It's Bur....Joey Time! - GW discussion

[AppSt94]

In a way yes. Joey benefited from a healthy hand. If you listened to Clark’s show last night, he said that Burger broke his finger very early on. This affected his ability to throw a deep ball. GW saw this and crowded the box to stop the run. When Joey came in, they ran three verticals on the very first play and that opened up the box and allowed for Ponce to call more plays.

Why were we playing an injured QB for almost a half?

If the player doesn't let anybody know the significance of the injury, how do you expect anybody to know?

Burger told everybody he was fine to play until it got hit again and he could no longer take the pain.

This is what drives me absolutely up the wall. 94 points out that GW knew Burger was hurt and made a defensive adjustment. Burger's QBR was 19. Clearly there was an issue. He was hurt that's not his fault. But a criticism of Clark is he can be stubborn.

My comment about GW seeing it is based off hindsight and what Clark said last night.

Here is the issue with calling Clark stubborn. You have a RS Freshman that was making his 1st start. He looked to be struggling and jittery, and now we know why, but why would you pull him three drives in. He won the right to be out there and pulling him because he was struggling early isn’t going to help him. He needed to be left in to figure it out.

I get your point, but you can’t make a judgement based solely on hindsight information. You have to consider the in the moment situation.

[311neers]

In a way yes. Joey benefited from a healthy hand. If you listened to Clark’s show last night, he said that Burger broke his finger very early on. This affected his ability to throw a deep ball. GW saw this and crowded the box to stop the run. When Joey came in, they ran three verticals on the very first play and that opened up the box and allowed for Ponce to call more plays.

Why were we playing an injured QB for almost a half?

If the player doesn't let anybody know the significance of the injury, how do you expect anybody to know?

Burger told everybody he was fine to play until it got hit again and he could no longer take the pain.

This is what drives me absolutely up the wall. 94 points out that GW knew Burger was hurt and made a defensive adjustment. Burger's QBR was 19. Clearly there was an issue. He was hurt that's not his fault. But a criticism of Clark is he can be stubborn.

My comment about GW seeing it is based off hindsight and what Clark said last night.

Here is the issue with calling Clark stubborn. You have a RS Freshman that was making his 1st start. He looked to be struggling and jittery, and now we know why, but why would you pull him three drives in. He won the right to be out there and pulling him because he was struggling early isn’t going to help him. He needed to be left in to figure it out.

I get your point, but you can’t make a judgement based solely on hindsight information. You have to consider the in the moment situation.

Does a healthy Burger win that game? I don’t know. Clark made the right call at the right time, you could tell he wasn’t ready or was hurt, maybe both.

[AppSt94]

Why were we playing an injured QB for almost a half?

If the player doesn't let anybody know the significance of the injury, how do you expect anybody to know?

Burger told everybody he was fine to play until it got hit again and he could no longer take the pain.

This is what drives me absolutely up the wall. 94 points out that GW knew Burger was hurt and made a defensive adjustment. Burger's QBR was 19. Clearly there was an issue. He was hurt that's not his fault. But a criticism of Clark is he can be stubborn.

My comment about GW seeing it is based off hindsight and what Clark said last night.

Here is the issue with calling Clark stubborn. You have a RS Freshman that was making his 1st start. He looked to be struggling and jittery, and now we know why, but why would you pull him three drives in. He won the right to be out there and pulling him because he was struggling early isn’t going to help him. He needed to be left in to figure it out.

I get your point, but you can’t make a judgement based solely on hindsight information. You have to consider the in the moment situation.

Does a healthy Burger win that game? I don’t know. Clark made the right call at the right time, you could tell he wasn’t ready or was hurt, maybe both.

We don’t know. I’ll pose this. The game changed when Joey came in and Clark and Ponce called for the vertical routes. Are those throws that Ryan could make under normal situations? I think so.

[appgrad95&97]

In a way yes. Joey benefited from a healthy hand. If you listened to Clark’s show last night, he said that Burger broke his finger very early on. This affected his ability to throw a deep ball. GW saw this and crowded the box to stop the run. When Joey came in, they ran three verticals on the very first play and that opened up the box and allowed for Ponce to call more plays.

