Soooo....Rebstill slithered off the island too!!

Welcome to the wonderful world of REALITY...CUTT SUXS-Bottom line!!!

Soooo....Rebstill slithered off the island too!!

Welcome to the wonderful world of REALITY...CUTT SUXS-Bottom line!!!

Well posted, Still... I saw it the same way you did. Nothing about that game gives me optimism. Tell you what, if Ark. State plays us the way they played at College Station, in a 26-11 loss, we're in trouble! And we all know Memphis State will play us like it's the frigging natl championship.

When will we turn the corner???

:bang: :bang:

Well posted, Still... I saw it the same way you did. Nothing about that game gives me optimism. Tell you what, if Ark. State plays us the way they played at College Station, in a 26-11 loss, we're in trouble! And we all know Memphis State will play us like it's the frigging natl championship.

When will we turn the corner???

:bang: :bang:

Coach Peanut Wrote:Soooo....Rebstill slithered off the island too!!

Welcome to the wonderful world of REALITY...CUTT SUXS-Bottom line!!!

I don't know "what" he sucks but he DOES suck...like I said before, "A deer head that I have mounted on the wall has more life than Cutcliffe does on the sidelines." I know many of ya'll saw Pete Carroll on the sidelines last night down at Auburn. Man what enthusiasm/emotion/spirit. Of course they were handing Wingnut his teams' as$ on a platter.

Coach Peanut Wrote:Soooo....Rebstill slithered off the island too!!

Welcome to the wonderful world of REALITY...CUTT SUXS-Bottom line!!!

I don't know "what" he sucks but he DOES suck...like I said before, "A deer head that I have mounted on the wall has more life than Cutcliffe does on the sidelines." I know many of ya'll saw Pete Carroll on the sidelines last night down at Auburn. Man what enthusiasm/emotion/spirit. Of course they were handing Wingnut his teams' as$ on a platter.

All this Cutt bashing already? And from you CoachPeanut? I'm shocked! :rolleyes:

Well, I agree to some extent. The play-calling and decision making looked shaky, at best, sometimes. But let's not forget to give Vandy credit. I haven't seen anyone here do that yet, well not much anyway. Vandy played one of the best games I've ever seen them play yesterday. For the first time, they actually played with a purpose, and looked organized and well-coached. I think Johnson, in time, will have Vandy to the level at which Macintyre had them in the early eighties, if not better. Their QB was far more impressive than I imagined, and their game plan was effective. Take that along with the fact that we looked rusty, and still came away with a W.

Remember this, too. Vandy is not a bad team. They have some talent on that team, and it's only going to get better, I'm afraid. Woody Widenhoffer(sp?) left Johnson with no talent on the Dores' squad, and Johnson is building that team from scratch, and so far has apparently done wonders already.
Also keep in mind, that we played Vandy at the first of the season, which is and was scary. We played Vandy at their absolute best, completely healthy, and of course fired up. Vandy doesn't have much depth, so later in the season when they have some injuries, their games won't be so close. We just happened to get them at their best.
Unfortunately, I think we are just going to have to get used to the fact that Vandy will always play us like it's a bowl game. And apparently, we are always going to show up with the enthusiasm of a friggin' turtle.

I'm not saying we should not be worried about Cuttcliffe's apparent lack of fire and passion on the sidelines, and lack of effective adjusting to different situations in a game, and vanilla play-calling. We should be concerned, because we will be lucky to win 4 games this season with that approach we had yesterday.
But let's also give credit where credit is due. Vandy played a hell of a game, and deserved to win it.

All this Cutt bashing already? And from you CoachPeanut? I'm shocked! :rolleyes:

Well, I agree to some extent. The play-calling and decision making looked shaky, at best, sometimes. But let's not forget to give Vandy credit. I haven't seen anyone here do that yet, well not much anyway. Vandy played one of the best games I've ever seen them play yesterday. For the first time, they actually played with a purpose, and looked organized and well-coached. I think Johnson, in time, will have Vandy to the level at which Macintyre had them in the early eighties, if not better. Their QB was far more impressive than I imagined, and their game plan was effective. Take that along with the fact that we looked rusty, and still came away with a W.

Remember this, too. Vandy is not a bad team. They have some talent on that team, and it's only going to get better, I'm afraid. Woody Widenhoffer(sp?) left Johnson with no talent on the Dores' squad, and Johnson is building that team from scratch, and so far has apparently done wonders already.
Also keep in mind, that we played Vandy at the first of the season, which is and was scary. We played Vandy at their absolute best, completely healthy, and of course fired up. Vandy doesn't have much depth, so later in the season when they have some injuries, their games won't be so close. We just happened to get them at their best.
Unfortunately, I think we are just going to have to get used to the fact that Vandy will always play us like it's a bowl game. And apparently, we are always going to show up with the enthusiasm of a friggin' turtle.

