Today in opponent attrition: n.d. - 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: Today in opponent attrition: n.d. (/thread-12168.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: Today in opponent attrition: n.d. (/thread-12168.html)
Today in opponent attrition: n.d. - washingtonismoney - 06-14-2016
WR Corey Robinson -- who had 200 yards receiving last year -- medically retired due to concussions. And looks like one of their corners could be out for a while with a broken foot: http://notredame.247sports.com/Bolt/Robinson-decision-date-set-Blankenship-status-unclear-45808686
Re: Today in opponent attrition: n.d. - TrumpCard - 06-15-2016
The headline says "decision date set."Â Was there an announcement elsewhere?
Re: Today in opponent attrition: n.d. - Hurlburt88 - 06-15-2016
I also read this as "announcement coming". Although given the talk over multiple months I will be surprised if he does not retire--the concern level seems to be pretty high.Â
Re: Today in opponent attrition: n.d. - fullmetal - 06-15-2016
Concussions, like cancer, don't really hit you until way later. With all the rage against anything carcinogenic, why not apply the same caution to brain trauma? :(
Anyway, glad to see Robinson doing what's best for himself.
Re: Today in opponent attrition: n.d. - washingtonismoney - 06-15-2016
https://twitter.com/NDFootball/status/743190966379642880
Re: Today in opponent attrition: n.d. - Hulk01 - 06-16-2016
This leaves the Irish with only one WR who caught more than one pass last season.
Re: Today in opponent attrition: n.d. - winflop - 06-16-2016
(06-16-2016, 03:59 AM)Hulk01 link Wrote:This leaves the Irish with only one WR who caught more than one pass last season.
Just found out that "by coincidence I will be visiting a customer in Fort Wayne, IN Oct 13-14...SCHWING!
Re: Today in opponent attrition: n.d. - Mick - 06-16-2016
For me, it's Detroit, Troy, Ann Arbor, Lansing, Grand Rapids, then southwest to southbend.
Re: Today in opponent attrition: n.d. - Phogge - 06-16-2016
I have never understood the Stanford obsession with joy re an opponent not being able to play. To be the best you need to beat the best. If OJ hadn't played in '68 a great game would have been an OK game and much less entertaining.
Re: Today in opponent attrition: n.d. - M T - 06-16-2016
(06-16-2016, 01:07 PM)Phogge link Wrote:I have never understood the Stanford obsession with joy re an opponent not being able to play. To be the best you need to beat the best. If OJ hadn't played in '68 a great game would have been an OK game and much less entertaining.
I see no posting here that expresses or hints at any joy regarding this. Can you explain what you meant when you referred to "Stanford obsession with joy"?
Re: Today in opponent attrition: n.d. - fullmetal - 06-16-2016
(06-16-2016, 01:07 PM)Phogge link Wrote:I have never understood the Stanford obsession with joy re an opponent not being able to play. To be the best you need to beat the best. If OJ hadn't played in '68 a great game would have been an OK game and much less entertaining.
I don't think anyone here has expressed joy. And it's not primarily because we want to beat them at their best but because decent human beings shouldn't be joyful about injuries and suffering of other human beings.
I think these posts on opponent attrition are a matter of fact--we certain post about our own as well.
Re: Today in opponent attrition: n.d. - yvonne - 06-16-2016
Members also post when teams have additions or Stanford has attrition. Originally, I think these threads were about people leaving due to transfer or other non-sports related events, though.
Re: Today in opponent attrition: n.d. - Hulk01 - 06-16-2016
No real joy here. Given his parents, it's likely he's someone we'd love to have. And his absence is pertinent to us; the Irish are the Irish and we're playing there, and they already are without Fuller, Carlisle, and Prosise, three of their four best receivers last season, and Hunter's the only returning WR who saw meaningful action.
Re: Today in opponent attrition: n.d. - washingtonismoney - 06-16-2016
(06-16-2016, 01:07 PM)Phogge link Wrote:I have never understood the Stanford obsession with joy re an opponent not being able to play. To be the best you need to beat the best. If OJ hadn't played in '68 a great game would have been an OK game and much less entertaining.
Not really joyous on my part. I just find tracking this sort of information to be interesting regarding an opponent's team.
