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

[AppSt94]

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?

Again, it was a poor choice of words. Coaches are a lot sharper than we are and they saw that his fingers were taped and the fact that he couldn’t push the ball down field. Now did they “know” he was hurt? Those were Clark’s comments last night and that’s why I said what I said. You chose to run with it.

[AppStateNews]

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.

Please point where anything I posted was incorrect. I'll wait.

Not reading into hearts, posts, etc. I am simply pointing out the truth. Also, kind of funny the person that can't read that asking why an injured QB was still in the game is perfectly normal and not my point of contention in the discussion is trying to say someone else isn't reading the posts.

If your intent wasn't to still place blame on Clark after learning he had no idea how bad the injury was, why would you respond with "Clark is known to be stubborn?" There is literally zero reason for that kind of response if your intention isn't to continue to pile on Clark...

[appgrad95&97]

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.

Please point where anything I posted was incorrect. I'll wait.

Not reading into hearts, posts, etc. I am simply pointing out the truth. Also, kind of funny the person that can't read that asking why an injured QB was still in the game is perfectly normal and not my point of contention in the discussion is trying to say someone else isn't reading the posts.

If your intent wasn't to still place blame on Clark after learning he had no idea how bad the injury was, why would you respond with "Clark is known to be stubborn?" There is literally zero reason for that kind of response if your intention isn't to continue to pile on Clark...

This is exactly my point: I never said "Clark is known to be stubborn". You read into what is said, rather than reading what is said.

[KentHogan]

Bottom line, we’ll never know how much the finger was bugging Burger, and we’ll never know how much the finger affected Clark’s decision to remove him from the game. Nobody is going to tell us.

Aguilar is the QB now and will likely remain the starter all season if he plays at a high level.

Burger has talent and at some point will get another chance, maybe this year, maybe not.

Here’s hoping Joey can remain calm and keep slinging it.

[AppStateNews]

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.

Please point where anything I posted was incorrect. I'll wait.

Not reading into hearts, posts, etc. I am simply pointing out the truth. Also, kind of funny the person that can't read that asking why an injured QB was still in the game is perfectly normal and not my point of contention in the discussion is trying to say someone else isn't reading the posts.

If your intent wasn't to still place blame on Clark after learning he had no idea how bad the injury was, why would you respond with "Clark is known to be stubborn?" There is literally zero reason for that kind of response if your intention isn't to continue to pile on Clark...

This is exactly my point: I never said "Clark is known to be stubborn". You read into what is said, rather than reading what is said.

Maybe that's not what you meant, but that is what you typed...

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=25545&start=620#p351726

But a criticism of Clark is he can be stubborn.

Again, if your desire was not to still place blame on Clark after learning he had no idea how bad the injury was, why even add that to the response?

[WVAPPeer]

95&97 - for me, when you first stated, "Clark was a lazy hire", told me all I needed to know.

[appgrad95&97]

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.

Please point where anything I posted was incorrect. I'll wait.

Not reading into hearts, posts, etc. I am simply pointing out the truth. Also, kind of funny the person that can't read that asking why an injured QB was still in the game is perfectly normal and not my point of contention in the discussion is trying to say someone else isn't reading the posts.

If your intent wasn't to still place blame on Clark after learning he had no idea how bad the injury was, why would you respond with "Clark is known to be stubborn?" There is literally zero reason for that kind of response if your intention isn't to continue to pile on Clark...

This is exactly my point: I never said "Clark is known to be stubborn". You read into what is said, rather than reading what is said.

Maybe that's not what you meant, but that is what you typed...

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=25545&start=620#p351726

But a criticism of Clark is he can be stubborn.

Again, if your desire was not to still place blame on Clark after learning he had no idea how bad the injury was, why even add that to the response?

Are you denying that a criticism of Clark is that he can be stubborn? I haven't made that criticism, but I have read that others do.

[AppStateNews]

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.

Please point where anything I posted was incorrect. I'll wait.

Not reading into hearts, posts, etc. I am simply pointing out the truth. Also, kind of funny the person that can't read that asking why an injured QB was still in the game is perfectly normal and not my point of contention in the discussion is trying to say someone else isn't reading the posts.

