Very, very early prediction but I'll put it on the line now

[BeastMode]

I'd like to know why Perry is more naturally talented than Weldon, when Weldon is a better runner, runs a 4.5 or 4.6 and Perry runs a 4.8 or something, Weldon has a stronger arm, etc. etc. etc.

Weldon is really good and I think he wins the job if it's not Allison.

 

[Torocane]

I mean, you usually don't want to take 1 QB in a class when you know your starter is probably gone after this year.

I mean if he has such a conviction on the guy.
I can't imagine the conversation from Ritch side with Weldon and his parents.
"I think Perry is our future but sure your son will get a chance"

I'm not doubting you info I just find it odd.

You find it odd that Richt wants to bring in as much talent at the most important position in football with your starting QB probably leaving for the NFL after the season? So should we only recruit one player for every position?

It's called depth. Oh and another little thing called injuries that happens every once in a while.

I'm going to ignore the a hole condescending tone and respond to you.

No I don't find it odd at all.
What I do find odd is Ritch walking around the building saying he prefers Perry to win job.

I hope the bring in as much competition as possible and have a true open competition for the job.

It really is not odd that the HC would want the most talented guy at the position to step up and earn the starting job. This, to me, is what Richt hopes will happen. He hopes that Perry will come in and win the job, because hes so talented. But it is entirely possible he comes in and just isn't ready to start as a freshman, and if that is the case he will go with who is ready. He can have an honest competition with hopes a certain person comes out on top. I really don't find this too complicated, but everyones acting like Pete said No matter what Richts already given the job to Perry. All he's basically saying is he hopes Perry wins it. And seeing as how he has the most potential of any of our QBs currently, I don't find that too odd.

I disagree.
There is a difference between being very excited about Perry's talent and giving him every opportunity to win the job and "Perry is the leader in the clubhouse for the job".
"Perry is the leader in the clubhouse for the job" before the recruit even steps on campus cast doubt about the fairness of the competition.IMO
"Perry is the leader in the clubhouse for the jon" suggest he already has a leg up on the players he is competing against.

 

[Moro]

I think that's everybody's issue. Regardless of who we all favor, at the end of it we just want a true competition and the best man to win. Not this picking favorites and predetermining the outcome amateur act


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You can have a true competition and still hope a certain player comes out on top. Its as simple as Perry being the most naturally talented, and the coaches hoping he wins the job as a freshman. Doesn't mean they are going to give him the job if he doesn't win it.

No you can't. And I'm not certain that Perry is more "naturally talented" than Weldon. Weldon is a better runner, might have a bigger arm, and he has a much better release.

Right. That's like someone that takes a trial by judge and the judge is already saying "I hope you get the death penalty" the defendant would hope that his case is decided by the law and evidence. I'm sure anyone would feel discouraged walking into that court room where the judge has already tilted the scale.

So you don't think a judge can think someone is guilty and be objective enough to make a ruling based solely on the evidence and arguments of the attorneys? Seems like you have little faith in the justice department.

No, I don't and neither should you, that is why there is constitutional power to remove a judge. The task is to decide what it means for a judge to misbehave. To say that a judge is misbehaving is to judge that his or her act or omission falls short of what we rightfully expect from judges.

A judge who swears to tell the truth and then misleads the court is clearly unfit to remain in office. Likewise a HC who swears to let the competition and performance decide the starter and then mislead current players by declaring that he hopes a future player wins the job is clearly unfit to be a judge.

Judges must be held to higher standards because they hold the unique position of administering justice. Judges must do justice and give people reason to believe that justice is being done. Judicial misbehavior that justifies removal from office has a critical quality. It stains the judge's character and saps public confidence in him or her and in those who administer justice. And so the judge is unfit for office.

 

[Tahoe]

Predicting who will start at quarterback is like predicting the weather a year from now.

 

[CaneSince4Ever]

Cade Weldon =s Robert Marve.

And LOL @ Weldon runs a 4.5...that bad bodied boy ain't runnin' no 4.5...LOL.