Why were we playing an injured QB for almost a half?

If the player doesn't let anybody know the significance of the injury, how do you expect anybody to know?

Burger told everybody he was fine to play until it got hit again and he could no longer take the pain.

This is what drives me absolutely up the wall. 94 points out that GW knew Burger was hurt and made a defensive adjustment. Burger's QBR was 19. Clearly there was an issue. He was hurt that's not his fault. But a criticism of Clark is he can be stubborn.

Even in the post game presser, Clark said he made the decision to go to Aguilar because Burger had a jammed finger. A jammed finger! He had no idea it was broken even after the game. He put Aguilar in not based on any kind of injury (again, Clark still thought it was just a jammed finger -- nothing serious). He took him out based on performance (which turns out was less than what was expected because the injury happened on the first drive).

Anybody and everybody saw the fingers taped together. GW did too. That doesn't mean anybody and everybody knew the significance of the injury. Even when Burger was taken out, he fought against it. He didn't want to be taken out -- again, making it seem like it wasn't that significant of an injury.

You are reaching -- as you do on everything -- just to put the blame on Clark. It really must be exhausting to be that spiteful towards a person that no matter what, he is the bad guy...

I'm not the Clark hater you think I am. I'm not sure I have criticized him. I've asked questions. I think asking why an injured QB was left in for basically a half when we have a solid backup against an FCS opponent is a fair question. Clark is not a doctor, I don't expect him to diagnose a broken finger versus a jammed one. But maybe evaluating the performance of a player who is taped up and saying "gosh, there maybe an issue given his performance in practice", shouldn't take a half.

[AppSt94]

Why were we playing an injured QB for almost a half?

If the player doesn't let anybody know the significance of the injury, how do you expect anybody to know?

Burger told everybody he was fine to play until it got hit again and he could no longer take the pain.

This is what drives me absolutely up the wall. 94 points out that GW knew Burger was hurt and made a defensive adjustment. Burger's QBR was 19. Clearly there was an issue. He was hurt that's not his fault. But a criticism of Clark is he can be stubborn.

Even in the post game presser, Clark said he made the decision to go to Aguilar because Burger had a jammed finger. A jammed finger! He had no idea it was broken even after the game. He put Aguilar in not based on any kind of injury (again, Clark still thought it was just a jammed finger -- nothing serious). He took him out based on performance (which turns out was less than what was expected because the injury happened on the first drive).

Anybody and everybody saw the fingers taped together. GW did too. That doesn't mean anybody and everybody knew the significance of the injury. Even when Burger was taken out, he fought against it. He didn't want to be taken out -- again, making it seem like it wasn't that significant of an injury.

You are reaching -- as you do on everything -- just to put the blame on Clark. It really must be exhausting to be that spiteful towards a person that no matter what, he is the bad guy...

I'm not the Clark hater you think I am. I'm not sure I have criticized him. I've asked questions. I think asking why an injured QB was left in for basically a half when we have a solid backup against an FCS opponent is a fair question. Clark is not a doctor, I don't expect him to diagnose a broken finger versus a jammed one. But maybe evaluating the performance of a player who is taped up and saying "gosh, there maybe an issue given his performance in practice", shouldn't take a half.

You do realize that his TD pass to Wilson came with a broken finger?

He was struggling, not failing. There is a difference and sometimes you have to let them figure it out.

[appgrad95&97]

If the player doesn't let anybody know the significance of the injury, how do you expect anybody to know?

Burger told everybody he was fine to play until it got hit again and he could no longer take the pain.

This is what drives me absolutely up the wall. 94 points out that GW knew Burger was hurt and made a defensive adjustment. Burger's QBR was 19. Clearly there was an issue. He was hurt that's not his fault. But a criticism of Clark is he can be stubborn.

