Coaches Lose Another One

[Fitz51]

Now we are losing to MAC powers too.

Apparently you are satisfied with this.

If we aren't satisfied with it, what exactly are we supposed to do as fans? Stop watching or attending games? Write critical letters to the AD?

I mean, we can say something is unacceptable until we are blue in the face, but the very nature of hardcore fandom is inherent acceptance.

 

[YesterdaysCat]

Fine. Lawrence was good. TJones was OK when open but couldn't catch a contested ball and developed the drops. Prater was very skilled but slow. Shuler was a track star with poor hands. The latter two did not sign with NU out of HS but signed FA contracts after being coached by Springer. Ask those guys what they thought of Springer versus their previous coaches. All three showed notable improvement while at NU. I'd be interested in their answers.



Custis (DE) also had lots of offers. I could name others. OL recruiting can be a crapshoot. I don't see stunning OL play out of these guys yet, though I liked what I saw in Dole on tape and hope they'll improve. Meanwhile, NU passes on Feeney, Karras, and Epping, who became stars for their programs. Are they better, more determined athletes than our guys or did they receive better position coaching elsewhere? I don't know.



I agree. I like what I see in Hance and the development in Park, and I like Dole and North's potential, but we didn't even offer Feeney, Karras, or Epping, and they all were studs right in our backyard who were very much interested in NU (one was a legacy). Heck, the most naturally talented OL coming out of HS by far, IMO, plays DL for us. Is our mediocre OL play due to talent and attitude toward development, or is it due to coaching technique? I can't discern that.

Odenigbo had a lot of offers and good ratings. This does happen and suggests ratings are tied to the offer lists/visits to powers/interest expressed by powers.

There are undoubtedly programs that play follow the leader and offer every 4 star guy but you cannot be perennially strong without evaluating prospects' film. I do put stock in a guy with offers from quality programs. Nonetheless I agree with you that a 2 star with no offers is not necessarily a poor prospect because the lack of offers could be due to injury, playing out of position, playing for a program with no exposure, committing early to a program, etc.

The star ratings work in one direction but less so in the other.

 

[YesterdaysCat]

If we aren't satisfied with it, what exactly are we supposed to do as fans? Stop watching or attending games? Write critical letters to the AD?

I mean, we can say something is unacceptable until we are blue in the face, but the very nature of hardcore fandom is inherent acceptance.

What you don't do us disagree with people who make cogent contentions.

Also you would be surprised how much impact the fans and boosters can make on a cosch's job security. Well you wouldn't be surprised because we all know it. And how do fans express their displeasure? In some of the ways you mention, this board, and also donation giving levels. Remember what I said about Voigts and Parseghian. One was forced out by boosters and the other was forced out internally under the impression the fanbase agreed.

 

[Gladeskat]

So wait, you are conceding that NU has had an NFL signee in 'the last five years' who was recruited out of HS by NU? That was your contention and I addressed it fully.

Did you see my remark was in the form of a question? My assertion is we have not brought in the type of skills and quickness we had with a Peterman or Ebert. Yes, thanks for reminding me of Lawrence. We do have some track stars, but this is football. Do we have quick (as opposed to fast), skilled WR's? Do you know for certain that their lack of skills is a result of poor instruction and drilling by Springer or a failure to assimilate and develop the skills coaches have taught them?

What you apparently don't see is the difference in talent, skills, and quickness between a Peterman or an Ebert and the slow, unskilled guys we've landed over the past few years. Who among our recent WR's was notably quick? Who has gotten even an NFL look since? Even Fitz has acknowledged the shortcomings in recruiting here, like taking chances on tall guys recruited off of teams that throw the ball 4-5 times a game. Our WR recruiting has been poor, IMO. We ignore and let quick, skilled guys like Dudek go elsewhere while we land guys who run 4.8 40's.