 

[Calinative]

You can have a true competition and still hope a certain player comes out on top. Its as simple as Perry being the most naturally talented, and the coaches hoping he wins the job as a freshman. Doesn't mean they are going to give him the job if he doesn't win it.

No you can't. And I'm not certain that Perry is more "naturally talented" than Weldon. Weldon is a better runner, might have a bigger arm, and he has a much better release.

Right. That's like someone that takes a trial by judge and the judge is already saying "I hope you get the death penalty" the defendant would hope that his case is decided by the law and evidence. I'm sure anyone would feel discouraged walking into that court room where the judge has already tilted the scale.

So you don't think a judge can think someone is guilty and be objective enough to make a ruling based solely on the evidence and arguments of the attorneys? Seems like you have little faith in the justice department.

No, I don't and neither should you, that is why there is constitutional power to remove a judge. The task is to decide what it means for a judge to misbehave. To say that a judge is misbehaving is to judge that his or her act or omission falls short of what we rightfully expect from judges.

A judge who swears to tell the truth and then misleads the court is clearly unfit to remain in office. Likewise a HC who swears to let the competition and performance decide the starter and then mislead current players by declaring that he hopes a future player wins the job is clearly unfit to be a judge.

Judges must be held to higher standards because they hold the unique position of administering justice. Judges must do justice and give people reason to believe that justice is being done. Judicial misbehavior that justifies removal from office has a critical quality. It stains the judge's character and saps public confidence in him or her and in those who administer justice. And so the judge is unfit for office.

The **** are you talking about. How on earth you think judges can't believe a person is guilty but rule that there isn't enough evidence to support a guilty verdict is beyond me. Do you just think judges are blank canvases with no knowledge or common sense? You don't think they can separate their opinions of a persons character with objective rulings. Come on dude.
You don't think every judge in america thinks Dylan Roof is guilty? Yet he will still get a fair trial.

 

[cowboycane]

Predicting who will start at quarterback is like predicting the weather a year from now.

January in Miami? Lots of sunshine, mid to high 70s, nice breeze.

 

[Moro]

No you can't. And I'm not certain that Perry is more "naturally talented" than Weldon. Weldon is a better runner, might have a bigger arm, and he has a much better release.

Right. That's like someone that takes a trial by judge and the judge is already saying "I hope you get the death penalty" the defendant would hope that his case is decided by the law and evidence. I'm sure anyone would feel discouraged walking into that court room where the judge has already tilted the scale.

So you don't think a judge can think someone is guilty and be objective enough to make a ruling based solely on the evidence and arguments of the attorneys? Seems like you have little faith in the justice department.

No, I don't and neither should you, that is why there is constitutional power to remove a judge. The task is to decide what it means for a judge to misbehave. To say that a judge is misbehaving is to judge that his or her act or omission falls short of what we rightfully expect from judges.

A judge who swears to tell the truth and then misleads the court is clearly unfit to remain in office. Likewise a HC who swears to let the competition and performance decide the starter and then mislead current players by declaring that he hopes a future player wins the job is clearly unfit to be a judge.

Judges must be held to higher standards because they hold the unique position of administering justice. Judges must do justice and give people reason to believe that justice is being done. Judicial misbehavior that justifies removal from office has a critical quality. It stains the judge's character and saps public confidence in him or her and in those who administer justice. And so the judge is unfit for office.

The **** are you talking about. How on earth you think judges can't believe a person is guilty but rule that there isn't enough evidence to support a guilty verdict is beyond me. Do you just think judges are blank canvases with no knowledge or common sense? You don't think they can separate their opinions of a persons character with objective rulings. Come on dude.
You don't think every judge in america thinks Dylan Roof is guilty? Yet he will still get a fair trial.

Let's use your emotions that are displayed in your answer above. Juries are often more swayed by emotions like sympathy than by hard evidence that is presented by attorneys. Therefore, in some cases it may be to the defendants advantage to be tried by 12 than to be judged by 1. Therefore, the defendant still has a chance to sway the jury of 12 rather than leaving it in the hands of a single biased judge.

 

[Calinative]

Right. That's like someone that takes a trial by judge and the judge is already saying "I hope you get the death penalty" the defendant would hope that his case is decided by the law and evidence. I'm sure anyone would feel discouraged walking into that court room where the judge has already tilted the scale.

