Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Army post-game thread
Author Message
I45owl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,374
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Dallas, TX

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #61
RE: Army post-game thread
(10-13-2014 10:57 AM)TJS_NYC Wrote:  Agreed - when Taylor was in the slot (apologies if I'm mischaracterizing the position), all that had to be done was have the wide-out do a 10-yard curl to hold his defender, with Taylor starting on a post but then turning it out to a flag pattern. It was there the whole game.

The announcers (who seemed very familiar with Army) indicated that "the middle passing game" was a problem for Army all year long. Maybe the Rice staff just didn't want to incur the displeasure of Greg Davis.
10-13-2014 11:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
I45owl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,374
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Dallas, TX

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #62
RE: Army post-game thread
(10-12-2014 09:14 PM)Klobasnek Wrote:  Far be it from me to interrupt the weekly Parliament pity-party, but I figured our QB deserved some recognition for his performance this week.

This weekend's quarterback ratings per ESPN

1. Reginald Bell Jr, Eastern Michigan
2. Driphus Jackson, Rice
3. Marcus Mariota, Oregon
4. Hutson Mason, Georgia
5. Jameis Winston, Florida State

The two complaints I have about the game were (1) missed defensive assignments (see: every other game this year) and (2) what looked like significant mistakes by DJ running the option. Some of his pitches looked like hospital passes.

edit: That said, I think overall, he did an outstanding job and deserves praise. The option decisions are something he needs to work on, IMHO.
(This post was last modified: 10-13-2014 11:55 AM by I45owl.)
10-13-2014 11:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jh Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,497
Joined: May 2007
Reputation: 80
I Root For:
Location:

Donators
Post: #63
RE: Army post-game thread
(10-13-2014 10:12 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  ??? I'm not sure what the talking heads were watching, but the long pass was there for the taking (given DJ having time to pass) all game long. There was no need to set it up with the short in the flat.

I'm assuming this would have to be on second down, after they ran the ball to the middle for a loss on first down and before they ran the draw on third and long. Given your evident lack of familiarity with the plays Rice actually runs, how do you expect anyone to believe your analysis of what plays should have been run?
10-13-2014 11:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
waltgreenberg Online
Legend
*

Posts: 33,146
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 138
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Chicago

The Parliament Awards
Post: #64
RE: Army post-game thread
(10-13-2014 11:58 AM)jh Wrote:  
(10-13-2014 10:12 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  ??? I'm not sure what the talking heads were watching, but the long pass was there for the taking (given DJ having time to pass) all game long. There was no need to set it up with the short in the flat.

I'm assuming this would have to be on second down, after they ran the ball to the middle for a loss on first down and before they ran the draw on third and long. Given your evident lack of familiarity with the plays Rice actually runs, how do you expect anyone to believe your analysis of what plays should have been run?

Were you at the game? Anyone who was at the game (as others have backed me up in prior posts) could see that either Hull or Taylor (both left to the safeties since Wright and Parks were split wide and covered at the line by Army's two CBs) had the long ball for the taking all game long...and both of them had the underneath pass the entire game since the safeties were giving them each 10 yards off the line of scrimmage. Army's one strength defensively was their lateral pursuit, especially their linebackers stacked up at the line the entire game. It was the LBs who stuffed the flat passes and did a solid job on the option (save for a couple runs around the right side by Davis and one long zone read keeper by DJ); not the safeties, who were left to "cover" Hull and Taylor in the slot. Parks and Wright were almost never targetted because they were covered by the two CBs, who picked them up at the line of scrimmage. The two safeties would alternate with one lining up in front of either Taylor or Hull (but with a 10-yard cushion off the line), and the other "cheating" toward the middle of the field to help cover the run. You could point out as we lined up before the snap which one of Hull and Taylor would be wide open if we decided to pass. That's precisely what happened on the 25 yard TD pass to Taylor immediately after the fumble recovery. No one was covering him when he went to the slot position, with the safety on his side cheating toward the center of the field, and the two corners lined up tight against Wright and Parks. I'm sure I was not the only one who called that play before the snap. It was a gimme.

