Page 2 of 3

Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:53 pm
by kull
mrydel wrote:Too bad it was not a dream.
A-

Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:55 pm
by smupony94
mrydel wrote:Too bad it was not a dream.
What Jennifer Connelly does in Requiem for a Dream is awesome

Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:17 pm
by SMU21TCU10
Stallion wrote:SMU lost to 3 Fourth string QBs last year-Navy, Memphis and Southern Miss.
Correction. Smu got DESTROYED by 3 fourth string QB's

Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:18 pm
by SMU21TCU10
And was it WSU that was so depleted in QB's last year that they had tryouts for anyone enrolled to come?

Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 11:29 pm
by couch 'em
kull wrote:
mathman wrote:
smupony94 wrote: Yes it was
very wet
its goes without saying
You guys need panchos. I was only moist.

Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 11:37 pm
by CalallenStang
SMU21TCU10 wrote:And was it WSU that was so depleted in QB's last year that they had tryouts for anyone enrolled to come?
Looking worse and worse for us...

Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 1:24 am
by kull
CalallenStang wrote:
SMU21TCU10 wrote:And was it WSU that was so depleted in QB's last year that they had tryouts for anyone enrolled to come?
Looking worse and worse for us...
I'm in Pullman, the tryouts were terrible, Wulff is a joke.

Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:00 am
by GoRedGoBlue
CalallenStang wrote:What is SMU's history when facing second and third string QBs?
When 6-4 facing an 0-10 TCU team, 0-1

Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:06 am
by smupony94
couch 'em wrote:
kull wrote:
mathman wrote: very wet
its goes without saying
You guys need panchos. I was only moist.
Starting down a slippery slope

Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:11 am
by CalallenStang
kull wrote:
CalallenStang wrote:
SMU21TCU10 wrote:And was it WSU that was so depleted in QB's last year that they had tryouts for anyone enrolled to come?
Looking worse and worse for us...
I'm in Pullman, the tryouts were terrible, Wulff is a joke.
That makes me feel so much better.

Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 1:40 pm
by jtstang
couch 'em wrote:
kull wrote:
mathman wrote: very wet
its goes without saying
You guys need panchos. I was only moist.
TWSS

Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 2:39 pm
by smupony94
jtstang wrote:
couch 'em wrote:
kull wrote: its goes without saying
You guys need panchos. I was only moist.
TWSS
TWSS was banished as of 1/1/09

[deleted] is allowed

Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 2:41 pm
by mrydel
But the wonder of the TWSS in this particular instance is that it pertains to no less than 6 of the accompnaying quotes on the post by jtstang.

Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 2:42 pm
by jtstang
smupony94 wrote:
jtstang wrote:
couch 'em wrote: You guys need panchos. I was only moist.
TWSS
TWSS was banished as of 1/1/09

Hancock is allowed
So are you saying his [deleted] was moist?

Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 2:49 pm
by smupony94
jtstang wrote:
smupony94 wrote:
jtstang wrote: TWSS
TWSS was banished as of 1/1/09

Hancock is allowed
So are you saying his Hancock was moist?
NTTIAWWT