Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
26 minutes ago, Aldo said:

move on that we know he's not a savior

I think the point myself and Mr. Gooding are trying to get across is that while nobody may have used the word "savior" specifically, it has become more often than not that the general consensus is that Fine is the best we have, despite his flaws. While many argue the fact that he was a true freshman last year that led to many of his mistakes, I think coming into a season with a healthy skepticism of his ability to perform above what he did last year is important.

I think there's a very real possibility that he may not improve to the level as needed to become a perennial 7,8,9 win team as we should all expect. My main concern is, when does the coaching staff get tired of the Sacks/INT's/Sub 60% completion and attempt another QB? They were so quick to yank Morris after the first game. Is that going to be the case with Fine? I mean we have a real chance at starting out 1-5(UAB being the main question mark). What happens then? What if we don't see this massive second year jump in efficiency?

So far I haven't seen or heard anything to prove otherwise

  • Downvote 3
Posted
42 minutes ago, MGNation92 said:

I think the point myself and Mr. Gooding are trying to get across is that while nobody may have used the word "savior" specifically, it has become more often than not that the general consensus is that Fine is the best we have, despite his flaws. While many argue the fact that he was a true freshman last year that led to many of his mistakes, I think coming into a season with a healthy skepticism of his ability to perform above what he did last year is important.

I think there's a very real possibility that he may not improve to the level as needed to become a perennial 7,8,9 win team as we should all expect. My main concern is, when does the coaching staff get tired of the Sacks/INT's/Sub 60% completion and attempt another QB? They were so quick to yank Morris after the first game. Is that going to be the case with Fine? I mean we have a real chance at starting out 1-5(UAB being the main question mark). What happens then? What if we don't see this massive second year jump in efficiency?

So far I haven't seen or heard anything to prove otherwise

If we start out 1-5 the apologists will be out swarming in full force. They will say things like, "Give Littrell time" or "He got us to 5 (FIVE whole wins) wins last year" or "Wait until he gets 'his' players". Starting out 1-5 would be disastrous. It will be just more of the same and Littrell's time would be put on a grueling 18-24 month stopwatch. 

All we need from Fine is 18/27 225 2/1 TD-int and no more than 1.5-2 sacks per game. If we get this production, we will have a good team. My only caveat to this is that I think Isadore (maybe even Shanbour) can produce these pedestrian numbers in year 1 in this system. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 3
Posted
1 hour ago, Ben Gooding said:

If we start out 1-5 the apologists will be out swarming in full force. They will say things like, "Give Littrell time" or "He got us to 5 (FIVE whole wins) wins last year" or "Wait until he gets 'his' players". Starting out 1-5 would be disastrous. It will be just more of the same and Littrell's time would be put on a grueling 18-24 month stopwatch. 

All we need from Fine is 18/27 225 2/1 TD-int and no more than 1.5-2 sacks per game. If we get this production, we will have a good team. My only caveat to this is that I think Isadore (maybe even Shanbour) can produce these pedestrian numbers in year 1 in this system. 

Why do you choose to label those that don't agree with your point of view "apologists?"

  • Upvote 1
Posted
7 hours ago, UNTLifer said:

Why do you choose to label those that don't agree with your point of view "apologists?"

Because it's easier to attack the man than reason against the argument?

Posted
14 hours ago, outoftown said:

I would also suggest

E. Can remember a steady row of professed savior QBs who did not deliver as everyone said they would

or

F: can remember Riley Dodges story a bit too well.

 

Like when Riley threw for 1500 yds as a true Freshman?   Not sure I'm seeing the parallels that would require me to remember Riley's story since he was catching passes from Gio Vizzabdicator during his Freshman year.

HSO: Riley (when healthy) is still the best QB we've had since Scott Hall (Sorry DT).  Let that sink in a moment.

  • Upvote 1
Posted
10 hours ago, MGNation92 said:

I think the point myself and Mr. Gooding are trying to get across is that while nobody may have used the word "savior" specifically, it has become more often than not that the general consensus is that Fine is the best we have, despite his flaws. While many argue the fact that he was a true freshman last year that led to many of his mistakes, I think coming into a season with a healthy skepticism of his ability to perform above what he did last year is important.

I think there's a very real possibility that he may not improve to the level as needed to become a perennial 7,8,9 win team as we should all expect. My main concern is, when does the coaching staff get tired of the Sacks/INT's/Sub 60% completion and attempt another QB? They were so quick to yank Morris after the first game. Is that going to be the case with Fine? I mean we have a real chance at starting out 1-5(UAB being the main question mark). What happens then? What if we don't see this massive second year jump in efficiency?

So far I haven't seen or heard anything to prove otherwise

I think 3-3 is the most likely start to the season.

W: Lamar, UAB, either S. Miss or UTSA

L: SMU, Iowa, the other team (S Miss or UTSA) 

SMU is a possible win 30% is my guess.

