GatorBait19
-
Posts
2,870 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by GatorBait19
-
-
To be fair..in reading enough of lazorbeak's posts I can see where he can come across as being rude.
But Gator..you are extremely frustrating to debate with. You flip around and attach value to tiny niggling little points that have nothing to do with the over-all topic. ( I mean..really? you needed me to clarify that "harder to coach" and "harder to have success as a coach" were basically the same thing as it related to what we were talking about? REALLY??)
Also...if this is lingering animosity from that basketball thread, let it go. lazorbeak won that argument. I read it...you weren't making any sense. You actually said at one point the Eastern conference was beter because more players are born in the east. It was crazy talk.
I stick by that, where a player is from has a lot of influence. Think about it, A football player from Wyoming is the top rated player in his state. Now there is a kid in Florida who is just as talented but is considered the 50th best player in his state.
So do you take the Wyoming guy or the Florida guy? FLORIDA because he played with top talent. lol but that's me nitpicking
With your argument I believe there is a difference in being successful and being able to coach. Norv Tuner is a great coach, not to successful. Same with Marty, won countless games but couldn't win the big one. Does that make them bad coaches? To me (like I said from the begining) there is a difference between it being hard to coach (cause let's face it, your style of coaching never changes from NCAA to NFL) to being successful.
When you handle kids most of your life then go to pros and have to handle grown men, it's more difficult. Jimmie Johnson with the Cowboys drafted a bunch of college players he coached against or they played for him. He was successful with this as he was still dealing with premature adults.
Coaching skills don't disappear when someone goes to the next level. Success might, but not coaching. This is why I believe it's harder to be a success, not a coach.
-
I have nothing against you and nothing but respect for opinions of others, even when they are based on total misunderstandings of things I've said. It's not arrogance to point out logical fallacies like an "appeal to authority" or "appeal to emotion," since neither have logical significance but make the speaker sound informed and generate sympathy.
It's amazing you have respect for opinion when you quite literally say you don't.
Second we give you facts you just don't care enough and only beat your facts to death (even when people give you more than two facts).
But since you are the all mighty ruler and most knowledgeable about anything and everything to sports, I assume we all must pander to your wishes. (more of to save our own insanity)
Caio -
Please learn to read. Then learn to write complete thoughts and end them with periods. Again, you have no idea what evidence is. Those weird "facts" and "numbers" I bring up are EVIDENCE. When I say that 60% of games are won by the team that wins the coin toss that is a fact. Again, 52% of games are won in college by coin tosses, while we're at it.
Gee, maybe this:
Originally Posted by LoganRodzen:
"And in college OT you're not one play away from losing it all?"
PERIOD. You end thoughts with one. Try it! Also I wish I lived in a world where tirades were three sentence long explanations. And I still don't think you understood what Logan and I were talking about, but that's about the level of comprehension I expect. Go back and read what we each said again and don't immediately throw up a poorly written brain-fart saying "nuh uh nobody said that never" when I can very easily find where someone did in fact say that... ever.
Fortunately for me: that isn't what I've been arguing! See how that works?
But way to completely miss the point of an obvious metaphor and proceed to state the obvious for the mentally deficient. It's no less than I'd expect of you.
jbergey that is statistically true. My problem with it is more about the lack of playing real football with standard rules, the "everyone gets a turn" aspect and the padded stats that it creates.
No, I didn't miss the metaphor. Next time maybe you should use one that works.
Also, are you a flaming idiot? You've been arguing this whole time about how the NFL is more exciting! I on the other hand actually on the other hand gave support to why College OT is more fair and just as exciting.
1) (you actually helped me with this one, thanks sweetie) In NFL, the team who wins the coin toss in OT wins 60% of the time. In College OT the team who wins the coin toss wins only 52% of the time........... yeah those stats help me in point out......... wait for it...... wait a little longer...... IT'S FAIR GAME
2) You say NFL OT is exciting because one play could end the game. While this is true I came in with the fact that most of the greatest games in college football history were finished in OT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoganRodzen
And in college OT you're not one play away from losing it all? An INT or fumble gives the other team the ball and they can kick a FG and win it.
You: Do you know what "one play" means? It means one play. Giving the other team the ball and the chance to score doesn't end the game. Hence not "one play."
