#71
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I am sure the quote isnt word for word, but yeah. |
#72
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Thats not how I took it. And if thats the case he could have worded it better. |
The Following User Says Thank You to rcubed For This Useful Post: | ||
Oldcolt (11-08-2022) |
#73
|
||||
|
||||
He definitely could have been less defensive.
__________________
Keep your political crap out of a football forum! Nobody here gives a rat's a** |
#74
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I could be wrong, but personally, I initially took it as him pointing out to a bunch of writers who (not all, but most) badgered him about bringing in flashy WR's over the years that, no, it's the boring OL having the impact. The WR are fine and OL is underperforming (key word). And basically, you guys don't know what you're talking about. I don't think it was worded better because it was just an impromptu jab. A quick fuck you to the writers on the heels of A.) a 12-hour shitty, heated, stressful session, and B.) like three straight attacking questions, including asking the owner right next to him if he's going to fire Ballard. I think three seconds of steam blew off. |
The Following User Says Thank You to ChaosTheory For This Useful Post: | ||
Racehorse (11-09-2022) |
|
|