Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
Pat Dye Field => War Damn Eagle => Topic started by: RWS on August 21, 2009, 12:58:11 PM
-
Part I: http://myespn.go.com/blogs/sec/0-8-132/Kicking-it-with-Gene-Chizik--Part-I.html
Part II: http://myespn.go.com/blogs/sec/0-8-134/Kicking-it-with-Gene-Chizik--Part-II.html
One of my favorite quotes:
Even though your record at Iowa State wasn't very good, the fact that you'd been a head coach had to work in your favor, didn't it?
GC: For me personally, as far as what kind of head coach I am, those two years at Iowa State were invaluable to me. Auburn hired a better coach after I'd been at Iowa State for two years trying to rebuild a program that was way down than they would have if they had hired a defensive coordinator from Texas. It's not even close, not even close.
A little presumptuous, don't you think? So, I guess when you improve, you actually lose more games?
-
Part I: http://myespn.go.com/blogs/sec/0-8-132/Kicking-it-with-Gene-Chizik--Part-I.html
Part II: http://myespn.go.com/blogs/sec/0-8-134/Kicking-it-with-Gene-Chizik--Part-II.html
One of my favorite quotes:
A little presumptuous, don't you think? So, I guess when you improve, you actually lose more games?
I know you're capable of blowing this up into something huge, but I think he's simply pointing out that he feels he learned a lot about a Head Coach's role after those two years. It was a learning experience.
I'm not sure if that was really all that hard to understand. Was it?
-
I know you're capable of blowing this up into something huge, but I think he's simply pointing out that he feels he learned a lot about a Head Coach's role after those two years. It was a learning experience.
I'm not sure if that was really all that hard to understand. Was it?
I'm not so sure that he did. However, thats simply my opinion. We will see if I was right over the next year or so. Also, I don't know how he can be so sure that he was a better hire than anybody from Texas. Unless somebody has a crystal ball, nobody knows.
-
He was talking about himself at Texas dillhole. You try to blow this shit out of proportion and take jabs at Chizik when ever you can. We get it, you think he sucks. Stop being so god damn obsessive over our coach and program. We will see how it plays out on the field...
-
I'm not so sure that he did. However, thats simply my opinion. We will see if I was right over the next year or so. Also, I don't know how he can be so sure that he was a better hire than anybody from Texas. Unless somebody has a crystal ball, nobody knows.
He's talking about himself minus the HC experience, tard.
-
He's talking about himself minus the HC experience, tard.
Well then, that makes a little more sense. Still, my point partially still stands. I'm not sure how he can say he is a better head coach now. He showed no promise as a head coach at ISU. Again, I will stand corrected if he proves me wrong over the next year or two.
-
Well then, that makes a little more sense. Still, my point partially still stands. I'm not sure how he can say he is a better head coach now. He showed no promise as a head coach at ISU. Again, I will stand corrected if he proves me wrong over the next year or two.
Wow. Isn't it reasonable to assume that regardless of his win/ loss record at ISU, that he gained some experience as a HC, AS A HC to two years???? Does it necessarily translate only from wins, or losses? He's had to learn to deal with staffs, media and recruiting from a standpoint that he never would have as just an assistant at Texas.
Whatever though...
-
I've argued the point for years when people pimp this assistant or that for a head coaching position. A lot of them work out. Great examples with Stoops, Richt etc. A lot more don't. The difference in responsibilities for a HC and an assistant are worlds apart. The assistant deals with his assigned duties for the position he coaches, recruiting and so forth. The HC has to hire and fire, oversee the staff, decide how, when and where to practice, organize his sideline operations/communications, how will we walk out of the frickin' tunnel? He has to do playback shows, commercials, speak at every fundraiser, QB clubs....deal with the administration...Jay Jacobs and sometimes..the infamous BOT. On top of that, every step you take, every meal you eat, every dump you drop is talked about, analyzed and rehashed in every sports media outlet, message board and coffee shop in the State.
In other words, when you consider an assistant as a HC at the D1 level...especially in a BCS league, his playcalling abilities are probably way down on the list of requirements. I would imagine it's quite easy to get in over your head before you know it.