Yeah, we could completely not see you agreeing with him there.
Also, like I said yesterday I am not trying to make sure my stuff is on point. I could careless if you can read it or not. While on the subject here......
Um, you asked? Your own explanation of the college system showed that no, the game can't end on every play. It's not just 22 guys with helmets on the field. There's game clocks and field position and special teams, and none of that is there, so no, it's not the same game.
1)Period after field was for?
2) plus the use of commas listing items instead of and.
3)Seriously, seven overtimes. Seven.
4) Who was it that when they won the coin toss elected to "win" and then proceeded to turn the ball over for a game-ending interception? WHAT?
you make gammar mistakes as well sweetheart. You just have time to sit there in between porn videos to reread what you wrote. Me personally, I couldn't give a crap.
-
Yes, that is what he literally said. But see this is where having reading comprehension pays off. What the quote means is that you can afford to take things easier and not sweat every game as a college coach. If I'm the coach of UT, I've got A&M circled, I've got OU circled, and then I have 10 other games, at least 6 of which will be against teams that stand literally zero chance to beat me. you cannot do that in the pros because it is harder.
As has been told to you repeatedly having an opinion unsupported by evidence is not equal to a valid conclusion based on factual evidence.
Certain people on this board need to realize that when the books say the sky is blue, and everyone else keeps telling you the sky is blue, you can't say "IMO the sky is yellow" and expect it to be treated with equal regard by anyone.
See it's funny because you don't bring evidence today Mr. Beak. In fact that one play comment you made a minute ago made no sense.
Where in the hell did you get Logan's response as saying it's one play? Most educated people read that and say "hey, he's saying that it's not one play". Then they read you tirade explaining what one play is. Then agreeing with Mr. Logan's comment
Here's a little evidence to support the College OT. Some of the greatest games ever played in college, end in their OT system.
OSU vs UM (Championship game, a classic and a game most believe to be the best ever)
Some of those 8 overtime games where each team battles. You want to understand why college OT is a favorite (well, you'll never understand because you're just hammering away at your belief and nothing else matters.) it's because it gives both teams a fair chance to win the game.
Now could you give me your evidence to how NFL's system is fair............ Oh that's right you can't. Hell, if it was then they wouldn't be changing it.
Also Mr. Beak, the sky isn't just blue; it's black and red.
http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/sky_blue.html
There are also times it does turn purple, green, and yes yellow. (but let's not confuse you in one sitting.)
Also the sun looks yellow to us, but in space looks white
. Shocked, I know hold your applause for someone who cares. -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Mariucci#Coaching_career_in_professional_football
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Caldwell_(American_football)#College
Started in college along with Caldwell
you asked for college coaches who lasted longer than 3 years. Now Caldwell hasn't done three yet, but do you really expect him to get fired?
Honestly those two plus Swizter prove that with the right players you can be successful in the NFL.
Many of the coaches who failed in the NFL (from college) went to horrible teams that they were going to have to rebuild. How long does it take a college program to rebuild? Bama it took a long time, Miami four years and counting (yes they are much better, this year will define Shannon's progress)
Butch Davis went into one of the worst situations and still manged a playoff game. He resigned and stayed away for 2 years so he could spend time with his family.
-
See this all started off as an opinion for a couple of guys. I have never understood why this board has such a hard time with opinions. Not everyone is going to agree, some need to learn to agree to disagree.
-
Ohhh....somehow i misconstrued more time and more attention as meaning 'harder' My bad
Again..."I gave this advice to Butch when he was thinking of going to Cleveland," Johnson says. "'Don't count on having the same success in Cleveland that we had in Dallas. Things fell right for us. You can stay at Miami, you probably won't make as much money and you may not satisfy your ego, but you can win 10 or 11 games a year and have a family life. Don't count on any of those things if you go to Cleveland.'
That - to me - sounds like he's saying it was harder.
That to me also sounds like you'll have to work more and not see your family. Seriously as I read that it (IMHO) comes to "hey, you can have the family life and win or not have the family life in order to win" but once again I must be high
-
You're nitpicking. Seriously. Did I have to be that specific for you? By 'harder to coach' did you think I wasn't alluding to the idea that it was harder to coach and actually succeed?