There's no doubt our WR's have not performed well the past few years. Again, can we accurately discern whether this problem is due to poor instruction or poor incoming talent, and/or assimilation and development of skills outside of practice? Three guys moved to fill the talent void at WR, two guys moved to the OL.

 

[pawildcat]

And by the way, neither Barnet nor Walker got to play FCS (I-AA) teams for a sure Home win........the 1996 team only played 11 regular season games and if you replace @Wake (L) with a home FCS cupcacke a la Fitz you get 10 wins. The 2000 Walker team played 9 Big 10 games and @ #20 TCU, put 2 home cupcakes in and you get 10 wins even in an 11 game season.[/QUOTE]

Uh, that Wake Forest team had two other wins besides the one against us; over App St. by 6 and over winless Duke by 1. The rest of their games they lost by a combined score of 318 to 80. I think that they would be well qualified as a "cupcake:.[/QUOTE]

The 2000 Walker team did not play nine B1G games. They were co-champions with a 6-2 record.

 

[Bwm57]

Tommy Fuessel was recruited as a WR in the class of 2013 with 4.4 speed.
Unfortunately due to injury he never played a down for the Wildcats.

 

[Gladeskat]

Well you are saying that we have had WR guys signed by the NFL. We have had none on the OL since 2012 even though it's a large position group. You also admit that many of our OL had some good offers.

If you don't want to concede the coaching is an issue by several different ways of looking at it, then you have to admit there is a lot of smoke year after year.

Do you think four players (only two signed by NU out of HS) developed or largely developed by Springer and signed by the NFL is strong evidence Springer is not a good coach?

There's been smoke for a few years, but I don't see players with great quickness and hands coming into the program like a Dudek, Musso, Peterman, Wright, Schweighardt, Lane, Ebert, Brewer, or even the walk-on, Markshausen. Nagle and Carr (another walk-on!) show promise and look to be the best fit by my criteria right now. Last year, Carr, a walk-on, was our best, most reliable receiver! Where the heck are all the guys to whom we offered scholarships?! Why do we have to move THREE players to WR to cover our butts there?! Why is Fitz coming right out and admitting we've made mistakes in recruiting the position? Sheesh.

If you don't want to concede there may be a real issue with WR talent entering the program, then you can't discern anything through the smoke here.

 

[Gladeskat]

Odenigbo had a lot of offers and good ratings. This does happen and suggests ratings are tied to the offer lists/visits to powers/interest expressed by powers.

There are undoubtedly programs that play follow the leader and offer every 4 star guy but you cannot be perennially strong without evaluating prospects' film. I do put stock in a guy with offers from quality programs. Nonetheless I agree with you that a 2 star with no offers is not necessarily a poor prospect because the lack of offers could be due to injury, playing out of position, playing for a program with no exposure, committing early to a program, etc.

The star ratings work in one direction but less so in the other.

Odenigbo is a fine athlete and one hell of a pass rusher. He's worthy of his 4-star rating coming out of HS, IMO. It's too bad the reading ability and techniques necessary to play the run effectively haven't taken hold. I went through something like that myself with footwork as a freshman and I have no explanation for how I corrected it. One day, it just happened. Hopefully, it will fall into place for Ifeadi soon and he'll have a great season.

One could argue star ratings seem to fail more in the middle than they do the extremes. Again, I think they're less of a predictor of success than most people take then to be. Even numbers of offers is a shaky indicator.

 

[Gladeskat]

We know recruiting has not been good enough at those positions. We had many unheralded recruits under Johns and somehow they produced. Whether or not Kevin's methods were sound is another topic but he proved that you don't need 3 and 4 star personnel at WR.

We also know that Pat recognizes a problem in production. We know he recognizes it because we are recruiting WR and OL and also playing raw FR and RS FR at those positions.

He's also moved five players into the WR and OL positions recently.
That screams that there's a problem with the talent we've been recruiting at these positions!