-
Wow. Isn't it reasonable to assume that regardless of his win/ loss record at ISU, that he gained some experience as a HC, AS A HC to two years???? Does it necessarily translate only from wins, or losses? He's had to learn to deal with staffs, media and recruiting from a standpoint that he never would have as just an assistant at Texas.
True but look at the number of close games he lost while at ISU. The rule of thumb is that when you don't have the talent you are beaten by wide margins, when you are out coached it is usually by a small margin. If you can't take big 12 North level talent and coach them to win against other b12N level talent then what chance do you have to take SEC level talent and coach them to win against SEC level talent? Basically none.
After looking at his w/l record @ ISU what other SEC school would have wasted their time giving him an interview? I'll give you the answer skippy. None, no one, nada, zilch and on and on. Vandy, Kentucky, Ole Miss, Arkansas...none of the perennial bottom feeders would have blown an interview.
A job like ISU is considered a starter job in head coaching. When you fail at it you fade away to mediocrity. Thats the harsh truth. chizik failed big time despite any and all positive spin he puts on it. He's either a really shitty liar or is in complete denial of his inability to be a head coach. Either one of those traits is a recipe for disaster.
And we are paying him 2 million a year to fuck up our program.
-
True but look at the number of close games he lost while at ISU. The rule of thumb is that when you don't have the talent you are beaten by wide margins, when you are out coached it is usually by a small margin. If you can't take big 12 North level talent and coach them to win against other b12N level talent then what chance do you have to take SEC level talent and coach them to win against SEC level talent? Basically none.
After looking at his w/l record @ ISU what other SEC school would have wasted their time giving him an interview? I'll give you the answer skippy. None, no one, nada, zilch and on and on. Vandy, Kentucky, Ole Miss, Arkansas...none of the perennial bottom feeders would have blown an interview.
A job like ISU is considered a starter job in head coaching. When you fail at it you fade away to mediocrity. Thats the harsh truth. chizik failed big time despite any and all positive spin he puts on it. He's either a really shitty liar or is in complete denial of his inability to be a head coach. Either one of those traits is a recipe for disaster.
And we are paying him 2 million a year to fuck up our program.
We are perennial mediocre.
-
Well, this quote has got to make you guys feel good about your upcoming season:
http://blog.al.com/goldmine/2009/08/video_gene_chizik_todd_on_aubu.html#more (http://blog.al.com/goldmine/2009/08/video_gene_chizik_todd_on_aubu.html#more)
``When we win games at Auburn, it's going to come down to the last two minutes and that's the way we've got to feel,'' Chizik said.
Hell, at least maybe he's being honest. Personally, I was OK with Alabama's method of it pretty much being over at halftime in some games. I guess that just takes all of the fun out of it, though.
-
Well, this quote has got to make you guys feel good about your upcoming season:
http://blog.al.com/goldmine/2009/08/video_gene_chizik_todd_on_aubu.html#more (http://blog.al.com/goldmine/2009/08/video_gene_chizik_todd_on_aubu.html#more)Hell, at least maybe he's being honest. Personally, I was OK with Alabama's method of it pretty much being over at halftime in some games. I guess that just takes all of the fun out of it, though.
Every play should be played as if it's coming down to the last two minutes. He's stressing that every play should be played with the urgency of the last two minutes of a game. He's not saying that when Auburn wins games, it's always going to come down to two minutes.
Nice try though.
-
He's not saying that when Auburn wins games, it's always going to come down to two minutes.
Oh.....
"When we win games at Auburn, it's going to come down to the last two minutes"
Perhaps I can't read. Its funny, there were even AU fans in the comments like "What?". I get the gist of what he is trying to say, I just think he simply misspoke, and I knew either you or Chizad would jizz all over it. Maybe it would have been a little better worded as "Some games will come down to the last two minutes", or, "We should play every play with the urgency of a two minute drill.", etc, instead of "When we win games at Auburn, it's going to come down to the last two minutes." There is no misreading what he actually said, no matter how you spin it.