Even in the post game presser, Clark said he made the decision to go to Aguilar because Burger had a jammed finger. A jammed finger! He had no idea it was broken even after the game. He put Aguilar in not based on any kind of injury (again, Clark still thought it was just a jammed finger -- nothing serious). He took him out based on performance (which turns out was less than what was expected because the injury happened on the first drive).

Anybody and everybody saw the fingers taped together. GW did too. That doesn't mean anybody and everybody knew the significance of the injury. Even when Burger was taken out, he fought against it. He didn't want to be taken out -- again, making it seem like it wasn't that significant of an injury.

You are reaching -- as you do on everything -- just to put the blame on Clark. It really must be exhausting to be that spiteful towards a person that no matter what, he is the bad guy...

I'm not the Clark hater you think I am. I'm not sure I have criticized him. I've asked questions. I think asking why an injured QB was left in for basically a half when we have a solid backup against an FCS opponent is a fair question. Clark is not a doctor, I don't expect him to diagnose a broken finger versus a jammed one. But maybe evaluating the performance of a player who is taped up and saying "gosh, there maybe an issue given his performance in practice", shouldn't take a half.

You do realize that his TD pass to Wilson came with a broken finger?

Yes.

[biggie]

Why were we playing an injured QB for almost a half?

If the player doesn't let anybody know the significance of the injury, how do you expect anybody to know?

Burger told everybody he was fine to play until it got hit again and he could no longer take the pain.

This is what drives me absolutely up the wall. 94 points out that GW knew Burger was hurt and made a defensive adjustment. Burger's QBR was 19. Clearly there was an issue. He was hurt that's not his fault. But a criticism of Clark is he can be stubborn.

My comment about GW seeing it is based off hindsight and what Clark said last night.

Here is the issue with calling Clark stubborn. You have a RS Freshman that was making his 1st start. He looked to be struggling and jittery, and now we know why, but why would you pull him three drives in. He won the right to be out there and pulling him because he was struggling early isn’t going to help him. He needed to be left in to figure it out.

I get your point, but you can’t make a judgement based solely on hindsight information. You have to consider the in the moment situation.

Does a healthy Burger win that game? I don’t know. Clark made the right call at the right time, you could tell he wasn’t ready or was hurt, maybe both.

We wouldn't know since he was hurt so early and I'm sure had an effect the rest of the time he was out there.

[AppStateNews]

Why were we playing an injured QB for almost a half?

If the player doesn't let anybody know the significance of the injury, how do you expect anybody to know?

Burger told everybody he was fine to play until it got hit again and he could no longer take the pain.

This is what drives me absolutely up the wall. 94 points out that GW knew Burger was hurt and made a defensive adjustment. Burger's QBR was 19. Clearly there was an issue. He was hurt that's not his fault. But a criticism of Clark is he can be stubborn.

Even in the post game presser, Clark said he made the decision to go to Aguilar because Burger had a jammed finger. A jammed finger! He had no idea it was broken even after the game. He put Aguilar in not based on any kind of injury (again, Clark still thought it was just a jammed finger -- nothing serious). He took him out based on performance (which turns out was less than what was expected because the injury happened on the first drive).

Anybody and everybody saw the fingers taped together. GW did too. That doesn't mean anybody and everybody knew the significance of the injury. Even when Burger was taken out, he fought against it. He didn't want to be taken out -- again, making it seem like it wasn't that significant of an injury.

You are reaching -- as you do on everything -- just to put the blame on Clark. It really must be exhausting to be that spiteful towards a person that no matter what, he is the bad guy...

I'm not the Clark hater you think I am. I'm not sure I have criticized him. I've asked questions. I think asking why an injured QB was left in for basically a half when we have a solid backup against an FCS opponent is a fair question. Clark is not a doctor, I don't expect him to diagnose a broken finger versus a jammed one. But maybe evaluating the performance of a player who is taped up and saying "gosh, there maybe an issue given his performance in practice", shouldn't take a half.

The initial question was a fair question. And it was responded to and answered with a fair and accurate response. Yet, you didn't like that accurate response so you replied with "Clark is stubborn." That is the epitome of blaming everything on Clark because you seemingly want him to fail just so you can say "told you so."

