The Loss to TCU - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: The Loss to TCU (/thread-15324.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: The Loss to TCU (/thread-15324.html)
Re: The Loss to TCU - dabigv13 - 12-30-2017
(12-30-2017, 06:11 PM)phxfan link Wrote:Just in the past 48 hours I've read you and your fellow travelers falling prey to double dealing, false equivalency and circular reasoning.
This is some quality sports message board content.
I imagine David Shaw as the boss of a shadowy organization trying to spread slow, predictable, un-American, offense through the land, and stupac as one of his online minions.
"Today we are engaged in a final, all-out battle between communistic, predictable, run on 1st down offense, and Walsh like, high scoring, Christian offense.
The modern champions of Shawism have selected this as the time, and ladies and gentlemen, the chips are down they are truly down."
Re: The Loss to TCU - dabigv13 - 12-30-2017
(12-30-2017, 06:11 PM)phxfan link Wrote:Just in the past 48 hours I've read you and your fellow travelers falling prey to double dealing, false equivalency and circular reasoning.
This is some quality sports message board content.
I imagine David Shaw as the boss of a shadowy organization trying to spread slow, predictable, un-American, offense through the land, and stupac as one of his online minions.
"Today we are engaged in a final, all-out battle between communistic, predictable, run on 1st down offense, and Walsh like, high scoring, Christian offense.
The modern champions of Shawism have selected this as the time, and ladies and gentlemen, the chips are down they are truly down."
Re: The Loss to TCU - stupac2 - 12-30-2017
(12-30-2017, 06:11 PM)phxfan link Wrote:[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=18454.msg219876#msg219876 date=1514679946]
[quote author=phxfan link=topic=18454.msg219872#msg219872 date=1514678104]I thank you for your honesty fan. There are many here so emotionally or otherwise invested in David Shaw that they ignore things like the smell test and eyeball test.
Can you people just copulating stop it with this inanity? People don't disagree with you because they're so in love with Shaw or whatever asinine fantasy you've concocted in your fervid imagination, it's because your arguments are bad. If you actually read what people are saying you'll find that there is no one, literally no one, defending Shaw on all fronts. Which is as it should be, no one is immune from criticism. But the fact that the current administration is imperfect doesn't mean that they do nothing right, and it doesn't mean that whatever you think they do wrong is clearly wrong and everyone who disagrees is just a dumb homer. It's ridiculous.
[/quote]
Even more ridiculous is that you can't prove a single poster on the opposite side of your argument has done anything like what you describe. Your self-righteousness in this regard is quite pronounced. Just in the past 48 hours I've read you and your fellow travelers falling prey to double dealing, false equivalency and circular reasoning. I'd be happy to know where you think Shaw and Pritchard fall nationally among offensive practitioners. Top quarter, top half?
[/quote]
You did it in the post I quoted! Or are you going to say that "There are many here so emotionally or otherwise invested in David Shaw that they ignore things like the smell test and eyeball test" doesn't mean what it literally says? This has to be one of the most precious replies I've ever seen on any messageboard.
Re: The Loss to TCU - stupac2 - 12-30-2017
(12-30-2017, 06:11 PM)phxfan link Wrote:[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=18454.msg219876#msg219876 date=1514679946]
[quote author=phxfan link=topic=18454.msg219872#msg219872 date=1514678104]I thank you for your honesty fan. There are many here so emotionally or otherwise invested in David Shaw that they ignore things like the smell test and eyeball test.
Can you people just copulating stop it with this inanity? People don't disagree with you because they're so in love with Shaw or whatever asinine fantasy you've concocted in your fervid imagination, it's because your arguments are bad. If you actually read what people are saying you'll find that there is no one, literally no one, defending Shaw on all fronts. Which is as it should be, no one is immune from criticism. But the fact that the current administration is imperfect doesn't mean that they do nothing right, and it doesn't mean that whatever you think they do wrong is clearly wrong and everyone who disagrees is just a dumb homer. It's ridiculous.
[/quote]
Even more ridiculous is that you can't prove a single poster on the opposite side of your argument has done anything like what you describe. Your self-righteousness in this regard is quite pronounced. Just in the past 48 hours I've read you and your fellow travelers falling prey to double dealing, false equivalency and circular reasoning. I'd be happy to know where you think Shaw and Pritchard fall nationally among offensive practitioners. Top quarter, top half?