-
Oh.....
"When we win games at Auburn, it's going to come down to the last two minutes"
Perhaps I can't read. Its funny, there were even AU fans in the comments like "What?". I get the gist of what he is trying to say, I just think he simply misspoke, and I knew either you or Chizad would jizz all over it. Maybe it would have been a little better worded as "Some games will come down to the last two minutes", or, "We should play every play with the urgency of a two minute drill.", etc, instead of "When we win games at Auburn, it's going to come down to the last two minutes." There is no misreading what he actually said, no matter how you spin it.
Read it howeeeeeeever you want to read it then Spinmasterflex. Yes. I "jizzzzed alllll over it."
:taunt:
-
Read it howeeeeeeever you want to read it then Spinmasterflex. Yes. I "jizzzzed alllll over it."
:taunt:
"When we win games at Auburn, it's going to come down to the last two minutes"
"When we win games at Auburn, it's going to come down to the last two minutes"
"When we win games at Auburn, it's going to come down to the last two minutes"
"When we win games at Auburn, it's going to come down to the last two minutes"
"When we win games at Auburn, it's going to come down to the last two minutes"
I could paste it 5 more times, and its still the same damn quote. The fact that he misspoke doesn't change what he actually said. There is no other way to read it, other than he could have used a little better wording to say it. Unless he's just being pretty fucking honest.
-
Every play should be played as if it's coming down to the last two minutes. He's stressing that every play should be played with the urgency of the last two minutes of a game. He's not saying that when Auburn wins games, it's always going to come down to two minutes.
Nice try though.
:: Facepalm ::
Yes, Chopper, that's exactly EGG-FACKING-ZACTLY, what he's saying.
Just let it go. Scrape up the egg that's all over you and let it go.
-
If he can misspoke like that, he may be presidential material.
-
There is some logic there. All games*, regardless of score, are won or lost when the clock hits 0:00, and that always happens right at the end of the final two minutes. So maybe Chizik is just the college football version of Yogi Berra?
* Unless they are vacated, of course
-
There is some logic there. All games*, regardless of score, are won or lost when the clock hits 0:00, and that always happens right at the end of the final two minutes. So maybe Chizik is just the college football version of Yogi Berra?
* Unless they are vacated, of course
I certainly hope I simply missed the sarcasm stamp on this post....
-
:: Facepalm ::
Yes, Chopper, that's exactly EGG-FACKING-ZACTLY, what he's saying.
Just let it go. Scrape up the egg that's all over you and let it go.
Gene Chizik's ``situational'' scrimmage Saturday was devoted to such things as special teams and the two-minute offense and communications. It was less physical than some practices. Ball carriers were not tackled.
``When we win games at Auburn, it's going to come down to the last two minutes and that's the way we've got to feel,'' Chizik said. ``We've got to be very efficient at those parts of the game and we've got a long way to go in that direction. Again, we've got two weeks to work on and we've got a lot of good things to teach from.''
He might not have said it clearly enough to avoid the loonies from taking things so fucking literal, but a little look into the context from which it came, can make things clearer. A fifth grader could figure it out.
If you two, Kaos and RWS, want to take it so literal and ignore what he was saying, then fine. ....but the egg is on you, not me.
RWS, if you want to repeat a quote, time after time, try and quote it ALL.
-
He might not have said it clearly enough to avoid the loonies from taking things so effing literal, but a little look into the context from which it came, can make things clearer. A fifth grader could figure it out.
If you two, Kaos and RWS, want to take it so literal and ignore what he was saying, then fine. ....but the egg is on you, not me.
RWS, if you want to repeat a quote, time after time, try and quote it ALL.
What he said is WHAT HE SAID.
Christ, man, know when you're beat and walk away.
You can't apply a bunch of "well he probably meant x, y or z" logic and claim victory.
You can't take quotes he made two days later about completely unrelated issues and try to shoehorn them into the point you're failing to make.
He SAID what he SAID. Adding anything else to it is pure speculation and spin.