Again, Clark pulled Burger for performance and later found out the significance of the injury. Not sure what else you want Clark to do.

Burger earned his right to be on the field. He wasn't playing terrible -- he just wasn't playing his best. He was also playing against another team for the first time in 2 years. He was making his first collegiate start. He's human. But, you know how to get rid of those early jitters? Keep playing, get the film, get the confidence, etc. You'll be hard pressed to find any football coach at any level above middle school to pull the starter with the above happening. Again, Burger earned his chance to have his shot. Unfortunately, a significant injury that he played through made it so the earned shot was less than expected.

[appgrad95&97]

Hold on, I didn't say "Clark is stubborn", I said " But a criticism of Clark is he can be stubborn". You cannot deny that is a criticism of him. I don't want Clark to fail, I have consistently said I was pulling for him. Trust me, I don't want to say I told you so. No one cares what I think, there are no "I told you so" banners hanging in my garage. Now I kind of suspect you looked for posts where I criticized Clark and didn't find any. Now I may have, but to call me a Clark hater is without basis.

[appgrad95&97]

And I NEVER said Burger didn't earn the right to start. I NEVER questioned that decision.

[AppStateNews]

Hold on, I didn't say "Clark is stubborn", I said " But a criticism of Clark is he can be stubborn". You cannot deny that is a criticism of him. I don't want Clark to fail, I have consistently said I was pulling for him. Trust me, I don't want to say I told you so. No one cares what I think, there are no "I told you so" banners hanging in my garage. Now I kind of suspect you looked for posts where I criticized Clark and didn't find any. Now I may have, but to call me a Clark hater is without basis.

Haven't looked for your posts criticizing Clark because I know they are there -- won't have to look hard. I'd wager it's about 75% of your posts where you question Clark (your right to do so) and then defend your question ad nauseum when your question isn't answered how you want it to be so you can shit on Clark again.

Correct, you said a criticism of Clark is he can be stubborn -- but you also said it shouldn't take that long to take a QB out. Meaning you think Clark knew how injured Burger actually was and instead of realizing he should take him out, you thought he intentionally left an injured Burger in simply for the purpose of leaving him in. According to your thought process, the fact that Burger said he could still go, the trainer said he could still go, etc shouldn't matter and Clark should have known immediately!

Bottom line -- the answer to your question wasn't what you wanted so you went with the blame game. You would have been ecstatic and throwing streamers like JMU fans if the answer was "You're right. Clark messed up. He knew all along how hurt Burger was and just didn't care about the kid and his health or the outcome of the game so he left him in there too long!"

[AppStateNews]

And I NEVER said Burger didn't earn the right to start. I NEVER questioned that decision.

Yet, you question him staying in the game for a total of 5 possessions to iron out the kinks that happen to almost every QB starting a college game for the first time... And he played injured for at least 80% (more like 95% from what I am hearing) of his plays with an injury that required surgery but nobody knew the significance of it -- including Clark and the trainers (because Burger was downplaying it).

Burger played 41 plays. He was hurt on the 6th play but told everyone it was a jammed finger so they taped it up (standard) and did the tests for mobility with a jammed finger. He passed them all. It's really as simple as that.

Now, if you want to argue Burger should have sat himself knowing it would help the team if he couldn't grip the ball properly, then I would agree. But to put it on Clark is absolutely unreal. And for you to say you're not putting it on Clark (and hardly ever do) is even more unreal.

[appgrad95&97]

Hold on, I didn't say "Clark is stubborn", I said " But a criticism of Clark is he can be stubborn". You cannot deny that is a criticism of him. I don't want Clark to fail, I have consistently said I was pulling for him. Trust me, I don't want to say I told you so. No one cares what I think, there are no "I told you so" banners hanging in my garage. Now I kind of suspect you looked for posts where I criticized Clark and didn't find any. Now I may have, but to call me a Clark hater is without basis.

Haven't looked for your posts criticizing Clark because I know they are there -- won't have to look hard. I'd wager it's about 75% of your posts where you question Clark (your right to do so) and then defend your question ad nauseum when your question isn't answered how you want it to be so you can shit on Clark again.

