year and will be an absolute force alongside Thompson and Sparrow.

 

[David321]

I think a bigger indication is Garrett mentioning LaQuint.

Yeah that was concerning to be honest in regard to Tucker playing.

 

[007]

Dino also projecting that we may not see Sean again in uniform. The hints are all over the place.

We need to listen closely to GS, he is usually pretty upfront about what is happening. I think he also talked about or alluded to "adjustments in recruiting" as one of the reasons he is coming back. I'm gonna take a stab in the dark that this is specifically in reference to the OL. Just follow all the offers and portal attention since the end of the regular season.

 

[qdawgg]

Many when using the words “meaningless bowls”, they’re typically talking about anything below the NY6.

On this board?

 

[SuFTW]

Ok? I mean he was talking about recruiting and talking about when he went down I think soooooooo I asked "I wonder what he was thinking?" What was he thinking then do you think?

I am not sure, but if you think Shrader was talking about Sellers, that would imply he does not think CDRW or Lamson are capable backups.

 

[David321]

On this board?

Yeah, not sure how you haven’t seen it.

 

[qdawgg]

Yeah, not sure how you haven’t seen it.

I’ve seen it but not in the way you’re portraying it IMO. It is a lower bowl but it’s also been discussed the Pinstripe is the most prestigious bowl we could have gotten with our record.

You’re equating people saying Tucker shouldn’t play in the bowl we qualify for as people crapping on the bowl. That’s not the case. Clearly playing in the Pinstripe is not at the same level as a NY6 bowl but nobody is saying it’s a bad bowl. You’re upset that Tucker might not play in your first bowl game as an SU fan. Since people have said he shouldn’t play in the Pinstripe your personal feelings are getting in the way of what people are actually saying. Nobody is crapping on the Pinstripe, it’s the best level bowl we could have gotten with our record. Everyone acknowledges that. Whether Tucker should play in it isn’t an argument that the Pinstripe sucks,‘it’s some people looking out for the long term interests of SU players over the fans short term interest to see him play in the bowl game.

 

[David321]

I’ve seen it but not in the way you’re portraying it IMO. It is a lower bowl but it’s also been discussed the Pinstripe is the most prestigious bowl we could have gotten with our record.

You’re equating people saying Tucker shouldn’t play in the bowl we qualify for as people crapping on the bowl. That’s not the case. Clearly playing in the Pinstripe is not at the same level as a NY6 bowl but nobody is saying it’s a bad bowl. You’re upset that Tucker might not play in your first bowl game as an SU fan. Since people have said he shouldn’t play in the Pinstripe your personal feelings are getting in the way of what people are actually saying. Nobody is crapping on the Pinstripe, it’s the best level bowl we could have gotten with our record. Everyone acknowledges that. Whether Tucker should play in it isn’t an argument that the Pinstripe sucks,‘it’s some people looking out for the long term interests of SU players over the fans short term interest to see him play in the bowl game.

When people say “meaningless bowl”, they’re saying the bowl is meaningless. There’s nothing further to debate.

I would hope I don’t have to scour the threads and start screen shotting the posts and then post it on here to show you I was right. Because yes, some have used that EXACT phrasing.

 

[GoSU96]

If you look at this as the first game of last season, put it on Allen’s shoulders.

 

[qdawgg]

When people say “meaningless bowl”, they’re saying the bowl is meaningless. There’s nothing further to debate.

I would hope I don’t have to scour the threads and start screen shotting the posts and then post it on here to show you I was right. Because yes, some have used that EXACT phrasing.

“Some”. So maybe 2-3 people on a forum of thousands. Again, context matters. Nobody said the bowl itself is meaningless. Nobody. People have said the bowl is meaningless for Tucker to play in, which is not the same as the bowl being meaningless.

 

[David321]

“Some”. So maybe 2-3 people on a forum of thousands. Again, context matters. Nobody said the bowl itself is meaningless. Nobody. People have said the bowl is meaningless for Tucker to play in, which is not the same as the bowl being meaningless.

I’m not getting into semantics with you, it’s silly. Meaningless means meaningless. People should say what they mean and mean what they say.

Did I ever say all posters, or most posters of this board? No. You’re nitpicking.