You likely couldn't see this from the TV coverage, but it was how Army was lined up defensively. Since CBs will typically be lined up against the wideouts, I will credit the coaching staff for choosing to place Jordan in the slot as opposed to a wideout in our 4-receiver, spread formation. It greatly reduces the risk of Taylor being double covered, and often pits him against a safety, who cannot focus exclusively on JordaN.
(This post was last modified: 10-13-2014 12:35 PM by waltgreenberg.)
10-13-2014 12:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BeatNavy Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 956
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 63
I Root For: Army
Location: Westmoreland, NH
Post: #65
RE: Army post-game thread
(10-13-2014 09:32 AM)I45owl Wrote:  Thanks for your contributions here. The triple option looked out of place given they were wearing the wrong uniforms for what I'm accustomed to.

There was a lot that I liked about the Army team... I think you've got a good coach there.

Believe it or not, we're wearing a different uniform in every game this season.

I believe we do have a good coach. It will take time, but I believe that he'll get us back to respectability.
10-13-2014 12:56 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jh Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,497
Joined: May 2007
Reputation: 80
I Root For:
Location:

Donators
Post: #66
RE: Army post-game thread
(10-13-2014 12:19 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  
(10-13-2014 11:58 AM)jh Wrote:  
(10-13-2014 10:12 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  ??? I'm not sure what the talking heads were watching, but the long pass was there for the taking (given DJ having time to pass) all game long. There was no need to set it up with the short in the flat.
I'm assuming this would have to be on second down, after they ran the ball to the middle for a loss on first down and before they ran the draw on third and long. Given your evident lack of familiarity with the plays Rice actually runs, how do you expect anyone to believe your analysis of what plays should have been run?
Were you at the game?

Based on your previous comments in this thread, I have a hard time believing you were at the game. Or at least paying attention to it.

waltgreenberg Wrote:I will credit the coaching staff for choosing to place Jordan in the slot as opposed to a wideout in our 4-receiver, spread formation.

[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.chzbgr.com%2FmaxW500%...mp;amp;f=1]
10-13-2014 01:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,544
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #67
RE: Army post-game thread
Sounds to me like the complaining is pretty much that we only won by 20 when we could have won by 60.

If that is the worst we can come up with, I'm not too unhappy about it.

Glad we have an off week - time to heal up and regroup. prepare for the stretch run. If Cella is out, a chance to better prepare Hunt and Wells.
10-13-2014 01:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
I45owl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,374
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Dallas, TX

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #68
RE: Army post-game thread
(10-13-2014 12:56 PM)BeatNavy Wrote:  Believe it or not, we're wearing a different uniform in every game this season.

That's kind of cool. I liked your uniforms with the cammo helmets and black shoulder flag, along with Duty, Honor, Country. on the backs.

[Image: csul2b22usma_(1500)_blk__.jpg]

My reference above was that I had trouble wrapping my head around the fact that all of those familiar plays were not being run by the team in blue and grey (white is a shade of grey, right?).
10-13-2014 01:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Buho00 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,402
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 27
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #69
RE: Army post-game thread
Driphus had one of the most effective games of any QB in the nation. Could he have passed for 400 vs Army? Sure, if it were a shootout. There was no need. We like to keep it on the ground and control the clock. He stuck to gameplan and avoided mistakes. As for running the option, he looked much improved in that department earlier in the season. He makes the right decisions almost all the time. He had a big run on an option play in a key moment, despite not looking 100% when running. But he's made some weak pitches lately, which he can work on.