If your intent wasn't to still place blame on Clark after learning he had no idea how bad the injury was, why would you respond with "Clark is known to be stubborn?" There is literally zero reason for that kind of response if your intention isn't to continue to pile on Clark...

This is exactly my point: I never said "Clark is known to be stubborn". You read into what is said, rather than reading what is said.

Maybe that's not what you meant, but that is what you typed...

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=25545&start=620#p351726

But a criticism of Clark is he can be stubborn.

Again, if your desire was not to still place blame on Clark after learning he had no idea how bad the injury was, why even add that to the response?

Are you denying that a criticism of Clark is that he can be stubborn? I haven't made that criticism, but I have read that others do.

I am not denying that in certain situations. I am denying that when it comes to player safety though. Clark will NEVER let a player play if he has the remotest chance of significantly hurting himself.

Are you going to answer my question or are you going to continue to move the goalposts?

There is literally zero reason to put that in your post unless your intent is to continue piling one after getting proved wrong. And you won't deny that because you can't. You can't be that dense and naïve.

[appgrad95&97]

Please point where anything I posted was incorrect. I'll wait.

Not reading into hearts, posts, etc. I am simply pointing out the truth. Also, kind of funny the person that can't read that asking why an injured QB was still in the game is perfectly normal and not my point of contention in the discussion is trying to say someone else isn't reading the posts.

If your intent wasn't to still place blame on Clark after learning he had no idea how bad the injury was, why would you respond with "Clark is known to be stubborn?" There is literally zero reason for that kind of response if your intention isn't to continue to pile on Clark...

This is exactly my point: I never said "Clark is known to be stubborn". You read into what is said, rather than reading what is said.

Maybe that's not what you meant, but that is what you typed...

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=25545&start=620#p351726

But a criticism of Clark is he can be stubborn.

Again, if your desire was not to still place blame on Clark after learning he had no idea how bad the injury was, why even add that to the response?

Are you denying that a criticism of Clark is that he can be stubborn? I haven't made that criticism, but I have read that others do.

I am not denying that. Are you going to answer my question or are you going to continue to move the goalposts?

There is literally zero reason to put that in your post unless your intent is to continue piling one after getting proved wrong. And you won't deny that because you can't. You can't be that dense and naïve.

Ask and I'll tell you exactly what I think.

[AppStateNews]

This is exactly my point: I never said "Clark is known to be stubborn". You read into what is said, rather than reading what is said.

Maybe that's not what you meant, but that is what you typed...

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=25545&start=620#p351726

But a criticism of Clark is he can be stubborn.

Again, if your desire was not to still place blame on Clark after learning he had no idea how bad the injury was, why even add that to the response?

Are you denying that a criticism of Clark is that he can be stubborn? I haven't made that criticism, but I have read that others do.

I am not denying that. Are you going to answer my question or are you going to continue to move the goalposts?

There is literally zero reason to put that in your post unless your intent is to continue piling one after getting proved wrong. And you won't deny that because you can't. You can't be that dense and naïve.

Ask and I'll tell you exactly what I think.

Soooo... now you're admitting you think Clark held Burger in because he can be stubborn? Got it! Thanks for proving my point.

Have a great rest of your day

[Saint3333]

95&97 sees things different than others and articulates the reasons for his perspective. I enjoy counterpoints on here. It's ok for armchair QBs to discuss positives and negatives.

Clark at times last year was stubborn, yet we continue to rehash this.

It's 2023, let's watch the man evolve as a coach. For the Gwebb game he first listened to his player who he had no reason to doubt. After a couple of series he realized he couldn't go and made the adjustment, seems like a reasonable assessment by Clark.

[AppStateNews]

95&97 sees things different than others and articulates the reasons for his perspective. I enjoy counterpoints on here. It's ok for armchair QBs to discuss positives and negatives.

Clark at times last year was stubborn, yet we continue to rehash this.

It's 2023, let's watch the man evolve as a coach. For the Gwebb game he first listened to his player who he had no reason to doubt. After a couple of series he realized he couldn't go and made the adjustment, seems like a reasonable assessment by Clark.

Nope. Clark is just stubborn so he left Burger in too long. Only explanation for it. It can't be that Burger told Clark he was good to go. It can't be the trainer told Clark Burger could still play. It can't be Burger was able to throw comfortably enough on the sidelines and Ponce thought the zip looked good enough (based off feedback from on field QBGA). It can't be any of those things.

