86th New Haven Register All State Football Team | Page 2 | The Boneyard

86th New Haven Register All State Football Team

huskyrob1 said:
Lol huskymedic. Now what happened in 1964 and 1969???? You just quoted me on it. How stupid can you be???
Expand ...

I may be stupid but you didn’t answer the question - are you saying that 1964 and 1969 were “a few years back” and those were the years that the NH Register was biased?
 
huskymedic said:
I may be stupid but you didn’t answer the question - are you saying that 1964 and 1969 were “a few years back” and those were the years that the NH Register was biased?
Expand ...
I'm not going to waste my time with you in some ridiculous chess match, just take off your stupid hat, put on your thinking cap and figure it out yourself.
 
huskyrob1 said:
I'm not going to waste my time with you in some ridiculous chess match, just take off your stupid hat, put on your thinking cap and figure it out yourself.
Expand ...

Got it. Only on the BY is 53 years ago - “a few years back”.
 
Ok I'll bite, so you're challenging me on my posts about "Pomperaug a few years back" and my history lesson on the Waskowitz Trophy vs the Register poll. What exactly do you disagree with????
 
huskyrob1 said:
Name my astoundingly awful opinions on CT High School Football!!!
Expand ...
Almost all of them lol. You seem to process the information and then draw a terrible conclusion.
 
.-.
JMick said:
Almost all of them lol. You seem to process the information and then draw a terrible conclusion.
Expand ...
Just come out and name two or three of my opinions on CT HS football that you disagree with? I mean if you can which I doubt. Back up your argument, or do you still think Lockwood is only 5'7" and 170lbs. Lol
 
Palatine said:
Short is not important. You can be a load at 5-7, 190.



Sproles was only 5-6.

Darren Sproles Career Highlights "Lightning Bug"
Expand ...

I never said you can't play the position at 5'7, but I did say you have to make up for it in other areas. This all started with the Godrey kid on the preface that he doesn't have top tier speed. Just because players have played a position undersized doesn't change the fact that they were undersized for the position.
 
Palatine said:
Short is not important. You can be a load at 5-7, 190.



Sproles was only 5-6.

Darren Sproles Career Highlights "Lightning Bug"
Expand ...

I think all JMick is rightfully pointing out is that the odds of being successful at that size is very low. For every Sprolee there are probably 50 RBs at that size that never got more than spot duty at the D1 level let alone play pro. He even said you have to be very fast to make up for it because light guys are naturally an easy bring down vs the heavy.
 
huskyrob1 said:
Just come out and name two or three of my opinions on CT HS football that you disagree with? I mean if you can which I doubt. Back up your argument, or do you still think Lockwood is only 5'7" and 170lbs. Lol
Expand ...
Just in the context of this thread, the 2004 Pomperaug team is the only one that might have deserved a #1 ranking. It's their only state championship
I'll also stand by my idea that lockwood is not 5'11 200. just because he's listed at something doesn't mean he is that big. teams lie about height/weight every year
 
huskyrob1 said:
Ok I'll bite, so you're challenging me on my posts about "Pomperaug a few years back" and my history lesson on the Waskowitz Trophy vs the Register poll. What exactly do you disagree with????
Expand ...

Go back and read the thread - All I was asking was what year was Pomperaug supposedly “hosed by the biased NH Register” and did the other statewide polls “hose” them as well the year in question... not sure what triggered you about that but it sounds you were talking about something that happened over 50 years ago (1964/1969). If not you could have easily provided the year it happened.

Your persecution complex is a wonder to watch...
 
huskymedic said:
Go back and read the thread - All I was asking was what year was Pomperaug supposedly “hosed by the biased NH Register” and did the other statewide polls “hose” them as well the year in question... not sure what triggered you about that but it sounds you were talking about something that happened over 50 years ago (1964/1969). If not you could have easily provided the year it happened.