Where he doesn't see a problem and where you don't either is that we have a history of taking less recruited HS prospects and reaping production. The assistants responsible aren't here anymore and their replacements have not gotten the same results with possibly better talent. Certainly arguably better.

Again, I don't put much stock in recruiting rankings or offers. Kyle Prater clearly should have been a 3-star at best, and he's not nearly as good as zero-star and 2-stars like Markshausen, Ebert, Peterman, and Lane. Possibly the best talent we've landed at WR was 2-star Fuessel, who had hardly any offers from BCS schools. Unfortunately, he no longer can play football and is pursuing a baseball career.

Meanwhile, an unheralded, athletic workout warrior in our backyard with GREAT hands doesn't get offered by us and catches over a thousand yards of passes for Illinois.

Yeah, I think recruiting has been a problem and needs to be considered when evaluating the cause of poor WR and OL play. Even Fitz says this is so, and as you point out, it's apparent in our recruiting emphasis and position moves in the program. Again, we've moved 3 people to WR and two DL to the OL!!! Hard to deny there isn't a significant talent issue here.

 

[hdhntr1]

It's not complete bull. Consistently the 4 and 5 stars wind up as good players. Some 2 stars do too but not at the same success rate. So it's not all bull but you know that.

Since we do not have and unlikely to have significant numbers of 4 and 5 star athletes here, the fact that they are generally better is less relevant to our situation. Since most of our recruits are two and three star, ratings tend to be more of a crapshoot

 

[YesterdaysCat]

Do you know for certain that their lack of skills is a result of poor instruction and drilling by Springer or a failure to assimilate and develop the skills coaches have taught them?

If it's the latter, then the coaches have to try other approaches. If an entire position group fails to assimilate, that is telling. I'm inclined to believe it is the latter. No matter how loyal Fitz is, if he noticed poor instruction, he would remedy it. But I also believe that Fitz thinks as you may, that it is never the teacher's fault.

 

[YesterdaysCat]

Since we do not have and unlikely to have significant numbers of 4 and 5 star athletes here, the fact that they are generally better is less relevant to our situation. Since most of our recruits are two and three star, ratings tend to be more of a crapshoot

Valid point. How do attract more 4-star recruits? The current approach is to promote the new facilities and sell the idea that we won 10 games and now we can win the conference if only you sign with us. That's another reason why I quoted Fitz's record versus conference contenders and the now disturbing trend vs. MAC schools--yes, very good MAC programs. Let nobody say that I said these MAC schools are, to borrow mikewebb's word "cupcakes."

If you aren't beating the conference's best and aren't beating the best MAC teams, you won't draw 4- and 5-star recruits by pitching a program on the upswing.

It's crucial to start beating Iowa again, upset MSU or OSU, and continue to beat Illinois, Purdue, Minny, and do better than .500 vs. Wisky. It's a tall, tall order, impossible in some people's eyes. We have a history of doing the impossible sometimes, though.

 

[gocatsgo2003]

Two losses to MAC teams at home in the last three years is a big deal. Even great MAC teams.

Why? We have already been losing to OSU (0-4), Mich (1-7), MSU (2-6), PSU (2-5) under Fitz. Not to mention no wins vs. Iowa since 2012. Our best record vs a perennial contender? A mere .500 vs Wisky. Our winning records are all against weaker Big Ten competition.

Now we are losing to MAC powers too.

Apparently you are satisfied with this.

Apparently you've chosen to take the most negative route possible.

 

[gocatsgo2003]

Well you are saying that we have had WR guys signed by the NFL. We have had none on the OL since 2012 even though it's a large position group. You also admit that many of our OL had some good offers.

If you don't want to concede the coaching is an issue by several different ways of looking at it, then you have to admit there is a lot of smoke year after year.

We would have had Mulroe not decided to quit football for health reasons. He was pretty clearly an NFL-level athlete, if a bit undersized.

 

[gocatsgo2003]

What you don't do us disagree with people who make cogent contentions.

