Shirley has left UW
Comments
-
So you're now sayIng it was Wilcox who fucked him up...thanks for the clarificationdoogsinparadise said: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.
-
Huh? That's what you pulled out of my posts. Christ man.
-
Blame the coach no longer here! Shirley was no good anyway! We're better off without him!MikeDamone said:
So you're now sayIng it was Wilcox who fucked him up...thanks for the clarificationdoogsinparadise said: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.
Long live dawgman.com
-
Pressing very badly in this thread. Yikes.ApostleofGrief said:
Blame the coach no longer here! Shirley was no good anyway! We're better off without him!MikeDamone said:
So you're now sayIng it was Wilcox who fucked him up...thanks for the clarificationdoogsinparadise said: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.
Long live dawgman.com -
surely you dont mean MECuntWaffle said:
Pressing very badly in this thread. Yikes.ApostleofGrief said:
Blame the coach no longer here! Shirley was no good anyway! We're better off without him!MikeDamone said:
So you're now sayIng it was Wilcox who fucked him up...thanks for the clarificationdoogsinparadise said: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.
Long live dawgman.com -
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.doogsinparadise said:Huh? That's what you pulled out of my posts. Christ man.
-
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? -
You were blaming Sark.... My question is why did he regress?doogsinparadise said: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?
-
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!!!sarktastic said: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?