Your persecution complex is a wonder to watch...
Expand ...
I have a customer who defines "a few" the same way rob does. Every time he calls he says "please send me a few widgets." I have to put a number in the system so I ask him exactly how many he wants, and he always says "20 or 25. whatever you have."
 
.-.
JMick said:
I have a customer who defines "a few" the same way rob does. Every time he calls he says "please send me a few widgets." I have to put a number in the system so I ask him exactly how many he wants, and he always says "20 or 25. whatever you have."
Expand ...

... and then when you send the wrong amount - you’re the one who is “stupid” I bet!
 
JMick said:
I never said you can't play the position at 5'7, but I did say you have to make up for it in other areas. This all started with the Godrey kid on the preface that he doesn't have top tier speed. Just because players have played a position undersized doesn't change the fact that they were undersized for the position.
Expand ...

Actually you did say that "yeah if he's 5'7" he isn't big enough to play RB." After making that unequivical (and indefensible) statement, you did throw in some qualifiers.

When I questioned it you called me an idiot. You seem to want it both ways.

I stand by my post. "5-7 is a great height for a RB. He would disappear behind the o-line. Too tall is a bigger problem at RB than too short." And I could write of list of names dozens long (but won't) going from Joe Morris to Triston Holliday to Maurice Jones-Drew.

Being short is not a liability for a running back. Quite the opposite, it is an advantage. As Joe Morris said, "I'm short but I'm not small."
 
Palatine said:
Actually you did say that "yeah if he's 5'7" he isn't big enough to play RB." After making that unequivical (and indefensible) statement, you did throw in some qualifiers.

When I questioned it you called me an idiot. You seem to want it both ways.

I stand by my post. "5-7 is a great height for a RB. He would disappear behind the o-line. Too tall is a bigger problem at RB than too short." And I could write of list of names dozens long (but won't) going from Joe Morris to Triston Holliday to Maurice Jones-Drew.

Being short is not a liability for a running back. Quite the opposite, it is an advantage. As Joe Morris said, "I'm short but I'm not small."
Expand ...
you have such an issue with context. I said if he's 5'7 he isn't big enough because he isn't fast or quick enough to make up for it. You have to read the posts before that to understand the conversation. You don't have the intellectual capacity to do that, though.
 
JMick said:
Just in the context of this thread, the 2004 Pomperaug team is the only one that might have deserved a #1 ranking. It's their only state championship
I'll also stand by my idea that lockwood is not 5'11 200. just because he's listed at something doesn't mean he is that big. teams lie about height/weight every year
Expand ...
So we disagree, ok, but "astoundingly awful opinions"? Come on.
There is a post game interview with Lockwood on the web after Killingly beat New London. It was given by The New London Day, and the reporter is a guy that I worked with many years ago covering HS football in the state. That reporter is 6'3" and about 230 lbs, or at least he was when I knew him. So draw your own conclusions. On Pomperaug I think the 2009 team was also deserving, despite the close loss to NDWH.

 
Exit 4 said:
I think all JMick is rightfully pointing out is that the odds of being successful at that size is very low. For every Sprolee there are probably 50 RBs at that size that never got more than spot duty at the D1 level let alone play pro. He even said you have to be very fast to make up for it because light guys are naturally an easy bring down vs the heavy.
Expand ...
It’s also becoming harder and harder to be a smaller RB because quite frankly the Lineman and LB’s are so much faster than the days of Barry Sanders and Joe Morris. So nowadays you can get caught by one of them more easily and your shelf life will be reduced from the already 2-3 years as a RB down to nill. I was watching the PSU/UW game yesterday and Vita Vea was on the punt team and actually took a good angle and tackled a kick returner. He’s all of 350 lbs.
Thats the difference to me nowadays.
 
huskymedic said:
Go back and read the thread - All I was asking was what year was Pomperaug supposedly “hosed by the biased NH Register” and did the other statewide polls “hose” them as well the year in question...
Expand ...

Oh so it wasn't a challenge? Just a simple question? Now I'm all confused. Especially when you conveniently deleted your post where you say you were making a challenge to my post that I couldn't refute. If you think I feel persecuted by internet hacks like you and Mick, then you need to get out more.
 