[/quote]
You did it in the post I quoted! Or are you going to say that "There are many here so emotionally or otherwise invested in David Shaw that they ignore things like the smell test and eyeball test" doesn't mean what it literally says? This has to be one of the most precious replies I've ever seen on any messageboard.
Re: The Loss to TCU - phxfan - 12-30-2017
Can you people just copulating stop it with this inanity? People don't disagree with you because they're so in love with Shaw or whatever asinine fantasy you've concocted in your fervid imagination, it's because your arguments are bad. If you actually read what people are saying you'll find that there is no one, literally no one, defending Shaw on all fronts. Which is as it should be, no one is immune from criticism. But the fact that the current administration is imperfect doesn't mean that they do nothing right, and it doesn't mean that whatever you think they do wrong is clearly wrong and everyone who disagrees is just a dumb homer. It's ridiculous.
Ok, here's what you've accused all questioners of Shawism:
They are inane
They are asinine
They are fanciful
They have bad arguments
They think all Shawists defend him on all fronts
They think the football program does nothing right
They think that whatever they thinks clearly correct
They think that anyone who disagrees with them is a dumb homer
I haven't seen any posts from skeptical Stanford fans that contain any of these elements
Re: The Loss to TCU - phxfan - 12-30-2017
Can you people just copulating stop it with this inanity? People don't disagree with you because they're so in love with Shaw or whatever asinine fantasy you've concocted in your fervid imagination, it's because your arguments are bad. If you actually read what people are saying you'll find that there is no one, literally no one, defending Shaw on all fronts. Which is as it should be, no one is immune from criticism. But the fact that the current administration is imperfect doesn't mean that they do nothing right, and it doesn't mean that whatever you think they do wrong is clearly wrong and everyone who disagrees is just a dumb homer. It's ridiculous.
Ok, here's what you've accused all questioners of Shawism:
They are inane
They are asinine
They are fanciful
They have bad arguments
They think all Shawists defend him on all fronts
They think the football program does nothing right
They think that whatever they thinks clearly correct
They think that anyone who disagrees with them is a dumb homer
I haven't seen any posts from skeptical Stanford fans that contain any of these elements
Re: The Loss to TCU - oman - 12-30-2017
Every team that beat us lost their bowl game.
The teams that beat TCU are currently 1-0 in bowl games.
We played a tight game with a team that should have gotten the lead early and never looked back.
Re: The Loss to TCU - oman - 12-30-2017
Every team that beat us lost their bowl game.
The teams that beat TCU are currently 1-0 in bowl games.
We played a tight game with a team that should have gotten the lead early and never looked back.
Re: The Loss to TCU - Langdude - 12-30-2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjQzJAKxTrE&list=RDbjQzJAKxTrE&t=16
-m.
Re: The Loss to TCU - Langdude - 12-30-2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjQzJAKxTrE&list=RDbjQzJAKxTrE&t=16
-m.
Re: The Loss to TCU - CowboyIndian - 12-30-2017
(12-30-2017, 10:53 AM)teejers1 link Wrote:JustAnother, this kind of opinion is frowned on in these parts. You can't just say things like that without "advanced metrics" dotting your i's and crossing your t's.
Oh, pobrecito! Give me a break.
Re: The Loss to TCU - CowboyIndian - 12-30-2017
(12-30-2017, 10:53 AM)teejers1 link Wrote:JustAnother, this kind of opinion is frowned on in these parts. You can't just say things like that without "advanced metrics" dotting your i's and crossing your t's.
Oh, pobrecito! Give me a break.
Re: The Loss to TCU - teejers1 - 12-31-2017
CI, I'll refrain from another rant because (i) McGrath vouches for you, and (ii) you support the program with 2 precious resources - your time and money (unlike many folks here who, as far as I can tell, support the program with their mouths/finger strokes only). I'll only say this: if you see Stanford's O line up with one player in standard WR spot - and that person is a TE - don't you feel pretty confident/absolutely sure that Stanford is about to run the ball? I mean, it doesn't take a high school or college football coach to figure this out. And I don't care who cites which "advanced metrics" - it doesn't change the fact that the kind of play is telegraphed and that it's generally easier to defend a run when you know a run is coming. I mean . . . c'mon.