Also you would be surprised how much impact the fans and boosters can make on a cosch's job security. Well you wouldn't be surprised because we all know it. And how do fans express their displeasure? In some of the ways you mention, this board, and also donation giving levels. Remember what I said about Voigts and Parseghian. One was forced out by boosters and the other was forced out internally under the impression the fanbase agreed.

There's one MAYBE two current boosters who actually hold real weight with the NU administration. Both are very big Fitz fans.

 

[YesterdaysCat]

He's also moved five players into the WR and OL positions recently.
That screams that there's a problem with the talent we've been recruiting at these positions!

Also screams, "It's not the coach's fault. It's the players!" What do you think about my last post, that it's very hard to see an entire position group collapse and think it has nothing to do with instruction.

Again, I don't put much stock in recruiting rankings or offers. Kyle Prater clearly should have been a 3-star at best, and he's not nearly as good as zero-star and 2-stars like Markshausen, Ebert, Peterman, and Lane. Possibly the best talent we've landed at WR was 2-star Fuessel, who had hardly any offers from BCS schools. Unfortunately, he no longer can play football and is pursuing a baseball career.

Oh, the Fuessel argument rears its head. Ifs and buts. He never played a down so we can't really say. If Drew Moulton had never played a down due to illness, people would have theorized that Drew would have been the best based on his camp performance that one year.

I realize that you have never put much stock in recruiting rankings, but you don't put any stock in offers?

We already know that Ebert and Peterman should have been higher than 2 stars, but they were under-recruited and didn't they both play out of position in H.S.?

As I said, the higher star ratings are based on offers and I think many offers deserve credence, but unfortunately--and we know this--the opposite is not true. If a guy is 2 star because of few offers, we have no idea if he's really a 2 star. In other words, I buy on the 4 stars more than I buy the 2 stars, especially if a guy was an early commit (he lost offers because schools stopped recruiting), if a guy was hurt, if a guy played out of position, if a guy played for a school with no exposure.

Nobody is arguing with you, least of all me, on these points.

Yeah, I think recruiting has been a problem and needs to be considered when evaluating the cause of poor WR and OL play. Even Fitz says this is so, and as you point out, it's apparent in our recruiting emphasis and position moves in the program. Again, we've moved 3 people to WR and two DL to the OL!!! Hard to deny there isn't a significant talent issue here.

My suggestion is to compare how the coach's position group fared with better recruits vs. how he fares with lesser recruits. If the disparity is too great, then Fitz should at worst consider the assistant's teaching methods. Is he doing that? No way to know without asking. I just might ask around and I think more people should. Fitz doesn't really like it, but he usually does answer my emails (or Cody does).

What we have seen for sure is that Fitz thinks it's the players' fault and that's why he's devoting so much resources in that direction.[/QUOTE]

 

[YesterdaysCat]

We would have had Mulroe not decided to quit football for health reasons. He was pretty clearly an NFL-level athlete, if a bit undersized.

Yes, but he left the program after 2012, same as Ward, so that point still stands, doesn't it?

 

[YesterdaysCat]

There's one MAYBE two current boosters who actually hold real weight with the NU administration. Both are very big Fitz fans.

More than that. Probably still under 8 but more than 2 now.

 

[gocatsgo2003]

Yes, but he left the program after 2012, same as Ward, so that point still stands, doesn't it?

Not if your timeframe is "last five years."

 

[gocatsgo2003]

More than that. Probably still under 8 but more than 2 now.

Count how many boosters have their names on buildings (one on multiple buildings, athletic and otherwise). That will get you your answer.

 

[hdhntr1]

And poor representation by WR's - Jones and Lawrence over the past 4 years. Again, Prater and Shuler were not NU recruits out of high school, though they were coached by Springer and signed FA contracts.