Interesting to hear Bailiff say DJ is the best QB in the conference, when he's on (Ricefootball.net video interview).
10-13-2014 01:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
waltgreenberg Online
Legend
*

Posts: 33,146
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 138
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Chicago

The Parliament Awards
Post: #70
RE: Army post-game thread
(10-13-2014 01:01 PM)jh Wrote:  
(10-13-2014 12:19 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  
(10-13-2014 11:58 AM)jh Wrote:  
(10-13-2014 10:12 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  ??? I'm not sure what the talking heads were watching, but the long pass was there for the taking (given DJ having time to pass) all game long. There was no need to set it up with the short in the flat.
I'm assuming this would have to be on second down, after they ran the ball to the middle for a loss on first down and before they ran the draw on third and long. Given your evident lack of familiarity with the plays Rice actually runs, how do you expect anyone to believe your analysis of what plays should have been run?
Were you at the game?

Based on your previous comments in this thread, I have a hard time believing you were at the game. Or at least paying attention to it.

waltgreenberg Wrote:I will credit the coaching staff for choosing to place Jordan in the slot as opposed to a wideout in our 4-receiver, spread formation.

[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.chzbgr.com%2FmaxW500%...mp;amp;f=1]

Yeah, I was at the game...and as anyone who has been around me at football or baseball games can attest, I am not only extremely attentative to what's going on-- down to the minutae, but I'm also one of the more vocal in attendance; particularly at baseball games. Try again. You may take issue (your perogative) with my frustration with the coaching staff, but I stand by my assessment and observations of the game.
10-13-2014 02:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jh Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,497
Joined: May 2007
Reputation: 80
I Root For:
Location:

Donators
Post: #71
RE: Army post-game thread
(10-13-2014 02:51 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Yeah, I was at the game...and as anyone who has been around me at football or baseball games can attest, I am not only extremely attentative to what's going on-- down to the minutae, but I'm also one of the more vocal in attendance; particularly at baseball games. Try again. You may take issue (your perogative) with my frustration with the coaching staff, but I stand by my assessment and observations of the game.

Why thank you for giving me permission to take issue with your frustrations. I was really worried that I was posting without it. You've lifted a great weight from my mind.

If you are so attentive to the games, right down to the minutia, then why were most of your frustrations objectively baseless? I mean, they weren't just wrong but spectacularly so. At this point, if you said the sky was blue I would consider taking a color wheel outside just to make sure. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt because the other option is that you knew that what you posted was garbage and chose to post it anyways. Is that really your position?

Now it's my turn to give you permission. I give you permission to admit you were wrong. I know it's hard, but it's okay, everyone makes mistakes.
10-13-2014 05:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
waltgreenberg Online
Legend
*

Posts: 33,146
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 138
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Chicago

The Parliament Awards
Post: #72
RE: Army post-game thread
(10-13-2014 05:18 PM)jh Wrote:  
(10-13-2014 02:51 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Yeah, I was at the game...and as anyone who has been around me at football or baseball games can attest, I am not only extremely attentative to what's going on-- down to the minutae, but I'm also one of the more vocal in attendance; particularly at baseball games. Try again. You may take issue (your perogative) with my frustration with the coaching staff, but I stand by my assessment and observations of the game.

Why thank you for giving me permission to take issue with your frustrations. I was really worried that I was posting without it. You've lifted a great weight from my mind.

If you are so attentive to the games, right down to the minutia, then why were most of your frustrations objectively baseless? I mean, they weren't just wrong but spectacularly so. At this point, if you said the sky was blue I would consider taking a color wheel outside just to make sure. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt because the other option is that you knew that what you posted was garbage and chose to post it anyways. Is that really your position?

Now it's my turn to give you permission. I give you permission to admit you were wrong. I know it's hard, but it's okay, everyone makes mistakes.

No, it was not garbage...and at least some of the stats you posted to try to show me up with were simply not accurate. According to Rice's own post-game stat sheet (which I was shown while eating dinner at the Thayer Hotel in West Point), the Army QB (Santiago?) rushed 21 times for 150 yards. Yes, I know some of the "official" box scores (e.g., Yahoos) had him for more carries and just over 100 yards, but they also had him with only 1 sac for -7 yards when, in reality, he was sacked 5 - 7 times for -40 - -50 yards. The mixup was probably due to his sacks coming on rollouts, but they were anything but option runs.