Iowa just try not to get injured

Then we'll either beat Southern Miss or UTSA and we'll lose to the other one.

Posted
10 hours ago, MGNation92 said:

 I think coming into a season with a healthy skepticism of his ability to perform above what he did last year is important.

I totally agree with this

10 hours ago, MGNation92 said:

I think there's a very real possibility that he may not improve to the level as needed to become a perennial 7,8,9 win team as we should all expect.

It's fine to believe that, but you're turning a possibility into an assumption to create hypotheticals that end up being bad for the team.

10 hours ago, MGNation92 said:

So far I haven't seen or heard anything to prove otherwise

This is what I mean. How do we prove your hypotheticals otherwise? I can't argue with your hypothetical of starting out 1-5 on the assumption that Fine will be bad and the coaching staff won't yank him.

 

I assume we will start the best players available. Right now, "best players" is a relative term. I don't feel comfortable about our QB situation, but I feel even less comfortable about our run D.

9 hours ago, Ben Gooding said:

All we need from Fine is 18/27 225 2/1 TD-int and no more than 1.5-2 sacks per game. If we get this production, we will have a good team. My only caveat to this is that I think Isadore (maybe even Shanbour) can produce these pedestrian numbers in year 1 in this system. 

Fine's INT rate was better than average in CUSA (QBs with >200 attempts). Fine's TD rate was the worst in CUSA (>200 attempts).

It's all about opportunity.

Isadore, Shanbour, Fine, or Pearson will be handing it off to Wilson in the red zone.

Posted
1 hour ago, AustinFromUNT said:

I think 3-3 is the most likely start to the season.

W: Lamar, UAB, either S. Miss or UTSA

L: SMU, Iowa, the other team (S Miss or UTSA) 

SMU is a possible win 30% is my guess.

Iowa just try not to get injured

Then we'll either beat Southern Miss or UTSA and we'll lose to the other one.

I think UTSA and SMU are going to beat us. How people think we're gonna beat either is beyond me. Both beat us last year AND way out recruited us. Lamar is the only guaranteed win on that schedule for the first 6 games. Maybe 2-4 with wins against Southern Miss and Lamar

Posted
11 hours ago, UNTLifer said:

Why do you choose to label those that don't agree with your point of view "apologists?"

 

4 hours ago, Cerebus said:

Because it's easier to attack the man than reason against the argument?

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apologist

There are many of these in this fan base. Let's not act like the last 18 months of Dan McCarney didn't happen, or the last 3-5 years of RV. There are still people that run to the defense of both on and off this board. Call it what YOU will, and I'll call it what I will. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Ben Gooding said:

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apologist

There are many of these in this fan base. Let's not act like the last 18 months of Dan McCarney didn't happen, or the last 3-5 years of RV. There are still people that run to the defense of both on and off this board. Call it what YOU will, and I'll call it what I will. 

The problem is that the term is used in a derogatory and dismissive manner. Instead of responding to the argument, the defender is labeled an apologist and the person administering the label dismisses their opinion. If there were an actual discussion going on, then the term wouldn't even be necessary.

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, Ben Gooding said:

 

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apologist

There are many of these in this fan base. Let's not act like the last 18 months of Dan McCarney didn't happen, or the last 3-5 years of RV. There are still people that run to the defense of both on and off this board. Call it what YOU will, and I'll call it what I will. 

I agree we must learn from history no matter how painful.  Other than that what good does looking back do really?  I think we need to look forward and try to stay positive.

Posted
36 minutes ago, Harry said:

I agree we must learn from history no matter how painful.  Other than that what good does looking back do really?  I think we need to look forward and try to stay positive.

Looking back does exactly your first sentence. We have to own the facts of subpar performance from a coach and administrator and scream it from thr rooftops, collectively. If this happens now, we would have avoided the past. And if we did it then, collectively, we could have prevented it. I get moving on in a positive light, but lest not forget the shortcomings in order to avoid them at any and all cost. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, forevereagle said:

The problem is that the term is used in a derogatory and dismissive manner. Instead of responding to the argument, the defender is labeled an apologist and the person administering the label dismisses their opinion. If there were an actual discussion going on, then the term wouldn't even be necessary.

I also agree with Harry's assessment, but the above is how it comes across.  For instance, a number of people are highly critical of Wren Baker when he has not even been here a full calendar year.  I would agree that a lot of changes need to be made to our department, but it will take a lot longer than 10 months to correct 100 years of mismanagement.  If I state my patience and support, I am labelled as an apologist.  

I was just trying to determine where this comment came from and why it is always utilized when making a counterpoint to an argument.  Guess it is a sign of the times, but I much prefer the historical "Jane, you ignorant slut" as a precursor to a counterpoint instead of apologist.

Related image

Edited by UNTLifer
  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, UNTLifer said:

I also agree with Harry's assessment, but the above is how it comes across.  For instance, a number of people are highly critical of Wren Baker when he has not even been here a full calendar year.  I would agree that a lot of changes need to be made to our department, but it will take a lot longer than 10 months to correct 100 years of mismanagement.  If I state my patience and support, I am labelled as an apologist.  