So you don't think a judge can think someone is guilty and be objective enough to make a ruling based solely on the evidence and arguments of the attorneys? Seems like you have little faith in the justice department.

No, I don't and neither should you, that is why there is constitutional power to remove a judge. The task is to decide what it means for a judge to misbehave. To say that a judge is misbehaving is to judge that his or her act or omission falls short of what we rightfully expect from judges.

A judge who swears to tell the truth and then misleads the court is clearly unfit to remain in office. Likewise a HC who swears to let the competition and performance decide the starter and then mislead current players by declaring that he hopes a future player wins the job is clearly unfit to be a judge.

Judges must be held to higher standards because they hold the unique position of administering justice. Judges must do justice and give people reason to believe that justice is being done. Judicial misbehavior that justifies removal from office has a critical quality. It stains the judge's character and saps public confidence in him or her and in those who administer justice. And so the judge is unfit for office.

The **** are you talking about. How on earth you think judges can't believe a person is guilty but rule that there isn't enough evidence to support a guilty verdict is beyond me. Do you just think judges are blank canvases with no knowledge or common sense? You don't think they can separate their opinions of a persons character with objective rulings. Come on dude.
You don't think every judge in america thinks Dylan Roof is guilty? Yet he will still get a fair trial.

Let's use your emotions that are displayed in your answer above. Juries are often more swayed by emotions like sympathy than by hard evidence that is presented by attorneys. Therefore, in some cases it may be to the defendants advantage to be tried by 12 than to be judged by 1. Therefore, the defendant still has a chance two sway the jury rather than leaving it in the hands of a biased judge.

You really are not making a good point.

 

[ben]

I'd like to know why Perry is more naturally talented than Weldon, when Weldon is a better runner, runs a 4.5 or 4.6 and Perry runs a 4.8 or something, Weldon has a stronger arm, etc. etc. etc.

Berlin > Crudup

 

[Calinative]

I mean if he has such a conviction on the guy.
I can't imagine the conversation from Ritch side with Weldon and his parents.
"I think Perry is our future but sure your son will get a chance"

I'm not doubting you info I just find it odd.

You find it odd that Richt wants to bring in as much talent at the most important position in football with your starting QB probably leaving for the NFL after the season? So should we only recruit one player for every position?

It's called depth. Oh and another little thing called injuries that happens every once in a while.

I'm going to ignore the a hole condescending tone and respond to you.

No I don't find it odd at all.
What I do find odd is Ritch walking around the building saying he prefers Perry to win job.

I hope the bring in as much competition as possible and have a true open competition for the job.

It really is not odd that the HC would want the most talented guy at the position to step up and earn the starting job. This, to me, is what Richt hopes will happen. He hopes that Perry will come in and win the job, because hes so talented. But it is entirely possible he comes in and just isn't ready to start as a freshman, and if that is the case he will go with who is ready. He can have an honest competition with hopes a certain person comes out on top. I really don't find this too complicated, but everyones acting like Pete said No matter what Richts already given the job to Perry. All he's basically saying is he hopes Perry wins it. And seeing as how he has the most potential of any of our QBs currently, I don't find that too odd.

I disagree.
There is a difference between being very excited about Perry's talent and giving him every opportunity to win the job and "Perry is the leader in the clubhouse for the job".
"Perry is the leader in the clubhouse for the job" before the recruit even steps on campus cast doubt about the fairness of the competition.IMO
"Perry is the leader in the clubhouse for the jon" suggest he already has a leg up on the players he is competing against.

I just disagree. I think expecting someone or hoping for someone to win the starting job doesn't mean there wont be a real competition. It doesn't mean that he already has the job. It just means Richt is expecting/hoping Perry to win it. I really am not understanding what is so wrong with this thinking. If Jeudy was committed here, guess what every single person would be saying - that he is going to start opposite Ahmmon.
Lastly, unless Pete is using a direct quote from Mark Richt himself, I don't see why you guys are following the letter of what Pete reported rather than the spirit of what Pete's reporting.