Something has smelled funky with the WR's, what with the drops over the past three seasons, but I can't discern whether coaching is the problem versus talent, off-season personal skill development and preparation, all of which rests with the players. Someone will argue that the coaches are always accountable for poor play, and that's the way things usually work in college football - See Franklin's firing of coaches at PSU. But, WRT Franklin, we won't know if that's a smoke screen to hide larger problems for a few years, like a HC who is a particularly poor game manager, but I digress. Yes, coaches pay for poor coaching as well as poor player talent, effort, and preparation, which rest with the players themselves.

That said, the one common denominator with all the WRs is Springer and if all have similar problems, that has to at least be looked at. That said, his resume is not all that bad so who knows.

 

[YesterdaysCat]

Odenigbo is a fine athlete and one hell of a pass rusher. He's worthy of his 4-star rating coming out of HS, IMO. It's too bad the reading ability and techniques necessary to play the run effectively haven't taken hold. I went through something like that myself with footwork as a freshman and I have no explanation for how I corrected it. One day, it just happened. Hopefully, it will fall into place for Ifeadi soon and he'll have a great season.

Arguable, yeah. But to date, he's a one down player or a situational guy at best in our 4-3. There's also Coach Hank's philosophy of projecting guys' position based on their frame. Maybe in a different system, like a 3-4, things would have been different for him. There's still time, too, as you point out.

His offer list certainly matches up to a 4 star.

One could argue star ratings seem to fail more in the middle than they do the extremes. Again, I think they're less of a predictor of success than most people take then to be. Even numbers of offers is a shaky indicator.

Yes, I totally agree, especially 2 stars and lower 3 stars. It's not so much the sheer number of offers that carry weight with me. It's more the quality of the programs/coaches making the offers.

 

[gocatsgo2003]

That said, the one common denominator with all the WRs is Springer and if all have similar problems, that has to at least be looked at. That said, his resume is not all that bad so who knows.

There's another common denominator for WRs recruited between 2009 and 2011 that had as much or more to do with the change in WR recruiting philosophy, but that's neither here nor there.

 

[Gladeskat]

If it's the latter, then the coaches have to try other approaches. If an entire position group fails to assimilate, that is telling. I'm inclined to believe it is the latter. No matter how loyal Fitz is, if he noticed poor instruction, he would remedy it. But I also believe that Fitz thinks as you may, that it is never the teacher's fault.

Nah. I think Fitz sees a bunch of "athletically challenged" guys who can't hack it at this level. Football isn't rocket science. That's why he's moving at least 5 players into these positions?

 

[YesterdaysCat]

Count how many boosters have their names on buildings (one on multiple buildings, athletic and otherwise). That will get you your answer.

It's more than 2 now, GCG. That's all I will say. You're welcomed to disagree or think I don't know. It wasn't more than 2 in 2010.

 

[YesterdaysCat]

There's another common denominator for WRs recruited between 2009 and 2011 that had as much or more to do with the change in WR recruiting philosophy, but that's neither here nor there.

You have said before that the philosophy failed, but was it the philosophy or the execution plus some poor luck? Cam, Pierre, Rashad, Christian, McHugh, Fuessel -- all listed taller than 6-1 -- injuries and... um; hmm; pretty good; good but injured; injured; illness.

 

[YesterdaysCat]

Nah. I think Fitz sees a bunch of "athletically challenged" guys who can't hack it at this level. Football isn't rocket science. That's why he's moving at least 5 players into these positions?

The guys in the 2015 scholie receiving corps who returned: Fessler, Roberts, Scanlan, Nagel, Carr (awarded scholie fall 2015), Wilson, Green (moved to TE). I don't think of these guys as athletically challenged but it's OK if you think so. You've got what, RS FR, SO, SR, SO, SR, RS JR, RS FR.

As you can see, we barely recruited WR for something like three classes, so is it poor athleticism or not enough numbers?

 

[YesterdaysCat]

Yes, thanks for reminding me of Lawrence.

Also forgot Demetrius Fields. He was an NFL FA signee.