Last edited:
.-.
huskyrob1 said:
Oh so it wasn't a challenge? Just a simple question? Now I'm all confused. Especially when you conveniently deleted your post where you say you were making a challenge to my post. If you think I feel persecuted by internet hacks like you and Mick, then you need to get out more.
Expand ...

I was just trying to figure out what you were blabbering about w/ biased polls - it's all there in post #26. I didn't delete any posts- I edited out the part where I called you a clueless clown (thought it was unfair and playing down to your name calling level - guess I should have left it)
 
huskymedic said:
I was just trying to figure out what you were blabbering about w/ biased polls - it's all there in post #26. I didn't delete any posts- I edited out the part where I called you a clueless clown (thought it was unfair and playing down to your name calling level - guess I should have left it)
Expand ...
Ok I'll call you a name too, a god damn liar!!! Happy New Year!!!
 
huskyrob1 said:
Ok I'll call you a name too, a god damn liar!!! Happy New Year!!!
Expand ...
savage.JPG
 
Palatine said:
I stand by my post. "5-7 is a great height for a RB. He would disappear behind the o-line. Too tall is a bigger problem at RB than too short." And I could write of list of names dozens long (but won't) going from Joe Morris to Triston Holliday to Maurice Jones-Drew.
Expand ...

Weird you chose Triston Holliday in the lost considering his career high carries at LSU was 53. He had less than 30 carries in each of his junior and senior years.
 
There are plenty of shorter backs that excel on the college and pro level and to say anything different is short-sighted at the very least.

Emmit Smith 5'9", Barry Sanders 5'8" maybe, Darren Sproles 5'6", Terry Metcalf 5'8", Noel Devine 5'6" killed UConn, Ray Rice 5'8", Maurice Jones Drew5'7" and our own Terry Caulley at 5'7". I could go on, but I think I made my point.
 
uconnbill said:
There are plenty of shorter backs that excel on the college and pro level and to say anything different is short-sighted at the very least.

Emmit Smith 5'9", Barry Sanders 5'8" maybe, Darren Sproles 5'6", Terry Metcalf 5'8", Noel Devine 5'6" killed UConn, Ray Rice 5'8", Maurice Jones Drew5'7" and our own Terry Caulley at 5'7". I could go on, but I think I made my point.
Expand ...
no one, including me, said it's impossible to play the position at that size. you are all a bunch of idiots who can't read
 
.-.
JMick said:
no one, including me, said it's impossible to play the position at that size. you are all a bunch of idiots who can't read
Expand ...
As usual Mick, your arguments are astoundingly awful, especially if all you can do is call posters who disagree with you idiots.
 
huskyrob1 said:
As usual Mick, your arguments are astoundingly awful, especially if all you can do is call posters who disagree with you idiots.
Expand ...
You, Palatine and Bill are the stupidest people on the board
 
uconnbill said:
There are plenty of shorter backs that excel on the college and pro level and to say anything different is short-sighted at the very least.

Emmit Smith 5'9", Barry Sanders 5'8" maybe, Darren Sproles 5'6", Terry Metcalf 5'8", Noel Devine 5'6" killed UConn, Ray Rice 5'8", Maurice Jones Drew5'7" and our own Terry Caulley at 5'7". I could go on, but I think I made my point.
Expand ...
Don't forget....Joe Morris and Dave Meggett if you're still a Giant fan. Lol
 
JMick said:
You, Palatine and Bill are the stupidest people on the board
Expand ...
This is a perfect time for you to admit you were wrong about Lockwood, he's a big kid, fast and very hard to bring down.
 
huskyrob1 said:
This is a perfect time for you to admit you were wrong about Lockwood, he's a big kid, fast and very hard to bring down.
Expand ...
Then why doesn't he have offers.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,227
Messages
4,558,238
Members
10,444
Latest member
Billy Boy


Top Bottom