Correct, you said a criticism of Clark is he can be stubborn -- but you also said it shouldn't take that long to take a QB out. Meaning you think Clark knew how injured Burger actually was and instead of realizing he should take him out, you thought he intentionally left an injured Burger in simply for the purpose of leaving him in. According to your thought process, the fact that Burger said he could still go, the trainer said he could still go, etc shouldn't matter and Clark should have known immediately!

Bottom line -- the answer to your question wasn't what you wanted so you went with the blame game. You would have been ecstatic and throwing streamers like JMU fans if the answer was "You're right. Clark messed up. He knew all along how hurt Burger was and just didn't care about the kid and his health or the outcome of the game so he left him in there too long!"

Find two posts where I "shit" on Clark. If it's 75%, that'll take you no time. You're wrong about this.

[appgrad95&97]

Hold on, I didn't say "Clark is stubborn", I said " But a criticism of Clark is he can be stubborn". You cannot deny that is a criticism of him. I don't want Clark to fail, I have consistently said I was pulling for him. Trust me, I don't want to say I told you so. No one cares what I think, there are no "I told you so" banners hanging in my garage. Now I kind of suspect you looked for posts where I criticized Clark and didn't find any. Now I may have, but to call me a Clark hater is without basis.

Haven't looked for your posts criticizing Clark because I know they are there -- won't have to look hard. I'd wager it's about 75% of your posts where you question Clark (your right to do so) and then defend your question ad nauseum when your question isn't answered how you want it to be so you can shit on Clark again.

Correct, you said a criticism of Clark is he can be stubborn -- but you also said it shouldn't take that long to take a QB out. Meaning you think Clark knew how injured Burger actually was and instead of realizing he should take him out, you thought he intentionally left an injured Burger in simply for the purpose of leaving him in. According to your thought process, the fact that Burger said he could still go, the trainer said he could still go, etc shouldn't matter and Clark should have known immediately!

Bottom line -- the answer to your question wasn't what you wanted so you went with the blame game. You would have been ecstatic and throwing streamers like JMU fans if the answer was "You're right. Clark messed up. He knew all along how hurt Burger was and just didn't care about the kid and his health or the outcome of the game so he left him in there too long!"

Find two posts where I "shit" on Clark. If it's 75%, that'll take you no time. You're wrong about this.

And I didn't say or ask either.

[AppStateNews]

Hold on, I didn't say "Clark is stubborn", I said " But a criticism of Clark is he can be stubborn". You cannot deny that is a criticism of him. I don't want Clark to fail, I have consistently said I was pulling for him. Trust me, I don't want to say I told you so. No one cares what I think, there are no "I told you so" banners hanging in my garage. Now I kind of suspect you looked for posts where I criticized Clark and didn't find any. Now I may have, but to call me a Clark hater is without basis.

Haven't looked for your posts criticizing Clark because I know they are there -- won't have to look hard. I'd wager it's about 75% of your posts where you question Clark (your right to do so) and then defend your question ad nauseum when your question isn't answered how you want it to be so you can shit on Clark again.

Correct, you said a criticism of Clark is he can be stubborn -- but you also said it shouldn't take that long to take a QB out. Meaning you think Clark knew how injured Burger actually was and instead of realizing he should take him out, you thought he intentionally left an injured Burger in simply for the purpose of leaving him in. According to your thought process, the fact that Burger said he could still go, the trainer said he could still go, etc shouldn't matter and Clark should have known immediately!

Bottom line -- the answer to your question wasn't what you wanted so you went with the blame game. You would have been ecstatic and throwing streamers like JMU fans if the answer was "You're right. Clark messed up. He knew all along how hurt Burger was and just didn't care about the kid and his health or the outcome of the game so he left him in there too long!"

Find two posts where I "shit" on Clark. If it's 75%, that'll take you no time. You're wrong about this.

Here's 4.