 

[frostycane]

If true, this will be jacory harris/Robert Marve all over again and it would force me to make this bold prediction "CMRs days are numbered"

 

[Moro]

So you don't think a judge can think someone is guilty and be objective enough to make a ruling based solely on the evidence and arguments of the attorneys? Seems like you have little faith in the justice department.

No, I don't and neither should you, that is why there is constitutional power to remove a judge. The task is to decide what it means for a judge to misbehave. To say that a judge is misbehaving is to judge that his or her act or omission falls short of what we rightfully expect from judges.

A judge who swears to tell the truth and then misleads the court is clearly unfit to remain in office. Likewise a HC who swears to let the competition and performance decide the starter and then mislead current players by declaring that he hopes a future player wins the job is clearly unfit to be a judge.

Judges must be held to higher standards because they hold the unique position of administering justice. Judges must do justice and give people reason to believe that justice is being done. Judicial misbehavior that justifies removal from office has a critical quality. It stains the judge's character and saps public confidence in him or her and in those who administer justice. And so the judge is unfit for office.

The **** are you talking about. How on earth you think judges can't believe a person is guilty but rule that there isn't enough evidence to support a guilty verdict is beyond me. Do you just think judges are blank canvases with no knowledge or common sense? You don't think they can separate their opinions of a persons character with objective rulings. Come on dude.
You don't think every judge in america thinks Dylan Roof is guilty? Yet he will still get a fair trial.

Let's use your emotions that are displayed in your answer above. Juries are often more swayed by emotions like sympathy than by hard evidence that is presented by attorneys. Therefore, in some cases it may be to the defendants advantage to be tried by 12 than to be judged by 1. Therefore, the defendant still has a chance two sway the jury rather than leaving it in the hands of a biased judge.

You really are not making a good point.

No, it's that you really don't understand the reasons for a judge or jury trials. Neither do you understand that if a person were to choose a trial by judge it is imperative that the judge keeps his or her opinions out of the public and the case. If you do not understand this then that is why the constitution exists to protect your rights to a fair trial.

 

[Calinative]

No, I don't and neither should you, that is why there is constitutional power to remove a judge. The task is to decide what it means for a judge to misbehave. To say that a judge is misbehaving is to judge that his or her act or omission falls short of what we rightfully expect from judges.

A judge who swears to tell the truth and then misleads the court is clearly unfit to remain in office. Likewise a HC who swears to let the competition and performance decide the starter and then mislead current players by declaring that he hopes a future player wins the job is clearly unfit to be a judge.

Judges must be held to higher standards because they hold the unique position of administering justice. Judges must do justice and give people reason to believe that justice is being done. Judicial misbehavior that justifies removal from office has a critical quality. It stains the judge's character and saps public confidence in him or her and in those who administer justice. And so the judge is unfit for office.

The **** are you talking about. How on earth you think judges can't believe a person is guilty but rule that there isn't enough evidence to support a guilty verdict is beyond me. Do you just think judges are blank canvases with no knowledge or common sense? You don't think they can separate their opinions of a persons character with objective rulings. Come on dude.
You don't think every judge in america thinks Dylan Roof is guilty? Yet he will still get a fair trial.

Let's use your emotions that are displayed in your answer above. Juries are often more swayed by emotions like sympathy than by hard evidence that is presented by attorneys. Therefore, in some cases it may be to the defendants advantage to be tried by 12 than to be judged by 1. Therefore, the defendant still has a chance two sway the jury rather than leaving it in the hands of a biased judge.

You really are not making a good point.

No, it's that you really don't understand the reasons for a judge or jury trials. Neither do you understand that if a person were to choose a trial by judge it is imperative that the judge keeps is opinions out of the public and the case. If you do not understand this then that is why the constitution exist to protect your rights to a fair trial.

That is my **** point. What are you not understanding about this. Judges have the ability to keep their personal opinion to themself and not let it affect how they rule, sentence, etc. That is exactly why I am saying just because Richt may hope or expect Perry to be the starter, it doesn't mean that he will be handed the job or that Richt can't be objective about the QB competition.