Again..YOU posted that article. That thing doesn't say it's "different" it says it's harder.
Yes.
You're naming individual exceptions. They are still exceptions.
So then why not say, for some it's harder to be a coach in the NFL then it is college (Steve S., Saban, Erickson, Carroll). While for others the pro game makes it harder to be successful in college (Green, Brooks, Weis, Tyrone Willingham RB coach for Vikes)
-
Okay beak I'll bite. If the NFL's OT is so great.... cough...... why are they changing it again?
I mean you should be in the owners meetings fighting for the current OT system. Hell, we even have QB's in the league who don't understand OT themselves.
-
Tom Coughlin
By the way, I said it was "way out in left field"... at least quote me correctly.
Dennis Green, Jimmie Johnson, Barry Switzer, Steve Mariucci, Jim Cadwell (Wake Forest), Dennis Erickson
Can we really put Saban as a failure, I have always wondered that. He left to go back to College but the Dolphins wanted him to stay?
-
"I go with the idea that if you can coach, you can coach at any level," Green says. "But I do think a guy coming into the pro game without any experience as a pro assistant has a more difficult time."
"So much more preparation goes into the coaching in the NFL," says former Patriots defensive back Tim Fox, now the club's postgame radio host. "The game is much more complex.
The second quote was a player who's never been a coach.
No where in that article I read a coach say the NFL is harder than College. Their been thing was it's different. Now, they did say that they had to put more time in and be on point.
Like I said though, they are two different levels. College you can only do some much time wise. NFL you have all day, so I think the real answer is, you can be successful in NFL as long as you put the time into it.
-
OK..one..are you guys reading the same article? I feel like you're not. Because we're referencing a piece that contains about 20 quotes from people in the league that all said it was harder to succeed in the NFL.
Look..I'll give you examples:
"I go with the idea that if you can coach, you can coach at any level," Green says. "But I do think a guy coming into the pro game without any experience as a pro assistant has a more difficult time."
"I gave this advice to Butch when he was thinking of going to Cleveland," Johnson says. "'Don't count on having the same success in Cleveland that we had in Dallas. Things fell right for us. You can stay at Miami, you probably won't make as much money and you may not satisfy your ego, but you can win 10 or 11 games a year and have a family life. Don't count on any of those things if you go to Cleveland.'
Again..I'm going to go ahead and trust with the articles I've read in countless sports magazines, the bios I've read, the interviews I've heard etc.
Here's some more stuff from Jimmy Johnson (since apparently you've never heard him say this kind of thing before):
Still, Johnson was surprised at how small the margin for error was once he was hired by the Cowboys. "You can be sloppy in college and still win," says Johnson, who made the transition better than anyone. "You can't in pro."
"It's a long season with no easy weeks," Johnson says. "It can wear on you, and it's hard to keep your guys up. In college, you point for certain weeks. In the pros, you have to be steady."
Yes.Because every single person in the business of football who's done both has said so.
The second bold is when you said Yes it was harder to coach in the NFL. The first bold is talking about how it's harder to be a success.
I agree with Candyman that it just different ways of life. The roster turnover in college is far worse than NFL, you are only sure of 3 years. You have to follow strict rules (far mor strict then the NFL's) to make sure probation isn't given.
I think both OT's are flawed, but I do like the fact that a coin flip doesn't decide the whole game. I believe the perfect OT system would be NFL's mixed with college. Kick it off, first team to score is in the lead. Then the next team has one drive to catch up (I believe that's kind of what they are changing it to).
Also Green was another one of those pro coaches who sucked in college.
-
So hold on, you went from the NFL is a harder to coach..... to it's harder to be a success
-
I was. That was my whole point.
And don't be snide Gatorbait. Taking Kentucky from where it was to three straight bowl games makes him a success. You know that's true.
I agree, But saying he was a success at Oregon I can't agree with
-
Weis was a coordinator. I'm talking about head coaches.
Why do you keep mentioning Rich Brooks? Considering he was a success at Oregon, struggled with the Rams, then went and turned a crappy little program like Kentucky into a competitive team in the SEC, he proves my point.
And as Bigpapa said..that article says specifically in several different ways that the NFL is tougher. Not just different. But tougher.