 

[mikewebb68]

I don't object to the cupcake label so much. I object more to your incorrect suggestion that these lowly I-A teams would have been pasted by most I-AA teams. That just isn't supported by statistical ratings or schedule strength or game results.

That was the entire point of the post to which I responded; the poster was saying that, If the 1996 team could have scheduled a "cupcake"instead of Wake, that they would have had a better record. My response was that Wake was a cupcake. I said nothing, zero, about 1-AA teams pasting these teams.

 

[WoodersonCat]

If it's the latter, then the coaches have to try other approaches. If an entire position group fails to assimilate, that is telling. I'm inclined to believe it is the latter. No matter how loyal Fitz is, if he noticed poor instruction, he would remedy it. But I also believe that Fitz thinks as you may, that it is never the teacher's fault.

There are only so many variables at play here on the OL and with the WRs:

- incoming talent
- injuries
- coaching
- player execution

I view the last variable as at least a derivative of the first. So I see three, because at the end of the day, the coach is responsible for the execution of the players; right or wrong, good or bad - that's the way it is.

Some people say "what do you expect the coaches to do if the incoming talent isn't there?" On its surface, there's a point there.

But what if the incoming talent isn't there because the incoming talent believes they won't get any better under that particular coaching? In that case, the coaching is the issue because its presence prevents the talent from coming in the first place.

Look to other endeavors: where do we find talent that eschews great coaching and mentoring in favor of mediocre coaching and mentoring? Does that happen in Medicine? Law? Wall Street? Silicon Valley? Hollywood? Hell no.

Where does talent gravitate?

The obvious answer (to all but those who have evolved to the point where they can breathe silicon because they have their head in the sand) is:

great talent gravitates to great coaching!

So the argument that talent is the issue moreso than the quality of the coaching is, to my mind, the reddest of red herrings - whether we're talking about NU football or an investment bank or a teaching hospital or an insurance company or anything else. Why? Because a lack of talent is far more often than not indicative of the potential talent's belief that they'll get better at their craft under better coaching/mentorship from somebody else. So they go there instead...

Bottom line: in ANY endevour, lack of talent is therefore not an explanation. Rather, it's an indictment.

 

[YesterdaysCat]

That was the entire point of the post to which I responded; the poster was saying that, If the 1996 team could have scheduled a "cupcake"instead of Wake, that they would have had a better record. My response was that Wake was a cupcake. I said nothing, zero, about 1-AA teams pasting these teams.

This is the most ticktack semantic argument that you could have made.

Here is what Fitzphile said--verbatim.

And by the way, neither Barnet nor Walker got to play FCS (I-AA) teams for a sure Home win........the 1996 team only played 11 regular season games and if you replace @Wake (L) with a home FCS cupcacke a la Fitz you get 10 wins. The 2000 Walker team played 9 Big 10 games and @ #20 TCU, put 2 home cupcakes in and you get 10 wins even in an 11 game season.

He said "replace Wake with a home FCS cupcake."

Then you said that Wake was enough of a cupcake. While 1996 Wake could be described as a I-A cupcake (no FBS/FCS nomenclature back then), the Demon Deacons would have defeated any "I-AA cupcake." If 1996 Wake had played the #200 ranked team 100 times in a computer simulation, Wake would have won most of those meetings. I have all of the 1996 teams' stats and I can run the simulation. Do I want to, or should I have to, just to convince you, though, that I have knowledge in this area?

Based on the explanation that I gave you, I think you agree with me now, so the argument has shifted to the definition of "cupcake" and whether or not Fitzphile meant "cupcake in general" or "I-A cupcake" or "I-AA cupcake." I think if you read his post, he was clearly saying Wake was tougher than a I-AA cupcake and well, that's true.

 

[mikewebb68]

This is the most ticktack semantic argument that you could have made.

