Well, to each their own but earlier you credit DH's post of JQ a context, right? DH omitted the end where JQ actually AGREES with my positionS (plu...

Biggs, just to highlight how dishonest you are. This thread was dead until you bumped it Thats on page 7

Actually, if you read the quote of the Josh Q thread his CONCLUSION about team is the same as me and WT … the team needs BOTH And also about White v...

So was this from Josh Q "The lone note I have on this rep is for White. As compared to most people who are hyper-focused on the Bucs, I am pretty do...

The relevant sample size is not 4. The sample size is in excess of 400 runs, I think? Irving should get more runs (something I suggested in the p...

um . . okay

Thats Bowles and now Coen saying the obvious about the "hot hand" Irving. He's EARNED more Like WT said before and I have said, the Bucs need B...

Wait, what about this Coen "coach speak?" “It’s hard to ignore, I mean, he touches the ball and typically some good things have occurred,” Coen ...

you mean . . .like Bowles comment are "coach speak" but the comments by the "guy who calls the offense" is not? weird

right on cue the answer: never lol

lol we are now saying 6.2 is - when put in context - no better than 2.1 (NOT FACTUAL ) because IF you take out that ON E long run in ONE game an...

yes! Its like the play caller is a rookie! oh … well

and claiming this is just "coach speak" BOWLES, asked why Irving did not get the ball more - “We were behind. We threw it a little bit more, Rac...

This ^^ is the beauty of the Red Board. If the roles were reversed the Irving side would be calling me a "White apologist" or something like "White...

there are more than that, obviously. I specifically chose that sample because: a) its from the most recent game and b) it provides a DIRECT compa...