 

[Moro]

You find it odd that Richt wants to bring in as much talent at the most important position in football with your starting QB probably leaving for the NFL after the season? So should we only recruit one player for every position?

It's called depth. Oh and another little thing called injuries that happens every once in a while.

I'm going to ignore the a hole condescending tone and respond to you.

No I don't find it odd at all.
What I do find odd is Ritch walking around the building saying he prefers Perry to win job.

I hope the bring in as much competition as possible and have a true open competition for the job.

It really is not odd that the HC would want the most talented guy at the position to step up and earn the starting job. This, to me, is what Richt hopes will happen. He hopes that Perry will come in and win the job, because hes so talented. But it is entirely possible he comes in and just isn't ready to start as a freshman, and if that is the case he will go with who is ready. He can have an honest competition with hopes a certain person comes out on top. I really don't find this too complicated, but everyones acting like Pete said No matter what Richts already given the job to Perry. All he's basically saying is he hopes Perry wins it. And seeing as how he has the most potential of any of our QBs currently, I don't find that too odd.

I disagree.
There is a difference between being very excited about Perry's talent and giving him every opportunity to win the job and "Perry is the leader in the clubhouse for the job".
"Perry is the leader in the clubhouse for the job" before the recruit even steps on campus cast doubt about the fairness of the competition.IMO
"Perry is the leader in the clubhouse for the jon" suggest he already has a leg up on the players he is competing against.

I just disagree. I think expecting someone or hoping for someone to win the starting job doesn't mean there wont be a real competition. It doesn't mean that he already has the job. It just means Richt is expecting/hoping Perry to win it. I really am not understanding what is so wrong with this thinking. If Jeudy was committed here, guess what every single person would be saying - that he is going to start opposite Ahmmon.
Lastly, unless Pete is using a direct quote from Mark Richt himself, I don't see why you guys are following the letter of what Pete reported rather than the spirit of what Pete's reporting.

There is only one starting QB spot. As such if it were the same single WR spot you would have the same response if that came at the expense of sitting Richards on a better high school rating in Jeudy.

 

[Torocane]

You find it odd that Richt wants to bring in as much talent at the most important position in football with your starting QB probably leaving for the NFL after the season? So should we only recruit one player for every position?

It's called depth. Oh and another little thing called injuries that happens every once in a while.

I'm going to ignore the a hole condescending tone and respond to you.

No I don't find it odd at all.
What I do find odd is Ritch walking around the building saying he prefers Perry to win job.

I hope the bring in as much competition as possible and have a true open competition for the job.

It really is not odd that the HC would want the most talented guy at the position to step up and earn the starting job. This, to me, is what Richt hopes will happen. He hopes that Perry will come in and win the job, because hes so talented. But it is entirely possible he comes in and just isn't ready to start as a freshman, and if that is the case he will go with who is ready. He can have an honest competition with hopes a certain person comes out on top. I really don't find this too complicated, but everyones acting like Pete said No matter what Richts already given the job to Perry. All he's basically saying is he hopes Perry wins it. And seeing as how he has the most potential of any of our QBs currently, I don't find that too odd.

I disagree.
There is a difference between being very excited about Perry's talent and giving him every opportunity to win the job and "Perry is the leader in the clubhouse for the job".
"Perry is the leader in the clubhouse for the job" before the recruit even steps on campus cast doubt about the fairness of the competition.IMO
"Perry is the leader in the clubhouse for the jon" suggest he already has a leg up on the players he is competing against.

I just disagree. I think expecting someone or hoping for someone to win the starting job doesn't mean there wont be a real competition. It doesn't mean that he already has the job. It just means Richt is expecting/hoping Perry to win it. I really am not understanding what is so wrong with this thinking. If Jeudy was committed here, guess what every single person would be saying - that he is going to start opposite Ahmmon.
Lastly, unless Pete is using a direct quote from Mark Richt himself, I don't see why you guys are following the letter of what Pete reported rather than the spirit of what Pete's reporting.