Took 32 seconds (yes, I had a stop watch out)

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=25212&p=346437&#p346437
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=25212&p=346296&#p346296
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=25212&p=346296&#p346296
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=25111&p=342484&#p342484

[AppStateNews]

Hold on, I didn't say "Clark is stubborn", I said " But a criticism of Clark is he can be stubborn". You cannot deny that is a criticism of him. I don't want Clark to fail, I have consistently said I was pulling for him. Trust me, I don't want to say I told you so. No one cares what I think, there are no "I told you so" banners hanging in my garage. Now I kind of suspect you looked for posts where I criticized Clark and didn't find any. Now I may have, but to call me a Clark hater is without basis.

Haven't looked for your posts criticizing Clark because I know they are there -- won't have to look hard. I'd wager it's about 75% of your posts where you question Clark (your right to do so) and then defend your question ad nauseum when your question isn't answered how you want it to be so you can shit on Clark again.

Correct, you said a criticism of Clark is he can be stubborn -- but you also said it shouldn't take that long to take a QB out. Meaning you think Clark knew how injured Burger actually was and instead of realizing he should take him out, you thought he intentionally left an injured Burger in simply for the purpose of leaving him in. According to your thought process, the fact that Burger said he could still go, the trainer said he could still go, etc shouldn't matter and Clark should have known immediately!

Bottom line -- the answer to your question wasn't what you wanted so you went with the blame game. You would have been ecstatic and throwing streamers like JMU fans if the answer was "You're right. Clark messed up. He knew all along how hurt Burger was and just didn't care about the kid and his health or the outcome of the game so he left him in there too long!"

Find two posts where I "shit" on Clark. If it's 75%, that'll take you no time. You're wrong about this.

And I didn't say or ask either.

Hmm... pretty sure your exact post was (verbatim) "Why were we playing an injured QB for almost a half?"

That's precisely asking why it took so long to take him out. I (and others) answered saying because Clark didn't know about the injury. You responded with Clark is known to be stubborn (aka you thought Clark took too long to take him out). That's it. You can't accept the fact Clark didn't do what you think was the right thing even when you have the reason why it didn't happen.

[appgrad95&97]

Not a single actual criticism of Clark. In December of 2019, I called his hiring lazy. I still don't get the extension. But those are criticisms of Gillin. I don't hate Gillin, but I am critical.

[appgrad95&97]

Hold on, I didn't say "Clark is stubborn", I said " But a criticism of Clark is he can be stubborn". You cannot deny that is a criticism of him. I don't want Clark to fail, I have consistently said I was pulling for him. Trust me, I don't want to say I told you so. No one cares what I think, there are no "I told you so" banners hanging in my garage. Now I kind of suspect you looked for posts where I criticized Clark and didn't find any. Now I may have, but to call me a Clark hater is without basis.

Haven't looked for your posts criticizing Clark because I know they are there -- won't have to look hard. I'd wager it's about 75% of your posts where you question Clark (your right to do so) and then defend your question ad nauseum when your question isn't answered how you want it to be so you can shit on Clark again.

Correct, you said a criticism of Clark is he can be stubborn -- but you also said it shouldn't take that long to take a QB out. Meaning you think Clark knew how injured Burger actually was and instead of realizing he should take him out, you thought he intentionally left an injured Burger in simply for the purpose of leaving him in. According to your thought process, the fact that Burger said he could still go, the trainer said he could still go, etc shouldn't matter and Clark should have known immediately!

Bottom line -- the answer to your question wasn't what you wanted so you went with the blame game. You would have been ecstatic and throwing streamers like JMU fans if the answer was "You're right. Clark messed up. He knew all along how hurt Burger was and just didn't care about the kid and his health or the outcome of the game so he left him in there too long!"

Find two posts where I "shit" on Clark. If it's 75%, that'll take you no time. You're wrong about this.

And I didn't say or ask either.

Hmm... pretty sure your exact post was (verbatim) "Why were we playing an injured QB for almost a half?"