Weis was still a coach in the NFL, I never said anything about Head Coaches. Brook was 91-109 at Oregon (success?) and yes he manged to turn Kentucky into a 5th best team in the SEC East
-
Hm, so then why did Pro coaches that came down have trouble (Weis, Brooks)
Also, I really just don't think Carroll will be bad in the NFL. He won with the Pats playing the likes of Dan Marino and Bill Parcells 2 times a year. He had a really good draft and the Seahawks aren't far removed from the playoffs in a weak divison.
-
I can't stand college football OT either. Yes, sudden death can be unfair, but you still have to play the game. It creates tension and drama that college OT doesn't even approach.
It doesn't take rocket science to figure out why college coaches stay: they make similar money, have more control, and don't have to play "fair." There's nothing like the salary cap and nothing to prevent major schools from recruiting ridiculously talented lineups. There's no GM breathing down your neck, no agents calling you up asking for favors for their stars, etc. Because of the way college football works a major team like UT gets about 4 games a season where they're playing guys that they are physically bigger than at literally every position.
Which is why the SEC has had so much success: a top team out of the SEC has played several more "real" games than teams in any other conference.
For a lot of college coaches, their word suddenly not being law combined with having to play on an even playing field is enough to send them right back down to college.
Yes and No, they still have to contend with the other major schools. There are still a crap load (some silly) of rules they have to follow. They also have a limited number of scholarships each year they can use (depends on how many they have on team to how many left.). AP are the GM and while they might not breathe, they still pressure.
But can we truly say that College football is easier to coach than the pros? Pro coaches have come down to the college and done horrible (Wies, Brooks) and some have done well (Carroll). There are also college coaches who did great things in the NFL (J. Johnson, Green, Coughlin). It is just a much different game.
The best article I ever read about how different the game was coaching wise was this one.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2004-11-30-cons-for-pros_x.htm
-
College OT is a joke, especially when QBs get 8 TDs from the 25 yd line. One thing I find hilarious is (at least here in South Florida) when they make excuses for Randy Shannon: "Well, the players are young!" With the exception the OU QB that had 6 years of eligibility or Chris Weinke being a college QB at 50, ALL the players are young.
Although Peter, winning is fun.
Did they announce where the Super Bowl is going to be? Is it in NY?
Yes it will be in New York. Won by 4 votes, New York has a lot to live up to in this. First I like this idea because simply it will be a test. If this turns out to be a horrible game and people don't go to the city and hold events (much like what happened in Detroit the two other times. People still came to Florida to do events and just watch the game here, or go up there the day of the game) then this could be the last time there is an open stadium in the cold.
Personally I hope the game does well. It would be exciting to watch snow during the Superbowl. I just hope it isn't two south teams that go lol
-
College OT is a joke. I like watching football - with defense - not some cartoony NFL Blitz amalgamation of football.
And the idea that college football coaches stay because it's more "fun" is asinine. They stay because it's easier. The gameplanning is simpler. There are limits on practice time.
If you can recruit better and are at a bigger and/or better school you are going to beat your opponent 9 times out 10 based on talent alone. That's why guys like Bobby Petrino and Nick Saban and Steve Spurrier run away crying ...you can't just line up your guys and hope your best 11 beats their best 11.
Carroll is going to be a bust. He wasn't an X's and O's guy at USC. That rah rah crap doesn't play with grown men. And he addressed his biggest weakness - offense - by bringing in a guy who wasn't much of a success at the NCAA level instead of hiring an NFL guy. It'll be embarasing within three seasons.
I tend to say College coaches stay in college for one reason. In college you can be a god forever (Bobby Bowden, Joe Pa) in NFL you might have a good 5 year run here and there but it's so much harder to maintain a winning level year after year with free agents coming and going
And that recruiting thing is a joke, look at Bobby B. during his last 5 years, they kept getting top rated classes and still weren't winning like they should. (2006 #5, 07 #21, 08 #9)
Other teams like Gerogia (failed last year even after years of top classes) and Tennessee (been in the top 10 three times in 6 years) were able to put strong classes together and still stunk.
But Tennessee after a bad season with Fulmer went to Kiffin and went 7-6 which was an improvement. The running game looked solid throughout the year and Crompton improved as the season went along.