I think we are just disagreeing on the language that was used.
I see what you are saying "It just means Richt is expecting/hoping Perry to win it" and I agree tgat there is nothing wrong with that.
But I see something wrong with what Pete is saying "he is the leader in the clubhouse to win the job" it's different then what you are saying.
"Being the leader in the clubhouse to win the job" says he is already ahead of the others.
Anyway we are just going around in circles. We shall see how it all works out.

 

[Moro]

The **** are you talking about. How on earth you think judges can't believe a person is guilty but rule that there isn't enough evidence to support a guilty verdict is beyond me. Do you just think judges are blank canvases with no knowledge or common sense? You don't think they can separate their opinions of a persons character with objective rulings. Come on dude.
You don't think every judge in america thinks Dylan Roof is guilty? Yet he will still get a fair trial.

Let's use your emotions that are displayed in your answer above. Juries are often more swayed by emotions like sympathy than by hard evidence that is presented by attorneys. Therefore, in some cases it may be to the defendants advantage to be tried by 12 than to be judged by 1. Therefore, the defendant still has a chance two sway the jury rather than leaving it in the hands of a biased judge.

You really are not making a good point.

No, it's that you really don't understand the reasons for a judge or jury trials. Neither do you understand that if a person were to choose a trial by judge it is imperative that the judge keeps is opinions out of the public and the case. If you do not understand this then that is why the constitution exist to protect your rights to a fair trial.

That is my **** point. What are you not understanding about this. Judges have the ability to keep their personal opinion to themself and not let it affect how they rule, sentence, etc. That is exactly why I am saying just because Richt may hope or expect Perry to be the starter, it doesn't mean that he will be handed the job or that Richt can't be objective about the QB competition.

Because a judge allows his or her opinions to be known publicly before a trial is misbehavior and prof he or she is unfit. The task is to decide what it means for a judge to misbehave. To say that a judge is misbehaving is to judge that his or her act or omission falls short of what we rightfully expect from judges. This is a very serious offence by a judge.

 

[Calinative]

Let's use your emotions that are displayed in your answer above. Juries are often more swayed by emotions like sympathy than by hard evidence that is presented by attorneys. Therefore, in some cases it may be to the defendants advantage to be tried by 12 than to be judged by 1. Therefore, the defendant still has a chance two sway the jury rather than leaving it in the hands of a biased judge.

You really are not making a good point.

No, it's that you really don't understand the reasons for a judge or jury trials. Neither do you understand that if a person were to choose a trial by judge it is imperative that the judge keeps is opinions out of the public and the case. If you do not understand this then that is why the constitution exist to protect your rights to a fair trial.

That is my **** point. What are you not understanding about this. Judges have the ability to keep their personal opinion to themself and not let it affect how they rule, sentence, etc. That is exactly why I am saying just because Richt may hope or expect Perry to be the starter, it doesn't mean that he will be handed the job or that Richt can't be objective about the QB competition.

Because a judge allows his or her opinions to be known publicly before a trial is misbehavior and prof he or she is unfit. The task is to decide what it means for a judge to misbehave. To say that a judge is misbehaving is to judge that his or her act or omission falls short of what we rightfully expect from judges. This is a very serious offence by a judge.

Bruh. I'm done.

 

[ThomasM]

Shirreffs wins the job, and this board goes up in flames.

 

[Moro]

You really are not making a good point.

No, it's that you really don't understand the reasons for a judge or jury trials. Neither do you understand that if a person were to choose a trial by judge it is imperative that the judge keeps is opinions out of the public and the case. If you do not understand this then that is why the constitution exist to protect your rights to a fair trial.

That is my **** point. What are you not understanding about this. Judges have the ability to keep their personal opinion to themself and not let it affect how they rule, sentence, etc. That is exactly why I am saying just because Richt may hope or expect Perry to be the starter, it doesn't mean that he will be handed the job or that Richt can't be objective about the QB competition.

Because a judge allows his or her opinions to be known publicly before a trial is misbehavior and prof he or she is unfit. The task is to decide what it means for a judge to misbehave. To say that a judge is misbehaving is to judge that his or her act or omission falls short of what we rightfully expect from judges. This is a very serious offence by a judge.

Bruh. I'm done.

Good debate though. Thanks!