Shaq Thompson

You might give up a little bit with Shaq on a down by down situation ... but what you give up you get back in his ability to make big plays and create turnovers.

As the game moves more in the direction of requiring LBs to be able to play in space and defend athletic WRs and TEs in space, the more you need the skillset that Shaq has playing the LB position than you need his ability to scrape off of blockers in the 3-4 yard and a cloud of dust type offenses.
 
...a slow undersized WIL who should have played safety in college...
Click to expand...

Actually, 6'0" 228 4.64 33" probably rate as pretty typical measurables for a Power Five Conf WIL. I would agree that straight-line speed has never been Shaq's strength. But if he's a "slow" linebacker, why would you ever want to play him at safety?

 
Myles Jack looked better on both sides of the ball. Would have given a left nut to have him and Budda in the backfield with Mora as the coach
Click to expand...

I'm not sure who "Budda" is. I'm guessing you meant Buttah.
 
@BallSacked, UCLA had 7 guys on defense for the first and second team. Your defense wasn't even good either. 600+ yards against ASU, Oregon putting up 42 by the beginning of the 4th, UW scored 30, Stanford scored 31, the Cal game, Colorado. When UW, Stanford, and Colorado are scoring 30+, your defense sucks. Other than USC and Arizona, your defense sucked most games.

You were .2 points allowed from being ranked 8th in the conference. Complaining about anyone getting left off is FS. UCLA had more undeserving guys on those teams than anyone.
 
Last edited:
...a slow undersized WIL who should have played safety in college...
Click to expand...

Actually, 6'0" 228 4.64 33" probably rate as pretty typical measurables for a Power Five Conf WIL. I would agree that straight-line speed has never been Shaq's strength. But if he's a "slow" linebacker, why would you ever want to play him at safety?
Click to expand...

At 228lbs he looks slow, it's my opinion. He's trying to stick to the "I'm a linebacker" and gained weight for the combines. He looks far from a chiseled machine that he should be. At 219-220lbs he may have the quicks to play strong safety and dime backer.

 
Last edited:
@BallSacked, UCLA had 7 guys on defense for the first and second team. Your defense wasn't even good either. 600+ yards against ASU, Oregon putting up 42 by the beginning of the 4th, UW scored 30, Stanford scored 31, the Cal game, Colorado. When UW, Stanford, and Colorado are scoring 30+, your defense sucks. Other than USC and Arizona, your defense sucked most games.

You were .2 points allowed from being ranked 8th in the conference. Complaining about anyone getting left off is FS. UCLA had more undeserving guys on those teams than anyone.
Click to expand...

@BallSacked you just got got.

Also Shaq was 1st team all-purpose, so he didn't really take a LB position.
 
@BallSacked, UCLA had 7 guys on defense for the first and second team. Your defense wasn't even good either. 600+ yards against ASU, Oregon putting up 42 by the beginning of the 4th, UW scored 30, Stanford scored 31, the Cal game, Colorado. When UW, Stanford, and Colorado are scoring 30+, your defense sucks. Other than USC and Arizona, your defense sucked most games.

You were .2 points allowed from being ranked 8th in the conference. Complaining about anyone getting left off is FS. UCLA had more undeserving guys on those teams than anyone.
Click to expand...

@BallSacked you just got got.

Also Shaq was 1st team all-purpose, so he didn't really take a LB position.
Click to expand...
Nah you're wrong on both points. @RoadDoog55 is just fucktardly abundant in his logic, or lack thereof. And Shaq was not All-Purpose by the conference voters, he was LB.

1. UCLA & UW allowed the same amount of yards per play last season. And that is without the Bruins getting the pleasure of going against coogs, beavs, or that FCS bullshit UW took on. And fuck off with selective data snooping on a single game in which UCLA was up by 5 TDs in the 4th. They gave up 600 yards in a 40 pt victory on the road that was never in doubt. Your team gave up nearly 600 yards to a FCS team in a one score win at home.

Moreover who the fuck cares? Does this then invalidate Kendricks getting selected to the all-conference teams? If it does then I guess no Doogs or Broons deserve because they gave up 600 yards one time and both averaged the same yards per play the entire season.

2. On the total number of players selected, I agree UCLA had too many I'd say entirely in the secondary...I don't think Ishmael Adams is first team worthy. He's average, but he did score 3 defensive TDs. So according to your own fucktarded logic in this very thread - that warrants first team selection. Or does it not? Or does that special case logic only apply to Washington because you have a Shaq Thompson fathead next to your racecar bed? Get your logic straight or go watch NBC sitcoms and shut the fuck up.