Stop it. You're completely covered in egg. You've got so much egg dripping off you, Dennys could Grand Slam a week's worth of breakfast.
-
What he said is WHAT HE SAID.
Christ, man, know when you're beat and walk away.
You can't apply a bunch of "well he probably meant x, y or z" logic and claim victory.
He SAID what he SAID. Adding anything else to it is pure speculation and spin.
Stop it.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA....
God'O'Mighty... :doh:
Beer time.
I can't believe you added this shit....
You can't take quotes he made two days later about completely unrelated issues and try to shoehorn them into the point you're failing to make.
No no... Everything I quoted was from the VERY LINK RWS PROVIDED. It's from the same story at the same time. Not "shoe-horned" together from quotes two days apart or anything else.
Thanks for proving my point.
Laughable.
-
I certainly hope I simply missed the sarcasm stamp on this post....
Oh no, I'm as serious as a fart in a spacesuit. While the Kaoses argue that he is an idiot and the Choppers extoll him as a savant, I am here to propose a true middle round - what if he is an idiot savant?
-
Oh no, I'm as serious as a fart in a spacesuit. While the Kaoses argue that he is an idiot and the Choppers extoll him as a savant, I am here to propose a true middle round - what if he is an idiot savant?
I never called him anything for the record. I just understood what he was saying.
Outta here.
You all have a good one.
-
I just understood what he was saying.
Translation:
I took what he said, made it say something completely different by applying my own fucked up logic to it and planted a victory flag.
Jesus Christ.
::Facepalm from hell::
-
Translation:
I took what he said, made it say something completely different by applying my own fucked up logic to it and planted a victory flag.
Jesus Christ.
::Facepalm from hell::
The unfortunate thing for you here is all anyone has to do is click the link provided, and *POOF* goes your schtick.
-
No efferschnotz, all anybody has to be able to do is read on a third grade level and your lame attempt at spinning this crumbles.
What you posted adds or clarifies nothing except in your desperate brain.
It doesn't matter how you think he probably meant it. He said what he said. I figure he probably meant to convey something different but he's a piss poor cliche-loaded public speaker who takes more words to say nothing than you and Prowler combined. Doesn't change what he SAID. What you interpret in your Franklinish rush to defend is utterly and completely irrelevant.
Yet another example of your failure to get it.
Next you'll tell us that when Gene says "damn chopper why is your face covered in egg" he really means "let's share a victory omlette."
What the hell ever.
Carry on.
-
Gene Chizik's ``situational'' scrimmage Saturday was devoted to such things as special teams and the two-minute offense and communications. It was less physical than some practices. Ball carriers were not tackled.
``When we win games at Auburn, it's going to come down to the last two minutes and that's the way we've got to feel,'' Chizik said. ``We've got to be very efficient at those parts of the game and we've got a long way to go in that direction. Again, we've got two weeks to work on and we've got a lot of good things to teach from.''
All you got from this is "When we win games at Auburn, it's going to come down to the last few minutes". Period. That's it. You didn't even read the link, or article as evidenced by your own statement claiming I just "shoehorned these two sentences together".
You've taken a fragment, taken it out of context, and wammo... You've got nothing, so you're just going to bury all this in bullshit Chopper's just stupid rants.
Gotcha.
-
It's not a fragment. It's what he said.
Your continued interpretation is pointless.
-
It's not a fragment. It's what he said.
Your continued interpretation is pointless.
Explain how quoting only 1/3 of the total sentence is NOT a fragment. Please.
-
Explain how quoting only 1/3 of the total sentence is NOT a fragment. Please.
He can't, because if he does, he'll lose the argument. And, if you think about it, Kaos never loses an argument....ever. He'll just come back and say you or me are stupid and that we're covered in blood, because in his ass backward mind, he actually thinks he's right. :thumbsup:
-
He can't, because if he does, he'll lose the argument. And, if you think about it, Kaos never loses an argument....ever. He'll just come back and say you or me are stupid and that we're covered in blood, because in his ass backward mind, he actually thinks he's right. :thumbsup:
Ass and Blood thats a crazy combo.
-
OK, fine.....