I'm not saying we should not be worried about Cuttcliffe's apparent lack of fire and passion on the sidelines, and lack of effective adjusting to different situations in a game, and vanilla play-calling. We should be concerned, because we will be lucky to win 4 games this season with that approach we had yesterday.
But let's also give credit where credit is due. Vandy played a hell of a game, and deserved to win it.

joebordenrebel Wrote:Okay, well, you might not be such a radical but I think your namesake was, right? At least, according to my not-so-radical-ex-wife, D. Parker was pretty non-status quo. Never read any of her stuff firsthand, so I'm really talking out of my arse. :eek:

Not that I ever do that. . .

Anyhoo, if you know Wry in RL then I'm sure we'll get along. He's one of my favorite posters on the board, about as fair and sober-minded as they come (when he's not just cussing Davey like a red-headed step-child).

As for the big hairy men, that's one of pea>NUTS' ideas about yours truly. He has this fifth grade notion that anybody who doesn't agree with 100% of what he has to say must be homosexual. I mean, I like a finger during oral sex as much as anybody, but that don't make me gay, right?

Well, thank you, JBR. That was kind of you to say. I owe what you call my sober comments to the Pink Elephants that often visit me. I always look forward to reading your posts.

Anyway, Mrs. Parker has a delightful wit and she will be good to have here. She is a fine person indeed. She's not hard on the eyes either.

joebordenrebel Wrote:Okay, well, you might not be such a radical but I think your namesake was, right? At least, according to my not-so-radical-ex-wife, D. Parker was pretty non-status quo. Never read any of her stuff firsthand, so I'm really talking out of my arse. :eek:

Not that I ever do that. . .

Anyhoo, if you know Wry in RL then I'm sure we'll get along. He's one of my favorite posters on the board, about as fair and sober-minded as they come (when he's not just cussing Davey like a red-headed step-child).

As for the big hairy men, that's one of pea>NUTS' ideas about yours truly. He has this fifth grade notion that anybody who doesn't agree with 100% of what he has to say must be homosexual. I mean, I like a finger during oral sex as much as anybody, but that don't make me gay, right?

Well, thank you, JBR. That was kind of you to say. I owe what you call my sober comments to the Pink Elephants that often visit me. I always look forward to reading your posts.

Anyway, Mrs. Parker has a delightful wit and she will be good to have here. She is a fine person indeed. She's not hard on the eyes either.

Oh, Wry, you're makin' me blush! :red: Thank you, though. :girl:

Oh, Wry, you're makin' me blush! :red: Thank you, though. :girl:

I think you are right 10, and I didn't give Vandy any credit....I should have because all you said was valid but I was compelled to rag Cutcliffe and some of our performance Saturday because I think WE should have been playing with PURPOSE, also.

I think you are right 10, and I didn't give Vandy any credit....I should have because all you said was valid but I was compelled to rag Cutcliffe and some of our performance Saturday because I think WE should have been playing with PURPOSE, also.

REBstill Wrote:I think you are right 10, and I didn't give Vandy any credit....I should have because all you said was valid but I was compelled to rag Cutcliffe and some of our performance Saturday because I think WE should have been playing with PURPOSE, also.

The funny thing about it Still, is that I feel like a lot of teams in the SEC play down a notch when they play Vandy. It's why Vandy scares a lot of football teams. We saw what happened in Oxford in 1999 when our team looked at Vandy as a piece of cake. They took us to overtime and beat us...in OUR HOUSE! Vandy get's little respect, because they have done pretty poorly over the years in football, but they have had some teams that have been on the verge of being pretty good too. I have seen them scare Florida and Tennessee even. I remember watching them play Florida in Nashville one Saturday morning when I was still in school. Vandy kept them in check for 90% of the game. I think Florida ended up winning something like 38-14, but many of their points came very late.

I remember watching Vandy and UT play a very close one in Nashville in the rain in '97 or '98. UT won, but it was something like 21-17.

Let's also not forget one thing. Since I started at Ole Miss in fall of '93, the 'Dores have ALWAYS played us tough in Nashville. My freshman year, we beat them something like 49-3 in Oxford. If memory serves, that's the worst we've beaten them in that ten years. My sophomore year, we beat 'em in Nashville 20-14. Two years later, we got 'em 15-3.