But I'm as tired of this debate as everyone else, so I'll move onto something more "positive."Â Went to Maples tonight to support the hoops team and what a great game against Cal.Â
Oh, wait . . .
Re: The Loss to TCU - teejers1 - 12-31-2017
CI, I'll refrain from another rant because (i) McGrath vouches for you, and (ii) you support the program with 2 precious resources - your time and money (unlike many folks here who, as far as I can tell, support the program with their mouths/finger strokes only). I'll only say this: if you see Stanford's O line up with one player in standard WR spot - and that person is a TE - don't you feel pretty confident/absolutely sure that Stanford is about to run the ball? I mean, it doesn't take a high school or college football coach to figure this out. And I don't care who cites which "advanced metrics" - it doesn't change the fact that the kind of play is telegraphed and that it's generally easier to defend a run when you know a run is coming. I mean . . . c'mon.
But I'm as tired of this debate as everyone else, so I'll move onto something more "positive."Â Went to Maples tonight to support the hoops team and what a great game against Cal.Â
Oh, wait . . .
Re: The Loss to TCU - stupac2 - 12-31-2017
(12-30-2017, 07:40 PM)phxfan link Wrote:Can you people just copulating stop it with this inanity? People don't disagree with you because they're so in love with Shaw or whatever asinine fantasy you've concocted in your fervid imagination, it's because your arguments are bad. If you actually read what people are saying you'll find that there is no one, literally no one, defending Shaw on all fronts. Which is as it should be, no one is immune from criticism. But the fact that the current administration is imperfect doesn't mean that they do nothing right, and it doesn't mean that whatever you think they do wrong is clearly wrong and everyone who disagrees is just a dumb homer. It's ridiculous.
Ok, here's what you've accused all questioners of Shawism:
They are inane
They are asinine
They are fanciful
They have bad arguments
They think all Shawists defend him on all fronts
They think the football program does nothing right
They think that whatever they thinks clearly correct
They think that anyone who disagrees with them is a dumb homer
I haven't seen any posts from skeptical Stanford fans that contain any of these elements
No, I was accusing you of those things. As I said, literally everyone on this board has problems with something or other that Shaw does, but you just said everyone who doesn't completely agree with you ignores whatever the "eye" and "smell" tests are, as though what you perceive is some kind of revealed truth.
(12-31-2017, 12:08 AM)teejers1 link Wrote:(unlike many folks here who, as far as I can tell, support the program with their mouths/finger strokes only).
Wow.
Re: The Loss to TCU - stupac2 - 12-31-2017
(12-30-2017, 07:40 PM)phxfan link Wrote:Can you people just copulating stop it with this inanity? People don't disagree with you because they're so in love with Shaw or whatever asinine fantasy you've concocted in your fervid imagination, it's because your arguments are bad. If you actually read what people are saying you'll find that there is no one, literally no one, defending Shaw on all fronts. Which is as it should be, no one is immune from criticism. But the fact that the current administration is imperfect doesn't mean that they do nothing right, and it doesn't mean that whatever you think they do wrong is clearly wrong and everyone who disagrees is just a dumb homer. It's ridiculous.
Ok, here's what you've accused all questioners of Shawism:
They are inane
They are asinine
They are fanciful
They have bad arguments
They think all Shawists defend him on all fronts
They think the football program does nothing right
They think that whatever they thinks clearly correct
They think that anyone who disagrees with them is a dumb homer
I haven't seen any posts from skeptical Stanford fans that contain any of these elements
No, I was accusing you of those things. As I said, literally everyone on this board has problems with something or other that Shaw does, but you just said everyone who doesn't completely agree with you ignores whatever the "eye" and "smell" tests are, as though what you perceive is some kind of revealed truth.
(12-31-2017, 12:08 AM)teejers1 link Wrote:(unlike many folks here who, as far as I can tell, support the program with their mouths/finger strokes only).
Wow.