``When we win games at Auburn, it's going to come down to the last two minutes and that's the way we've got to feel,'' Chizik said.
``When we win games at Auburn, it's going to come down to the last two minutes and that's the way we've got to feel,'' Chizik said.
``When we win games at Auburn, it's going to come down to the last two minutes and that's the way we've got to feel,'' Chizik said.
``When we win games at Auburn, it's going to come down to the last two minutes and that's the way we've got to feel,'' Chizik said.
``When we win games at Auburn, it's going to come down to the last two minutes and that's the way we've got to feel,'' Chizik said.
Yeah, I just read over it again. Chopper, there is no way to misread that statement. You can chop off the last half and still get the same thing, because it adds absolutely no value to the statement. Do I know he misspoke? Yes. Do I know what he meant? Yes. Is it funny that he said what he said? Yes. Fuck, you're saying I'm just using a sentence fragment by taking the last half off, you're just ignoring the whole damn sentence and rewording it. He said what he said. There is no changing what he said. Are you really too dense to understand that? Damn, I was just putting up to fuck with yall and you want to go all stupid on me. Stop taking Prowler's stupid pills before you hit reply.
-
Hey rws, does the saying "prepare for the worst" mean that the worst is going to happen? If Auburn does get in that situation, there shouldn't be any panicking or atleast not as much as if you don't practice for it. I'm pretty sure that's what Coach Chizik was meaning when he said, what he said.
-
The stupidity in this thread is above EPA approved levels.
Chopper? Prowler? I'm sorry but you have to leave. Federal regulations. Leave and take your "duuuuuuhhh" with you.
-
The stupidity in this thread is above EPA approved levels.
Chopper? Prowler? I'm sorry but you have to leave. Federal regulations. Leave and take your "duuuuuuhhh" with you.
He can't, because if he does, he'll lose the argument. And, if you think about it, Kaos never loses an argument....ever. He'll just come back and say you or me are stupid and that we're covered in blood, because in his ass backward mind, he actually thinks he's right. :thumbsup:
^^^This^^^
-
^^^This^^^
you left out the most important part "shows my ignorance "
You should edit it for accuracy.
-
you left out the most important part "shows my ignorance "
You should edit it for accuracy.
No ignorance on my part, fuck stick. You did what I said you would do.
He'll just come back and say you or me are stupid and that we're covered in blood, because in his ass backward mind, he actually thinks he's right. :thumbsup:
-
Hey rws, does the saying "prepare for the worst" mean that the worst is going to happen? If Auburn does get in that situation, there shouldn't be any panicking or atleast not as much as if you don't practice for it. I'm pretty sure that's what Coach Chizik was meaning when he said, what he said.
You really cannot read, can you? Do I really need to repeat myself that I know he didn't mean what he actually said, and that he misspoke? Did you miss the part where I said I know he misspoke and I know what he actually meant? How about the part where I said it was merely amusing that he misspoke and said what he said? Christ's sake, poeple......
-
No ignorance on my part, eff stick. You did what I said you would do.
Because nothing else is necessary.
Here, Prowler, try your interpretation skills on this:
(http://www.toonjokes.com/data/media/9/30.jpg)
-
True but look at the number of close games he lost while at ISU. The rule of thumb is that when you don't have the talent you are beaten by wide margins, when you are out coached it is usually by a small margin. If you can't take big 12 North level talent and coach them to win against other b12N level talent then what chance do you have to take SEC level talent and coach them to win against SEC level talent? Basically none.
After looking at his w/l record @ ISU what other SEC school would have wasted their time giving him an interview? I'll give you the answer skippy. None, no one, nada, zilch and on and on. Vandy, Kentucky, Ole Miss, Arkansas...none of the perennial bottom feeders would have blown an interview.
A job like ISU is considered a starter job in head coaching. When you fail at it you fade away to mediocrity. Thats the harsh truth. chizik failed big time despite any and all positive spin he puts on it. He's either a really shiitakety liar or is in complete denial of his inability to be a head coach. Either one of those traits is a recipe for disaster.