Re: Today in opponent attrition: n.d. - winflop - 06-16-2016
(06-16-2016, 01:13 PM)MT link Wrote:[quote author=Phogge link=topic=15197.msg165136#msg165136 date=1466107631]
I have never understood the Stanford obsession with joy re an opponent not being able to play. To be the best you need to beat the best. If OJ hadn't played in '68 a great game would have been an OK game and much less entertaining.
I see no posting here that expresses or hints at any joy regarding this. Can you explain what you meant when you referred to "Stanford obsession with joy"?
[/quote]
I did but not at Robinson's fate, just at being able to go to the game. I feel bad for the kid I hope he gets his degree and goes on to do great things.
I confess... - Redrum - 06-17-2016
...I don't subscribe to the "we-want-to-beat-them-at-their-best" stance regarding our foes. I just want to beat them. Goff out for cal? Lucky us. Half the ND defense down with food poisoning? All the better. One USC lineman playing with an infected big toe? Long may the bacteria prosper. I want ND, USC and Cal to play like survivors of an earthquake stumbling out of the wreckage. Every damned year. There! I said it and I'm not taking it back.
Re: I confess... - donkey687 - 06-17-2016
(06-17-2016, 07:58 AM)Redrum link Wrote:...I don't subscribe to the "we-want-to-beat-them-at-their-best" stance regarding our foes. I just want to beat them. Goff out for ×ÉÉ? Lucky us. Half the ND defense down with food poisoning? All the better. One Unbelievably Spoiled Children lineman playing with an infected big toe? Long may the bacteria prosper. I want ND, Unbelievably Spoiled Children and ×ÉÉ to play like survivors of an earthquake stumbling out of the wreckage. Every damned year. There! I said it and I'm not taking it back.
I am with you redrum. I care about beating them so if they have a man out that helps our chances. We will have guys dinged up and I just hope the other team has more guys out than we do.
My question for those who subscribe to the "beat them at their best" theory, do you also root for the opponent to make their short field goals and extra points and not jump off-sides so our victory can be pure or do you want to see them make stupid unforced errors that may make the difference between Stanford winning or not? If you truly want to beat them at their best, how can you cheer when an opponent misses a chip shot field goal and is not playing at their best?
Re: Today in opponent attrition: n.d. - Farm93 - 06-17-2016
"Beat them at their best" is a nice thing to say if you are a coach talking to the media during the week. "Watching both teams competing at their best" is the type of thing a neutral spectator might say.
I was perfectly happy watching Stanford win the 2016 Rose Bowl and really didn't care that a few key Hawkeyes were playing hurt.
I was perfectly happy watching Stanford win the 2013 Rose Bowl and really didn't care that the coaching changes likely hurt Wisconsin.
I was not very happy at the end of the Stanford loss in the 2014 Rose Bowl. Though I suspect those neutral spectators enjoyed watching two very evenly matched defensive oriented squads battle to the end.
If I am indifferent about a contest then I certainly would prefer a high quality close contest for the entertainment value, but as a Stanford I am not indifferent and don't need it to be close or entertaining.
And in the world of college football entertainingly close games are rankings and selections killers. It is much better to be beating opponents big week after week.
Re: I confess... - winflop - 06-17-2016
(06-17-2016, 07:58 AM)Redrum link Wrote:...I don't subscribe to the "we-want-to-beat-them-at-their-best" stance regarding our foes. I just want to beat them. Goff out for ×ÉÉ? Lucky us. Half the ND defense down with food poisoning? All the better. One Unbelievably Spoiled Children lineman playing with an infected big toe? Long may the bacteria prosper. I want ND, Unbelievably Spoiled Children and ×ÉÉ to play like survivors of an earthquake stumbling out of the wreckage. Every damned year. There! I said it and I'm not taking it back.
Even 12 months later, nobody remembers who wasn't there. They only remember that Stanford beat the snot out of ND.
Re: Today in opponent attrition: n.d. - fullmetal - 06-17-2016
(06-17-2016, 09:25 AM)Farm93 link Wrote:I was not very happy at the end of the Stanford loss in the 2014 Rose Bowl. Though I suspect those neutral spectators enjoyed watching two very evenly matched defensive oriented squads battle to the end.
Defensively oriented? Watching MSU carve up our defense in a hurry-up, run-first offense with Langford tearing through our front seven...that was not defense :( Cue PTSD.
I don't wish that opponents play us at full strength, but I won't wish them harm. Stanford first and forever :)