Re: The Loss to TCU - lex24 - 12-31-2017
LOL.
(12-30-2017, 06:26 PM)dabigv link Wrote:[quote author=phxfan link=topic=18454.msg219889#msg219889 date=1514682695] Just in the past 48 hours I've read you and your fellow travelers falling prey to double dealing, false equivalency and circular reasoning.
This is some quality sports message board content.
I imagine David Shaw as the boss of a shadowy organization trying to spread slow, predictable, un-American, offense through the land, and stupac as one of his online minions.
"Today we are engaged in a final, all-out battle between communistic, predictable, run on 1st down offense, and Walsh like, high scoring, Christian offense.
The modern champions of Shawism have selected this as the time, and ladies and gentlemen, the chips are down they are truly down."
[/quote]
Re: The Loss to TCU - lex24 - 12-31-2017
LOL.
(12-30-2017, 06:26 PM)dabigv link Wrote:[quote author=phxfan link=topic=18454.msg219889#msg219889 date=1514682695] Just in the past 48 hours I've read you and your fellow travelers falling prey to double dealing, false equivalency and circular reasoning.
This is some quality sports message board content.
I imagine David Shaw as the boss of a shadowy organization trying to spread slow, predictable, un-American, offense through the land, and stupac as one of his online minions.
"Today we are engaged in a final, all-out battle between communistic, predictable, run on 1st down offense, and Walsh like, high scoring, Christian offense.
The modern champions of Shawism have selected this as the time, and ladies and gentlemen, the chips are down they are truly down."
[/quote]
Re: The Loss to TCU - lex24 - 12-31-2017
So Teejers for an opinion to count in your book you have to financially support the program? Really? You didnt actually mean that did you. Ive gone to a couple hundred games over the years. Although I only hit a couple a year now. So does that count. I mean I dont financially contribute to a school that I didnt attend. I dont travel. So tell me am I entitled to have an opinion that disagrees with you. Oh, McGrath May voucher for me also. So maybe that counts.Â
(12-31-2017, 12:08 AM)teejers1 link Wrote:CI, I'll refrain from another rant because (i) McGrath vouches for you, and (ii) you support the program with 2 precious resources - your time and money (unlike many folks here who, as far as I can tell, support the program with their mouths/finger strokes only). I'll only say this: if you see Stanford's O line up with one player in standard WR spot - and that person is a TE - don't you feel pretty confident/absolutely sure that Stanford is about to run the ball? I mean, it doesn't take a high school or college football coach to figure this out. And I don't care who cites which "advanced metrics" - it doesn't change the fact that the kind of play is telegraphed and that it's generally easier to defend a run when you know a run is coming. I mean . . . c'mon.
But I'm as tired of this debate as everyone else, so I'll move onto something more "positive." Went to Maples tonight to support the hoops team and what a great game against ×ÉÉ.Â
Oh, wait . . .
Re: The Loss to TCU - lex24 - 12-31-2017
So Teejers for an opinion to count in your book you have to financially support the program? Really? You didnt actually mean that did you. Ive gone to a couple hundred games over the years. Although I only hit a couple a year now. So does that count. I mean I dont financially contribute to a school that I didnt attend. I dont travel. So tell me am I entitled to have an opinion that disagrees with you. Oh, McGrath May voucher for me also. So maybe that counts.Â
(12-31-2017, 12:08 AM)teejers1 link Wrote:CI, I'll refrain from another rant because (i) McGrath vouches for you, and (ii) you support the program with 2 precious resources - your time and money (unlike many folks here who, as far as I can tell, support the program with their mouths/finger strokes only). I'll only say this: if you see Stanford's O line up with one player in standard WR spot - and that person is a TE - don't you feel pretty confident/absolutely sure that Stanford is about to run the ball? I mean, it doesn't take a high school or college football coach to figure this out. And I don't care who cites which "advanced metrics" - it doesn't change the fact that the kind of play is telegraphed and that it's generally easier to defend a run when you know a run is coming. I mean . . . c'mon.
But I'm as tired of this debate as everyone else, so I'll move onto something more "positive." Went to Maples tonight to support the hoops team and what a great game against ×ÉÉ.Â
Oh, wait . . .