And we are paying him 2 million a year to eff up our program.
Yes, you are correct.
Signed,
Mack Brown (1979-1981 Iowa State WR Coach/OC; 1985-1987 Tulane HC, 11-23 in his three years; 1988-1997 North Carolina HC, 2-20 in his first 2 years)
Pete Carroll (1978 Iowa State Secondary Coach under Earle Bruce)
Earle Bruce (1973-1978 Iowa State HC, 8-21 in his first 3 years)
Johnny Majors (1968-1972 Iowa State HC, 6-14 in his first 2 years)
Houston Nutt (1993-1996 Murray State HC, 9-13 in his first 2 years; 1997 Boise State HC, 4-7 in his first and only year)
Dennis Erickson (Head Coaching Resume is basically all over the landscape and he had rough starts in his first year at 3 of his 7 Head Coaching stops)
-
Because nothing else is necessary.
Here, Prowler, try your interpretation skills on this:
(http://www.toonjokes.com/data/media/9/30.jpg)
(http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/6366/retarded8oi5.jpg)
Here's looking at you, Kaos.
-
Yes, you are correct.
Signed,
Mack Brown (1979-1981 Iowa State WR Coach/OC; 1985-1987 Tulane HC, 11-23 in his three years; 1988-1997 North Carolina HC, 2-20 in his first 2 years)
Pete Carroll (1978 Iowa State Secondary Coach under Earle Bruce)
Earle Bruce (1973-1978 Iowa State HC, 8-21 in his first 3 years)
Johnny Majors (1968-1972 Iowa State HC, 6-14 in his first 2 years)
Houston Nutt (1993-1996 Murray State HC, 9-13 in his first 2 years; 1997 Boise State HC, 4-7 in his first and only year)
Dennis Erickson (Head Coaching Resume is basically all over the landscape and he had rough starts in his first year at 3 of his 7 Head Coaching stops)
I'm not sure if you misunderstood the weasel, but he stated "when they fail at it". Mack Brown built a solid team at North Carolina. He didn't fail. He struggled early, but he stayed and made the program successful.
Pete Carroll's time at Iowa State wasn't as head coach, so not sure why you used that one??
Earl Bruce was successful at Iowa State, despite how he started. He stayed until he turned the program around, so that one isn't a fail.
Without going into further research, all of those guys had success during their first head coaching tour. Many of them may have struggled to start, but they all stayed and enjoyed success before moving on to better jobs.
In short, your analogies sucked.
-
I'm not sure if you misunderstood the weasel, but he stated "when they fail at it". Mack Brown built a solid team at North Carolina. He didn't fail. He struggled early, but he stayed and made the program successful.
Pete Carroll's time at Iowa State wasn't as head coach, so not sure why you used that one??
Earl Bruce was successful at Iowa State, despite how he started. He stayed until he turned the program around, so that one isn't a fail.
Without going into further research, all of those guys had success during their first head coaching tour. Many of them may have struggled to start, but they all stayed and enjoyed success before moving on to better jobs.
In short, your analogies sucked.
If all of the coaches that I listed were hired away after their first two or three years at their first Head Coaching stop, then they would be considered as a failure.
-
Yes, you are correct.
Signed,
Mack Brown (1979-1981 Iowa State WR Coach/OC; 1985-1987 Tulane HC, 11-23 in his three years; 1988-1997 North Carolina HC, 2-20 in his first 2 years)
Pete Carroll (1978 Iowa State Secondary Coach under Earle Bruce)
Earle Bruce (1973-1978 Iowa State HC, 8-21 in his first 3 years)
Johnny Majors (1968-1972 Iowa State HC, 6-14 in his first 2 years)
Houston Nutt (1993-1996 Murray State HC, 9-13 in his first 2 years; 1997 Boise State HC, 4-7 in his first and only year)
Dennis Erickson (Head Coaching Resume is basically all over the landscape and he had rough starts in his first year at 3 of his 7 Head Coaching stops)
By listing Houston Nutt, you proved the other side's argument. He's right around 50% wins in the SEC in 11 years. Mediocrity.