As far as 1st down rushes, invariably for 1 - 4 yard losses, I will stick with my memory that they must have occurred at least 4 - 5 times during the game. We were commenting on this amongst our group as it was happening during the game. I might have perceived a more frequent occurrence because the frequency picked up in the Second Half.

As for the 3rd and 8+ yard draw plays, we most definitely did run these on repeated occassions in the Second Half....and at least once or twice when the game was still very much in doubt. Made very little sense from my perspective since they were giving us the short to middle distance pass play all game long, oftentimes with significant YAC tacked on.
(This post was last modified: 10-13-2014 06:45 PM by waltgreenberg.)
10-13-2014 06:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jh Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,497
Joined: May 2007
Reputation: 80
I Root For:
Location:

Donators
Post: #73
RE: Army post-game thread
(10-13-2014 06:37 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  No, it was not garbage...and at least some of the stats you posted to try to show me up with were simply not accurate. According to Rice's own post-game stat sheet (which I was shown while eating dinner at the Thayer Hotel in West Point), the Army QB (Santiago?) rushed 21 times for 150 yards. Yes, I know some of the "official" box scores (e.g., Yahoos) had him for more carries and just over 100 yards, but they also had him with only 1 sac for -7 yards when, in reality, he was sacked 5 - 7 times for -40 - -50 yards. The mixup was probably due to his sacks coming on rollouts, but they were anything but option runs.

Oh, it was garbage. And, for the record, I asked where you got your stats from on this one. But now that I know, forgive me if I refuse to trust your memory. It seems to be rather faulty. You can't even remember what you wrote in this very thread.

(10-13-2014 06:37 PM)Trying to backtrack, waltgreenberg Wrote:  As far as 1st down rushes, invariably for 1 - 4 yard losses, I will stick with my memory that they must have occurred at least 4 - 5 times during the game. We were commenting on this amongst our group as it was happening during the game. I might have perceived a more frequent occurrence because the frequency picked up in the Second Half.

waltgreenburg, you do realize that when you write things down on the internet they stay there, right? Your expressed frustration was not that Rice ran to middle four or five times (or even too often) on first down. It was the absurd assertion that Rice did so on every first down, except for two specific instances.

(10-11-2014 09:28 PM)But earlier in the thread, waltgreenberg Wrote:  - Save for the opening play of the game, and the TD pass to a wide open Taylor on the first play after the fumble recovery, every other first down call all game long was a direct handoff right up the middle-- usually for a 2 - 4 yard loss. It was beyond predictable, and it wasn't working.

Oops.

(10-13-2014 06:37 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  As for the 3rd and 8+ yard draw plays, we most definitely did run these on repeated occassions in the Second Half....and at least once or twice when the game was still very much in doubt. Made very little sense from my perspective since they were giving us the short to middle distance pass play all game long, oftentimes with significant YAC tacked on.

I don't know how Rice could have run draws on repeated third and longs in the second half when Rice only faced two third and longs (8+ yards) the entire second half. And one of those was a 10 yard touchdown pass.
10-13-2014 07:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jh Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,497
Joined: May 2007
Reputation: 80
I Root For:
Location:

Donators
Post: #74
RE: Army post-game thread
(10-13-2014 06:37 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  No, it was not garbage...and at least some of the stats you posted to try to show me up with were simply not accurate. According to Rice's own post-game stat sheet (which I was shown while eating dinner at the Thayer Hotel in West Point), the Army QB (Santiago?) rushed 21 times for 150 yards. Yes, I know some of the "official" box scores (e.g., Yahoos) had him for more carries and just over 100 yards, but they also had him with only 1 sac for -7 yards when, in reality, he was sacked 5 - 7 times for -40 - -50 yards. The mixup was probably due to his sacks coming on rollouts, but they were anything but option runs.