To just bases the fact that Recruiting instantly means everything is wrong. If that was the case Notre Dame and USC would never lose. Coaches play a big role in how the games are played.
Petrino left because he didn't want to rebuild that team and thought he'd have Vick. Saban left because why..... he has a god complex (wants people to know he's the best, realized in the pros that'd be a litter harder.), Ole' Ball Coach was in over his head, let's face it he wasn't always the best scout (Grossman, Berlin, Cadwell) In fact his best players are two running backs (Taylor and Graham who has done a lot for the Bucs) and some Defensive players who have fallen off over the years.
-
Well if he thinks he can win another championship by going there of course he will go there.
Plus the Bulls would probably give him more than the 5 million dollar cap the Lakers put on him
-
See, there's a difference between "best conference" and "best team." Even if the C's are the best team, does that make the entire conference the best, despite the fact that as a conference it didn't win as many games and let some downright poor teams into the playoffs?
And as far as the Bulls go, they have a core to build from with Rose, Deng, and Noah. All 3 are very young and are guys to shape a franchise around. But they're dreadful at the 2 and 4 spots. Kurt H. is a back-up point guard, not a starting 2-guard, and Ronald Murray isn't the answer either. At 4, Taj Gibson is barely bigger than Deng, and it's too early to see if he'll develop better than Tyrus Thomas did. If they upgrade their offense and their bench, they'll be a very good team as early as next year.
There was talk on ESPN today about Jackson going to Chicago. To me, for that to happen James would have to sign. Then Bosh would probably want a sign and trade there. You could probably say good bye to this years draft picks and more than likely Taj and maybe Kurt H.
-
I think the one foot is good because it's one of those things they have to adapt to. Most of them try and get two feet nowadays anyway.
true, I just always thought it'd help the players if they didn't have to focus on learning new rules, but I get where you are coming from.
-
Not in the East, where the Bobcats, Bulls, and Heat won a combined TWO games in their 7 game series. Which I brought up a post ago. In the West, every series was competitive, even 1 vs. 8. See, that's what's called "parity." It's what happens when you have a lot of teams playing at a high level.
Funny how contenders seem to lose to the very best teams in the league, right? The Lakers, Spurs, Mavericks, and Suns, have been contenders for years, and the Nuggets and Jazz are right there too. In the East, you've got the Cavs, the Celtics, and the Magic. That's it. The Hawks have never gotten out of the second round, and the Pistons mortgaged their franchise. Note that the Magic and Cavs contend while not winning, too. The Heat were one hit wonders who put together exactly one great season and then took the team apart again.
Because I watched that Blazers team push a Houston Rockets team that was better than the Magic (based on their ability to win 3 games vs. Orlando's ONE against the Lakers), even when they weren't healthy. Granted it's not fair to dream up a hypothetical healthy Blazers team as that squad was rarely healthy, but even with injuries to Oden, Roy, Batum, Fernandez, and Pryzbilla, they still played at a competitive level in a superior conference. But based on their ridiculous front-court that features Pryzbilla, Camby, Oden, and Aldridge, they'd be able to guard Dwight Howard one on one, and history has shown that the Magic struggle to create their own shot when they can't get open 3's off double teams.
Personally I was disappointed with the Bulls, after their great playoff series last year I expected more.
Blazer will never be healthy, it's their curse for passing on talent (Jordan and Durant).
I guess we will see who the best conf. is here in about 2 weeks
Edit: But it does have something to do with the fact you keep saying he was a west guy, he became a star in the East. So you can keep using Sheed and KG, but Shaq no. That and the fact I never really believe Sheed was the reason Piston won that title
-
Great thing is we find out the Super Bowl today.
Caio
Official NBA Discussion Thread
in The Dog Pound
Posted
History is still on the C's side, but with that being said.... GO MAGIC lol.
When the C's are healthy they give the magic a fight. Sheed, Davis, and Perkins were all M.I.A this game (injury and ejection) so game 6 will be something to watch.
Perk more than likely will be suspensed, Davis will have effects of the concusion, and Sheed (good or bad) will have to deal with the back injury.
All in all the Magic are making this look like a good series (as are the Suns in the West). Magic still have to win 2 games to advance though.