The poster said:

And by the way, neither Barnet nor Walker got to play FCS (I-AA) teams for a sure Home win........the 1996 team only played 11 regular season games and if you replace @Wake (L) with a home FCS cupcacke a la Fitz you get 10 wins. The 2000 Walker team played 9 Big 10 games and @ #20 TCU, put 2 home cupcakes in and you get 10 wins even in an 11 game season. [/QUOTE]

He said "replace Wake with a home FCS cupcake."

Then you said that Wake was enough of a cupcake. While 1996 Wake could have been considered as a I-A cupcake (no FBS, FCS nomenclature back then), they would have trounced any I-AA cupcake.

I think based on the explanation I gave you agree with me now, so the argument has shifted to the definition of cupcake and whether or not the poster meant "cupcake in general" or "I-A cupcake" or "I-AA cupcake." I think if you read his post, he was clearly saying Wake was tougher than a I-AA cupcake and well, that's true, even as poor as Wake was.

For self-appointed board police, at least stick to the right argument.[/QUOTE]

The 1996 Cats had two of the worst teams in 1-A on their schedule. I stand by my comments. And if the poster had a problem with my response, he would have responded to me; why did you feel the need to intervene on his behalf? Because you don't like me as a poster?

 

[YesterdaysCat]

I have to say, that's

There are only so many variables at play here on the OL and with the WRs:

- incoming talent
- injuries
- coaching
- player execution

I view the last variable as at least a derivative of the first. So I see three, because at the end of the day, the coach is responsible for the execution of the players; right or wrong, good or bad - that's the way it is.

Some people say "what do you expect the coaches to do if the incoming talent isn't there?" On its surface, there's a point there.

But what if the talent isn't there because the incoming talent believes they won't get any better under that particular coaching? In that case, the coaching is the issue because it prevents the talent from coming.

Look to other endeavors: where do we find talent that eschews great coaching and mentoring in favor of mediocre coaching and mentoring? Medicine? Law? Wall Street? Silicon Valley? Hollywood?

Where does talent gravitate? The obvious answer unless to all but those who have evolved to the point where they can breathe silicon because they have their head in the sand is: great talent gravitates to great coaching!

So the argument that talent is the issue over coaching is, to my mind the reddest of red herrings, whether we're talking about NU football or an investment bank or a teaching hospital or an insurance company or anything else, because a lack of talent is far more often than not indicative of that talent's belief that they'll get better at their craft under better coaching/mentorship.

In ANY endevour, lack of talent is therefore not an explanation. Rather, it's an indictment.

I have to say that although it doesn't support my argument fully, your post is very intriguing.

I do, however, have to defend Glades here because there are some other factors that affect results on the field. Unfortunately -- and nobody wants to discuss it -- there were racial divisions on the team caused in part by assistants and in part by pure personality conflicts between players. It's the elephant in the room when Fitz talks about the chemistry or the mood or the personality of the team being better. He is referring to the union issue, but if so, he really doesn't get one of the reasons this happened at NU with that specific group of people. (One of the reasons, not the only reason, please note before I am attacked with an avalanche of Colter haters.) I say "there were racial divisions" because I think and hope NU football is past that.

But yeah, the team chemistry issue affects everything.

I guess you could point the finger at coaching for that as well. What do you think? I'm not asking a rhetoric question. I'm genuinely interested in your take, whether or not you are privy to some of the not-so-nice insider information that I was.

 

[YesterdaysCat]

The 1996 Cats had two of the worst teams in 1-A on their schedule. I stand by my comments. And if the poster had a problem with my response, he would have responded to me; why did you feel the need to intervene on his behalf? Because you don't like me as a poster?

No, because you are wrong.

Being "wrong" is a funny thing. You feel that some posters cross the line of the Rivals Terms of Service, so you tattletale on them and try to get them banned. You feel they are "wrong" even if the conversation has nothing to do with you.

You intervene when you feel that something is wrong. Why does my response have to mean I "don't like" you? Maybe I find your intervention of "wrong" responses to be inspiring.

 

[mikewebb68]

No, because you are wrong.