That's precisely asking why it took so long to take him out. I (and others) answered saying because Clark didn't know about the injury. You responded with Clark is known to be stubborn (aka you thought Clark took too long to take him out). That's it. You can't accept the fact Clark didn't do what you think was the right thing even when you have the reason why it didn't happen.

In response to 94's post where he said GW knew Burger was hurt and made adjustments, I can't ask why a kid who was hurt was still in the game given we have a good backup without being a Clark hater?

[AppStateNews]

Haven't looked for your posts criticizing Clark because I know they are there -- won't have to look hard. I'd wager it's about 75% of your posts where you question Clark (your right to do so) and then defend your question ad nauseum when your question isn't answered how you want it to be so you can shit on Clark again.

Correct, you said a criticism of Clark is he can be stubborn -- but you also said it shouldn't take that long to take a QB out. Meaning you think Clark knew how injured Burger actually was and instead of realizing he should take him out, you thought he intentionally left an injured Burger in simply for the purpose of leaving him in. According to your thought process, the fact that Burger said he could still go, the trainer said he could still go, etc shouldn't matter and Clark should have known immediately!

Bottom line -- the answer to your question wasn't what you wanted so you went with the blame game. You would have been ecstatic and throwing streamers like JMU fans if the answer was "You're right. Clark messed up. He knew all along how hurt Burger was and just didn't care about the kid and his health or the outcome of the game so he left him in there too long!"

Find two posts where I "shit" on Clark. If it's 75%, that'll take you no time. You're wrong about this.

And I didn't say or ask either.

Hmm... pretty sure your exact post was (verbatim) "Why were we playing an injured QB for almost a half?"

That's precisely asking why it took so long to take him out. I (and others) answered saying because Clark didn't know about the injury. You responded with Clark is known to be stubborn (aka you thought Clark took too long to take him out). That's it. You can't accept the fact Clark didn't do what you think was the right thing even when you have the reason why it didn't happen.

In response to 94's post where he said GW knew Burger was hurt and made adjustments, I can't ask why a kid who was hurt was still in the game given we have a good backup without being a Clark hater?

You can. As I already stated at least twice, it wasn't the question that was the "issue." It was your response to the answer to your question.

We all fully know your intent to kick Clark to the curb as often as you can. So, as soon as the answer to your question (Clark didn't know how bad it was) makes it known Clark wasn't the bad guy, your immediate response is "Clark is known to be stubborn." Again, meaning, in your opinion, Clark should have known how bad the injury was but he's so stubborn, he didn't care and still kept Burger in.

Asking why a QB is in when he is hurt is completely normal. Still trying to put the blame on the coach when you get the answer and it's not one you like is nowhere near normal.

[appgrad95&97]

Find two posts where I "shit" on Clark. If it's 75%, that'll take you no time. You're wrong about this.

And I didn't say or ask either.

Hmm... pretty sure your exact post was (verbatim) "Why were we playing an injured QB for almost a half?"

That's precisely asking why it took so long to take him out. I (and others) answered saying because Clark didn't know about the injury. You responded with Clark is known to be stubborn (aka you thought Clark took too long to take him out). That's it. You can't accept the fact Clark didn't do what you think was the right thing even when you have the reason why it didn't happen.

In response to 94's post where he said GW knew Burger was hurt and made adjustments, I can't ask why a kid who was hurt was still in the game given we have a good backup without being a Clark hater?

You can. As I already stated at least twice, it wasn't the question that was the "issue." It was your response to the answer to your question.

We all fully know your intent to kick Clark to the curb as often as you can. So, as soon as the answer to your question (Clark didn't know how bad it was) makes it known Clark wasn't the bad guy, your immediate response is "Clark is known to be stubborn." Again, meaning, in your opinion, Clark should have known how bad the injury was but he's so stubborn, he didn't care and still kept Burger in.

Asking why a QB is in when he is hurt is completely normal. Still trying to put the blame on the coach when you get the answer and it's not one you like is nowhere near normal.

If I knew what is in the hearts of others like you do, I'd make a ton of money. You're only two skills seem to be reading into posts, rather than reading them, and paroiting what you are told on Jack Branch.