It's 100% because Clark is sometimes stubborn so Burger had to deal with a broken bone that required surgery to repair for the sole purpose that Clark could remain stubborn.

And now I am truly done. I apologize for keeping it going. But my blood boils when anybody (let alone a known hater) seemingly tries to insinuate Clark (or any coach for that matter) intentionally left an injured player in the game and now requires surgery simply because Clark is stubborn. That couldn't be further from the truth. You can attack his Xs and Os all you want -- but to attack his character and think he intentionally left an injured player in without doing his due diligence is over the top.

[huskie3]

Which finger on which hand? I’m assuming its right hand.

[appgrad95&97]

Clark is a good man and a solid coach. I do not think he was the best we could do coming of the '19 season. I think he is over his head and coaches scared at times. I think Gillin expected to be long gone by now. I wish Clark the absolute best, but I don't think he is the best we COULD have done in 2019. I think we look unmotivated at times. I think the 2020, CBS, game at Marshall is an example. I will never get over blowing that halftime lead, at home, versus JMU. I will never get over that performance at Texas St. I don't think we are as good as we were in the late teens, and I HOPE I am wrong. I think Drink only got the Missouri job because we hung on to beat USC. And I KNOW no one cares what I think.

[AppSt94]

Which finger on which hand? I’m assuming its right hand.

Correct.Throwing hand.

[AppSt94]

Clark is a good man and a solid coach. I do not think he was the best we could do coming of the '19 season. I think he is over his head and coaches scared at times. I think Gillin expected to be long gone by now. I wish Clark the absolute best, but I don't think he is the best we COULD have done in 2019. I think we look unmotivated at times. I think the 2020, CBS, game at Marshall is an example. I will never get over blowing that halftime lead, at home, versus JMU. I will never get over that performance at Texas St. I don't think we are as good as we were in the late teens, and I HOPE I am wrong. I think Drink only got the Missouri job because we hung on to beat USC. And I KNOW no one cares what I think.

The fact that you refuse to get over a game and one where the entirety of your involvement was as a spectator tells us all we need to know.

[Saint3333]

Some here think 95&97 is taking this too personal, I see those folks are taking his comments too personal and applying context which isn't intended. Gwebb is over, time to move on.

1-0 after 1 is always a good place to be.

[appgrad95&97]

Clark is a good man and a solid coach. I do not think he was the best we could do coming of the '19 season. I think he is over his head and coaches scared at times. I think Gillin expected to be long gone by now. I wish Clark the absolute best, but I don't think he is the best we COULD have done in 2019. I think we look unmotivated at times. I think the 2020, CBS, game at Marshall is an example. I will never get over blowing that halftime lead, at home, versus JMU. I will never get over that performance at Texas St. I don't think we are as good as we were in the late teens, and I HOPE I am wrong. I think Drink only got the Missouri job because we hung on to beat USC. And I KNOW no one cares what I think.

The fact that you refuse to get over a game and one where the entirety of your involvement was as a spectator tells us all we need to know.

That is fair. You read what I said and commented. You don't agree, which I respect. But you didn't make up what I said. Or pretend to know what I meant. Honest disagreement is fair play.

[BambooRdApp]

Clark is a good man and a solid coach. I do not think he was the best we could do coming of the '19 season. I think he is over his head and coaches scared at times. I think Gillin expected to be long gone by now. I wish Clark the absolute best, but I don't think he is the best we COULD have done in 2019. I think we look unmotivated at times. I think the 2020, CBS, game at Marshall is an example. I will never get over blowing that halftime lead, at home, versus JMU. I will never get over that performance at Texas St. I don't think we are as good as we were in the late teens, and I HOPE I am wrong. I think Drink only got the Missouri job because we hung on to beat USC. And I KNOW no one cares what I think.

Just curious, who was your top choice as HC when Clark was hired?

[Stonewall]

Coach has admitted to being stubborn but I think as soon as he was convinced #18 was limited , he pulled him. Yes we have had some stinkers , and also some big wins in his tenure.Is he in over his head ??? We will know in about 11 weeks what DG thinks of him as a coach.