I'm a generous guy and I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, so I decided to go back to the play-by-play and look at the rushing stats for Santiago, the starting Army QB. By my count, Santiago had 23 plays where he didn't hand off or throw the ball. Not surprisingly, this matches his rushing attempts in the box scores (although savvy readers will note that there does appear to be a missing yard).

Of those 23 plays, 11 were rushes that gained positive yardage and he gained a total of 130 yards on those plays. Regardless of what counts as a sack or how that yardage is treated, that is the absolute maximum his rushing yards could have been, and that is well shy of 150 yards. Unless, of course, you want to argue that some of his positive runs were mistakenly credited to other players.

He also had 11 rushes of 0 or negative yards, for a total loss of 18 yards. Plus one sack for a loss of 7 yards. That's only 25 yards lost in total, again well shy of the 40 to 50 yards claimed. And that's assuming every time he lost yards it was due to a sack, which seems unlikely.
10-14-2014 03:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
waltgreenberg Online
Legend
*

Posts: 33,146
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 138
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Chicago

The Parliament Awards
Post: #75
RE: Army post-game thread
(10-14-2014 03:46 AM)jh Wrote:  
(10-13-2014 06:37 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  No, it was not garbage...and at least some of the stats you posted to try to show me up with were simply not accurate. According to Rice's own post-game stat sheet (which I was shown while eating dinner at the Thayer Hotel in West Point), the Army QB (Santiago?) rushed 21 times for 150 yards. Yes, I know some of the "official" box scores (e.g., Yahoos) had him for more carries and just over 100 yards, but they also had him with only 1 sac for -7 yards when, in reality, he was sacked 5 - 7 times for -40 - -50 yards. The mixup was probably due to his sacks coming on rollouts, but they were anything but option runs.

I'm a generous guy and I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, so I decided to go back to the play-by-play and look at the rushing stats for Santiago, the starting Army QB. By my count, Santiago had 23 plays where he didn't hand off or throw the ball. Not surprisingly, this matches his rushing attempts in the box scores (although savvy readers will note that there does appear to be a missing yard).

Of those 23 plays, 11 were rushes that gained positive yardage and he gained a total of 130 yards on those plays. Regardless of what counts as a sack or how that yardage is treated, that is the absolute maximum his rushing yards could have been, and that is well shy of 150 yards. Unless, of course, you want to argue that some of his positive runs were mistakenly credited to other players.

He also had 11 rushes of 0 or negative yards, for a total loss of 18 yards. Plus one sack for a loss of 7 yards. That's only 25 yards lost in total, again well shy of the 40 to 50 yards claimed. And that's assuming every time he lost yards it was due to a sack, which seems unlikely.

For such a proclaimed "generous guy", do you plan on continuing prolonging this for another 7 days? Again, the stat I provided on Santiago came directly off the Rice lockerroom stat sheet which I had the opportunity to see at our late afternoon dinner.

Just a question-- did you even watch the game on TV, or are you simply looking at the ESPN or yahoo stat sheet and play by play (which is never completely accurate)?

We/I get it-- you don't like the tone, content or the opinions expressed in my posts. Congratulations-- you join select company. Sure, like any fan expressing opinions and assessments immediately post-game, some of my observations may have been exaggerations and not entirely accurate (as they were state of mind observations and did not come from a review of the stat sheet or box score). Calling me out for the inaccuracies is one thing; continuing to harp on it for multiple posts over multiple days sounds more like a fixation...or an axe to grind.
10-14-2014 05:14 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,645
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #76
RE: Army post-game thread
[Image: 0hQyd5L.gif]
10-14-2014 05:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,544
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #77
RE: Army post-game thread
We had 13 TFLs, but only one was called a sack. I was surprised, as I thought more of them were sacks, but apparently at some point when the QB moves forward it becomes just a run.