We seem to play "down" to them with the mindset of them being winless in SEC play last year. They play "up" to everyone. Sure, they get blown out from time to time, but they have long been due to start competing in this league. They have had many successful years in hoops and have done pretty well in baseball of late. They will bite some people this season, I guarantee it. I don't think they'll be winless in league play again. I'm just glad that they are at this point. :eek:

WR

REBstill Wrote:I think you are right 10, and I didn't give Vandy any credit....I should have because all you said was valid but I was compelled to rag Cutcliffe and some of our performance Saturday because I think WE should have been playing with PURPOSE, also.

The funny thing about it Still, is that I feel like a lot of teams in the SEC play down a notch when they play Vandy. It's why Vandy scares a lot of football teams. We saw what happened in Oxford in 1999 when our team looked at Vandy as a piece of cake. They took us to overtime and beat us...in OUR HOUSE! Vandy get's little respect, because they have done pretty poorly over the years in football, but they have had some teams that have been on the verge of being pretty good too. I have seen them scare Florida and Tennessee even. I remember watching them play Florida in Nashville one Saturday morning when I was still in school. Vandy kept them in check for 90% of the game. I think Florida ended up winning something like 38-14, but many of their points came very late.

I remember watching Vandy and UT play a very close one in Nashville in the rain in '97 or '98. UT won, but it was something like 21-17.

Let's also not forget one thing. Since I started at Ole Miss in fall of '93, the 'Dores have ALWAYS played us tough in Nashville. My freshman year, we beat them something like 49-3 in Oxford. If memory serves, that's the worst we've beaten them in that ten years. My sophomore year, we beat 'em in Nashville 20-14. Two years later, we got 'em 15-3.

We seem to play "down" to them with the mindset of them being winless in SEC play last year. They play "up" to everyone. Sure, they get blown out from time to time, but they have long been due to start competing in this league. They have had many successful years in hoops and have done pretty well in baseball of late. They will bite some people this season, I guarantee it. I don't think they'll be winless in league play again. I'm just glad that they are at this point. :eek:

WR

Those are good points too, Wiz. I'm not trying to fill in for Peanut or anything, I'm just restless, sorta insecure about our team right now and I guess I'm just wanting you guys to reassure me that we do have some talent and that we are going to win some more games...

(I really hate to be so pessimistic and I hate to dog Cut so much but I think it is important to have some fire as a head coach...again, I've seen dirty socks with more life about them that what he is displaying.) He looks like a little kid that is lost and can't find family members or a familiar face.

Those are good points too, Wiz. I'm not trying to fill in for Peanut or anything, I'm just restless, sorta insecure about our team right now and I guess I'm just wanting you guys to reassure me that we do have some talent and that we are going to win some more games...

(I really hate to be so pessimistic and I hate to dog Cut so much but I think it is important to have some fire as a head coach...again, I've seen dirty socks with more life about them that what he is displaying.) He looks like a little kid that is lost and can't find family members or a familiar face.

REBstill Wrote:Those are good points too, Wiz. I'm not trying to fill in for Peanut or anything, I'm just restless, sorta insecure about our team right now and I guess I'm just wanting you guys to reassure me that we do have some talent and that we are going to win some more games...

(I really hate to be so pessimistic and I hate to dog Cut so much but I think it is important to have some fire as a head coach...again, I've seen dirty socks with more life about them that what he is displaying.) He looks like a little kid that is lost and can't find family members or a familiar face.

I hear ya Still. I think what we all want most of all is to win games consistently, and we haven't done that with him yet. True, we've won some big ones, but we need to do better than .500 in SEC play. A friend of mine who's on the team though assures me that the calm we see in him on the sidelines isn't always present when the fans and cameras aren't around.

He sounded pretty ticked on his coaches show yesterday about the lack of execution on a lot of plays. Granted, he said it in his usual calm manner, but there was a pissed off tone I detected.

WR

REBstill Wrote:Those are good points too, Wiz. I'm not trying to fill in for Peanut or anything, I'm just restless, sorta insecure about our team right now and I guess I'm just wanting you guys to reassure me that we do have some talent and that we are going to win some more games...

(I really hate to be so pessimistic and I hate to dog Cut so much but I think it is important to have some fire as a head coach...again, I've seen dirty socks with more life about them that what he is displaying.) He looks like a little kid that is lost and can't find family members or a familiar face.

I hear ya Still. I think what we all want most of all is to win games consistently, and we haven't done that with him yet. True, we've won some big ones, but we need to do better than .500 in SEC play. A friend of mine who's on the team though assures me that the calm we see in him on the sidelines isn't always present when the fans and cameras aren't around.

He sounded pretty ticked on his coaches show yesterday about the lack of execution on a lot of plays. Granted, he said it in his usual calm manner, but there was a pissed off tone I detected.

WR