I was just trying to determine where this comment came from and why it is always utilized when making a counterpoint to an argument.  Guess it is a sign of the times, but I much prefer the historical "Jane, you ignorant slut" as a precursor to a counterpoint instead of apologist.

It has been employed as a less outright form of personal attack. Instead of taking a counter point to the argument, you must be assigned a label that invalidates your opinion so it can be dismissed. It is not unique to GMG, but it certainly makes its share of appearance here.

  • Upvote 4
Posted
14 hours ago, UNTLifer said:

Why do you choose to label those that don't agree with your point of view "apologists?"

Why do you engage in debate with Ben Gooding? 

 

I mean, you have to dig deeper to get to the root of the problem, man.

  • Upvote 4
Posted
1 hour ago, forevereagle said:

It has been employed as a less outright form of personal attack. Instead of taking a counter point to the argument, you must be assigned a label that invalidates your opinion so it can be dismissed. It is not unique to GMG, but it certainly makes its share of appearance here.

  As apologist is related to on this board, it is used when people defend facts that they typically don't want to or will not acknowledge. What is there to counter? The facts are there. For instance, McCarney needed to be gone before we got our faces beat in on Homecoming by a FCS squad. People we dead set on arguing that fact. I guess you could make it as a loosely based opinion, but it wasn't. It was fact, thus his firing. People wanted to argue that RV was not failing and he had the boat going in the right direction. Another fact that people argued for reasons unbeknown. He was fired, or excuse me, 'resigned'. There is nothing to counter here. What kind of counters need to me made when suck is staring at us all right in the face. Some people acknowledge it. Others defend it. 

1 hour ago, UNTLifer said:

I also agree with Harry's assessment, but the above is how it comes across.  For instance, a number of people are highly critical of Wren Baker when he has not even been here a full calendar year.  I would agree that a lot of changes need to be made to our department, but it will take a lot longer than 10 months to correct 100 years of mismanagement.  If I state my patience and support, I am labelled as an apologist.  

I was just trying to determine where this comment came from and why it is always utilized when making a counterpoint to an argument.  Guess it is a sign of the times, but I much prefer the historical "Jane, you ignorant slut" as a precursor to a counterpoint instead of apologist.

Related image

His time frame is irrelevant to his scheduling of Liberty and dropping of Army, because of it being too difficult. Which btw, any news of the series to blow our socks off. It got quite on that front real quick. 

As to determining the comment of apologist, read above response to forever eagle. 

  • Downvote 1
Posted
36 minutes ago, Ben Gooding said:

  As apologist is related to on this board, it is used when people defend facts that they typically don't want to or will not acknowledge. What is there to counter? The facts are there. For instance, McCarney needed to be gone before we got our faces beat in on Homecoming by a FCS squad. People we dead set on arguing that fact. I guess you could make it as a loosely based opinion, but it wasn't. It was fact, thus his firing. People wanted to argue that RV was not failing and he had the boat going in the right direction. Another fact that people argued for reasons unbeknown. He was fired, or excuse me, 'resigned'. There is nothing to counter here. What kind of counters need to me made when suck is staring at us all right in the face. Some people acknowledge it. Others defend it. 

And they are both gone.  Littrell and Baker and new.  As stated before, changing 100+ years of ineptitude won't happen in one year.  My thought is that Pres. Smatresk has a different vision and is instituting change.  Let's see what happens and give them a fair shot.

Posted
12 minutes ago, UNTLifer said:

And they are both gone.  Littrell and Baker and new.  As stated before, changing 100+ years of ineptitude won't happen in one year.  My thought is that Pres. Smatresk has a different vision and is instituting change.  Let's see what happens and give them a fair shot.

Yes, agreed. To note, the entire 'apologist' talk started when I said "They-'Apologists'" would come swarming if we did start 1-5 this season. Then people in this thread want to jump in being apologists on the behalf of apologists, maybe the worst kind...

Image result for stir the pot gif

  • Downvote 1
Posted
2 hours ago, 97and03 said:

Why do you engage in debate with Ben Gooding? 

 

I mean, you have to dig deeper to get to the root of the problem, man.

I enjoy the input, but just tire of the labeling of people with differing views.  Miss the days when people could share their opinion without the opposition resorting to name calling.  Many times an opposing viewpoint will get me to think of something in a different light.

  • Upvote 1
Posted
7 hours ago, Ben Gooding said:

Looking back does exactly your first sentence. We have to own the facts of subpar performance from a coach and administrator and scream it from thr rooftops, collectively. If this happens now, we would have avoided the past. And if we did it then, collectively, we could have prevented it. I get moving on in a positive light, but lest not forget the shortcomings in order to avoid them at any and all cost. 

learn from the past, but not dwell on it

  • Upvote 1
  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Please review our full Privacy Policy before using our site.