Being "wrong" is a funny thing. You feel that some posters cross the line of the Rivals Terms of Service, so you tattletale on them and try to get them banned. You feel they are "wrong" even if the conversation has nothing to do with you.

You intervene when you feel that something is wrong. Why does my response have to mean I "don't like" you? Maybe I find your intervention of "wrong" responses to be inspiring.

See, funny thing here is that YOU don't get to determine whether I am wrong or not. It's called an opinion; we tend to share them here on message boards. Problem is, some posters confuse opinion with fact, as in "Everything I say is fact and everything everyone else says is wrong."

As for trolling in posts that have nothing to do with you (something you have done on her many times, with posters you don't like) , are you the board social justice warrior who rights great wrongs like me disagreeing about what teams qualify as cupcakes? If so, keep up the good work!

As for my statement about you not liking me as a poster, if you liked my posts, I suspect that you wold not post continued nonsense about me being the "board police" and being a "tattletale" (seriously, what adult uses that latter term?). Want to call me a polyanna as well? At any rate, I could care less. Carry on.

 

[YesterdaysCat]

See, funny thing here is that YOU don't get to determine whether I am wrong or not. It's called an opinion; we tend to share them here on message boards. Problem is, some posters confuse opinion with fact, as in "Everything I say is fact and everything everyone else says is wrong."

As for trolling in posts that have nothing to do with you (something you have done on her many times, with posters you don't like) , are you the board social justice warrior who rights great wrongs like me disagreeing about what teams qualify as cupcakes? If so, keep up the good work!

As for my statement about you not liking me as a poster, if you liked my posts, I suspect that you wold not post continued nonsense about me being the "board police" and being a "tattletale" (seriously, what adult uses that latter term?). Want to call me a polyanna as well? At any rate, I could care less. Carry on.

No, sorry, you are factually wrong according to multiple ratings systems from 1996. Again, sorry. Please do not report me because you were caught being wrong, then you lied your butt off, and now you're wrong again.

 

[mikewebb68]

No, sorry, you are factually wrong according to multiple ratings systems from 1996. Again, sorry. Please do not report me because you were caught being wrong, then you lied your butt off, and now you're wrong again.

Dude, if it makes you so happy to be right about such an inconsequential thing on a message board where you share opinions, congratulations, you're right. Wake Forest and Duke were clearly not cupcakes that year. Happy now?

 

[Fitz51]

I'm reporting both of you! TATTLE! TATTLE!

 

[mikewebb68]

I'm reporting both of you! TATTLE! TATTLE!

But Daaaaaaaad! Yesterday started it.....

 

[WoodersonCat]

I have to say, that's


I have to say that although it doesn't support my argument fully, your post is very intriguing.

I do, however, have to defend Glades here because there are some other factors that affect results on the field. Unfortunately -- and nobody wants to discuss it -- there were racial divisions on the team caused in part by assistants and in part by pure personality conflicts between players. It's the elephant in the room when Fitz talks about the chemistry or the mood or the personality of the team being better. He is referring to the union issue, but if so, he really doesn't get one of the reasons this happened at NU with that specific group of people. (One of the reasons, not the only reason, please note before I am attacked with an avalanche of Colter haters.) I say "there were racial divisions" because I think and hope NU football is past that.

But yeah, the team chemistry issue affects everything.

I guess you could point the finger at coaching for that as well. What do you think? I'm not asking a rhetoric question. I'm genuinely interested in your take, whether or not you are privy to some of the not-so-nice insider information that I was.

Here's what I think: I was actually hoping you'd be alluding to force majeur items like injuries or perhaps just blind stinking bad luck, funny bounces, flukes, etc., not this Colter stuff.

I want to be positive here and don't want to get into a rabbit hole like that. It's over. Most of this team doesn't even know him. That's ancient history. Blaming stuff from yesteryear for meh play today is frankly weak, IMO. My 2 cents