Bottom line: The Butkus award winner should be first team all-conference, and none of Roaddoog's points have any merit, and actually counter his own argument.
 
Last edited:
@BallSacked, UCLA had 7 guys on defense for the first and second team. Your defense wasn't even good either. 600+ yards against ASU, Oregon putting up 42 by the beginning of the 4th, UW scored 30, Stanford scored 31, the Cal game, Colorado. When UW, Stanford, and Colorado are scoring 30+, your defense sucks. Other than USC and Arizona, your defense sucked most games.

You were .2 points allowed from being ranked 8th in the conference. Complaining about anyone getting left off is FS. UCLA had more undeserving guys on those teams than anyone.
Click to expand...

@BallSacked you just got got.

Also Shaq was 1st team all-purpose, so he didn't really take a LB position.
Click to expand...
Nah you're wrong on both points. @RoadDoog55 is just fucktardly abundant in his logic, or lack thereof.

1. UCLA & UW allowed the same amount of yards per play last season. And that is without the Bruins getting the pleasure of going against coogs, beavs, or that FCS bullshit UW took on. And fuck off with selective data snooping on a single game in which UCLA was up by 5 TDs in the 4th. They gave up 600 yards in a 40 pt victory on the road that was never in doubt. Your team gave up nearly 600 yards to a FCS team in a one score win at home.

Moreover who the fuck cares? Does this then invalidate Kendricks getting selected to the all-conference teams? If it does then I guess no Doogs or Broons deserve because they gave up 600 yards one time and both averaged the same yards per play the entire season.

2. On the total number of players selected, I agree UCLA had too many I'd say entirely in the secondary...I don't think Ishmael Adams is first team worthy. He's average, but he did score 3 defensive TDs. So according to your own fucktarded logic in this very thread - that warrants first team selection. Or does it not? Or does that special case logic only apply to Washington because you have a Shaq Thompson fathead next to your racecar bed? Get your logic straight or go watch NBC sitcoms and shut the fuck up.

Bottom line: The Butkus award winner should be first team all-conference, and none of Roaddoog's points have any merit, and actually counter his own argument.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen this kind of butthurt since Cockus was buried. Lol at selective data. UCLA was tied for 6th in points allowed. .2 away from being 8th. They have up 30+ to three of the worst offenses in the PAC 12.

But keep crying about a guy who racked up a ton of tackles not making 1st team behind three All Americans including the defensive player of the year (undeserving, but still), the leader in defensive TD's, and the nation's sack leader.
 
And I haven't seen this type of fucktarded data-based arguments since AubburnDoog.

In this thread you call 'Shaq average as a LB'. I agree and say the butkus award winner should have been selected over him for first team all-conf. Then, for some reason, you try to argue against yourself with a bunch of garbage that you think is smart, but really is FS.
 
And I haven't seen this type of fucktarded data-based arguments since AubburnDoog.

In this thread you call 'Shaq average as a LB'. I agree and say the butkus award winner should have been selected over him for first team all-conf. Then, for some reason, you try to argue against yourself with a bunch of garbage that you think is smart, but really is FS.
Click to expand...

nogaf
 
Agree on avg LB. At the time I said it was ridiculous that Shaq got 1st team LB over the Butkus winner and so many vaginas here got sandy.

I think his best position is actually RB.
Click to expand...

@BallSacked, UCLA had 7 guys on defense for the first and second team. Your defense wasn't even good either. 600+ yards against ASU, Oregon putting up 42 by the beginning of the 4th, UW scored 30, Stanford scored 31, the Cal game, Colorado. When UW, Stanford, and Colorado are scoring 30+, your defense sucks. Other than USC and Arizona, your defense sucked most games.

You were .2 points allowed from being ranked 8th in the conference. Complaining about anyone getting left off is FS. UCLA had more undeserving guys on those teams than anyone.

 
@BallSacked, it's just an internet debate. Keep your chin up buddy.
Click to expand...

He would, but right now he is busy keeping his bare asshole up so that he can continue to get what he deserves.

Its too hard to keep both his chin and sweet spot up in the air (at the same time).

 
@BallSacked, it's just an internet debate. Keep your chin up buddy.
Click to expand...

He would, but right now he is busy keeping his bare asshole up so that he can continue to get what he deserves.

Its too hard to keep both his chin and sweet spot up in the air (at the same time).
Click to expand...
Seems like you're speaking from experience. I guess you are Giving-up-the-two-hole superiority guy.

Fag.
 
Last edited:
The gloves are off in this thread.

uclalol.0.gif
 
Ballsacked is a good poaster, but this thread is a perfect example of how quickly the half brains will turn on you if you start doogin.

Broogin in this case. Sound reason or GTFO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top