-
If all of the coaches that I listed were hired away after their first two or three years at their first Head Coaching stop, then they would be considered as a failure.
Agreed, but that wasn't the case. Weasel's point still remains.
-
Yeah, I just read over it again. Chopper, there is no way to misread that statement. You can chop off the last half and still get the same thing, because it adds absolutely no value to the statement.
I'll ask you the same thing that Kaos won't answer. It's a simple question. How is only posting 1/3 of the total statement NOT posting a fragment? There was more to that article that would have explained Chizik's statment. It would have given it context, even if it was butchered a little. You and Kaos ignored it though. Why? Probably simply because it's much more fun to try and one-up Chopper instead of actually debate the facts.
Do I know he misspoke? Yes. Do I know what he meant? Yes. Is it funny that he said what he said? Yes. Fuck, you're saying I'm just using a sentence fragment by taking the last half off, you're just ignoring the whole damn sentence and rewording it.
Where did I ignore or reword anything? I've only either quoted you, or copy and pasted from the article YOU linked. I didn't reword shit.
I mean. You say you understand what he meant. So what's your point here?
-
I'll ask you the same thing that Kaos won't answer. It's a simple question. How is only posting 1/3 of the total statement NOT posting a fragment? There was more to that article that would have explained Chizik's statment. It would have given it context, even if it was butchered a little. You and Kaos ignored it though. Why? Probably simply because it's much more fun to try and one-up Chopper instead of actually debate the facts.
Where did I ignore or reword anything? I've only either quoted you, or copy and pasted from the article YOU linked. I didn't reword shiitake.
I mean. You say you understand what he meant. So what's your point here?
That's exactly what I was thinking. If you really undersatnd what the guy meant, why page after page of bullshit? This kind of useless, lame ass argument is fine for April when there ain't squat going on. Right now, this is top 5 on the horseshit list. Arguing just to be arguing.
-
Did you possibly take the time to look up OTHER coaches who hitched up to the ol' suck wagon in their first 2 years and did not beat the odds? I wonder how many of them there were? All of the coaches you listed were failures early in their tenures as head coaches but as suckified as they were how many had only 3 wins in their first season and then only 2 in their second? I looked quickly at the stats that you posted for these coaches and guess what.......... as bad as they were in the start NONE of them had a start anywhere close to bad as a 5-19. So it can easily be argued that even though some coaches have started bad and went on to have good careers none of them were as bad as chizik.
Another angle on this discussion is to ask "How many coaches out there have been shit canned after 2 years of suckassed coaching and never heard from again?". I'm willing to bet that it is way more than the 6 you listed. As a matter of fact I'm willing to bet you won't have to go all the way back to the '60's to get enough fired and never heard of losers to have a list 10 times longer than the list of 6 you dug back to 1968 to find enough to make your list more than just a what if blurb.
When it comes to getting something done do as my Granddad used to tell me. "Spit in one hand and hope in the other and see which one gets wet faster." That same rule applies to coaches. "Hire a winner or hire a loser and hope he can change and see which one piles up the wins faster".
chizik is a loser and that is all he is capable of, that and blaming it on everyone but himself.
-
I'll ask you the same thing that Kaos won't answer. It's a simple question. How is only posting 1/3 of the total statement NOT posting a fragment? There was more to that article that would have explained Chizik's statment. It would have given it context, even if it was butchered a little. You and Kaos ignored it though. Why? Probably simply because it's much more fun to try and one-up Chopper instead of actually debate the facts.
Where did I ignore or reword anything? I've only either quoted you, or copy and pasted from the article YOU linked. I didn't reword shiitake.
I mean. You say you understand what he meant. So what's your point here?
The facts are, Chopper, for the eleven billionth time, that all of what you added didn't substantially change, alter, clairfy or enhance what he SAID.
We can all debate what he probably meant, and we all know what he probabluy meant. But I've read it several times and what you, me, Orville Reddenbacher or Captain Kangaroo think he meant to say is (drumroll, please) NOT what he said.
Quit trying to argue that it is.