There are full stats and a play by play at RiceOwls.com
10-14-2014 08:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,544
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #78
RE: Army post-game thread
(10-14-2014 08:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  We had 13 TFLs,

I love this stat!!! A lot of those TFLs disrupted the Army game plan, often leading to third down passes when I am sure Army would have preferred running on a third and short.
10-14-2014 09:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mrbig Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,662
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 127
I Root For: Rice
Location: New Orleans
Post: #79
RE: Army post-game thread
(10-14-2014 08:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  We had 13 TFLs, but only one was called a sack. I was surprised, as I thought more of them were sacks, but apparently at some point when the QB moves forward it becomes just a run.

There are full stats and a play by play at RiceOwls.com

I also thought more of those should have been sacks since a few at least appeared to be on passing plays. But regardless, Rice was all over the Army backfield.

Walt and jh, you are both positive contributors to the board. I think most of accept that Walt's more contemporaneous posts sometimes include exaggerations or employ hyperbole. His passion for Rice athletics surely comes through, sometimes, perhaps, to a fault. But the back-and-forth is getting a bit tedious, can't we all find something better to occupy the bye-week?

As for the substance of your disagreements, I also complained about the draws, though my complaint was to the use of draws in 3rd-and-long situations where Rice is deep in its own territory. Pretty sure the sample size on those situations is not significant, but it happened twice against Army and both felt predictable to me, based on watching prior Rice games where that situation occured. but it was only 2 plays that game and I certainly remember other times where Rice has thrown in those situations. And while it feels like the draw is rarely successful in those situations, I imagine most teams have pretty low conversion rates on 3rd-and-long from deep in their own territory.

I also remember multiple long Santiago runs, but there were enough very short runs by him to provide balance and overall success. Army had a decent ypc, but I am guessing their median carry was pretty insignificant. So while a few of the long Santiago runs were annoying (and is it really material whether he had 110 yds or 150 yds?), Rice did more good than bad overall and the 3 or 4 longer runs contributed to Army scoring 21 instead of 14 or 17, but didn't really change the end result.
(This post was last modified: 10-14-2014 09:32 AM by mrbig.)
10-14-2014 09:18 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jh Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,497
Joined: May 2007
Reputation: 80
I Root For:
Location:

Donators
Post: #80
RE: Army post-game thread
(10-14-2014 05:14 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  For such a proclaimed "generous guy", do you plan on continuing prolonging this for another 7 days? Again, the stat I provided on Santiago came directly off the Rice lockerroom stat sheet which I had the opportunity to see at our late afternoon dinner.

I'm merely suggesting that you must be misremembering, just like you misremembered the play calling on first and third downs. You haven't shown yourself to be very reliable.

And yes, continuing to point out the complete lack of an objective basis for your criticisms is actually quite generous of me. Otherwise someone might actually believe them. So I will continue to point out your inaccuracies as long as you continue to perpetuate them.

Quote:Just a question-- did you even watch the game on TV, or are you simply looking at the ESPN or yahoo stat sheet and play by play (which is never completely accurate)?

Neither.

Quote:We/I get it-- you don't like the tone, content or the opinions expressed in my posts. Congratulations-- you join select company. Sure, like any fan expressing opinions and assessments immediately post-game, some of my observations may have been exaggerations and not entirely accurate (as they were state of mind observations and did not come from a review of the stat sheet or box score). Calling me out for the inaccuracies is one thing; continuing to harp on it for multiple posts over multiple days sounds more like a fixation...or an axe to grind.

Not entirely accurate? They weren't remotely accurate. They showed no familiarity with the concept of accuracy. Which you still haven't acknowledged. I have no axe to grind, but when there are as many inaccuracies as your original post contained, and when you insist on doubling down and misrepresenting your original position, it takes a while to get through them all.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, waltgreenberg, but not their own facts. Those we have to share.
10-14-2014 09:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.