Actually, it seems very reasonable to say that Wilcox improved elements of the defense while at the same time failed to connect with certain players. Who on the coaching staff decided to give Shirley a shot after the laptop thing? Assuming Sark and Nansen. Like I said earlier in the thread, wgaf, next.
So you're now sayIng it was Wilcox who fucked him up...thanks for the clarification
Actually, it seems very reasonable to say that Wilcox improved elements of the defense while at the same time failed to connect with certain players. Who on the coaching staff decided to give Shirley a shot after the laptop thing? Assuming Sark and Nansen. Like I said earlier in the thread, wgaf, next.
So you're now sayIng it was Wilcox who fucked him up...thanks for the clarification
Blame the coach no longer here! Shirley was no good anyway! We're better off without him! Long live dawgman.com
Actually, it seems very reasonable to say that Wilcox improved elements of the defense while at the same time failed to connect with certain players. Who on the coaching staff decided to give Shirley a shot after the laptop thing? Assuming Sark and Nansen. Like I said earlier in the thread, wgaf, next.
So you're now sayIng it was Wilcox who fucked him up...thanks for the clarification
Blame the coach no longer here! Shirley was no good anyway! We're better off without him! Long live dawgman.com
Actually, it seems very reasonable to say that Wilcox improved elements of the defense while at the same time failed to connect with certain players. Who on the coaching staff decided to give Shirley a shot after the laptop thing? Assuming Sark and Nansen. Like I said earlier in the thread, wgaf, next.
So you're now sayIng it was Wilcox who fucked him up...thanks for the clarification
Blame the coach no longer here! Shirley was no good anyway! We're better off without him! Long live dawgman.com
Huh? That's what you pulled out of my posts. Christ man.
Just clarifying and pointing out you can't defend your Fucktarded statement that it was sarks fault he didn't live up to the hype. You were all over the place and contradicting yourself with every post. Next time just don't say anything rather than risk saying something stupid.
Confusion is all yours, you changed the subject to Wilcox. Nobody knows whether Shirley would've been a good player under Peterman this year, but the odds were that a former starter with +15 career sacks would have been a positive for the defense. Why would you think I'm defending Wilcox in all of this?
Josh Shirley was a "certain" NFL player when he signed at Washington according to Sark.
Who knows, perhaps he's just another lost soul with 'trust issues'... it happens... even to the best coaches in the country. Sometimes players just can't keep up at this level watcha gonna do?
Confusion is all yours, you changed the subject to Wilcox. Nobody knows whether Shirley would've been a good player under Peterman this year, but the odds were that a former starter with +15 career sacks would have been a positive for the defense. Why would you think I'm defending Wilcox in all of this?
You were blaming Sark.... My question is why did he regress?
Josh Shirley was a "certain" NFL player when he signed at Washington according to Sark.
Who knows, perhaps he's just another lost soul with 'trust issues'... it happens... even to the best coaches in the country. Sometimes players just can't keep up at this level watcha gonna do?
Sark couldn't have believed in him that much ... he didn't say that Shirley was surely going to be a Top 5 pick ... James Atoe ... FREE PUB!!!
Comments
Long live dawgman.com
Who knows, perhaps he's just another lost soul with 'trust issues'... it happens... even to the best coaches in the country. Sometimes players just can't keep up at this level watcha gonna do?