[Mick]

I sort of have a feeling that Love may come back now.

Frankly, both Phillips and Love should come back.  Love, because he wants to be a doctor.  Phillips, because his draft stock likely slid.

[Mick]

I sort of have a feeling that Love may come back now.

Frankly, both Phillips and Love should come back.  Love, because he wants to be a doctor.  Phillips, because his draft stock likely slid.

[Mick]

I sort of have a feeling that Love may come back now.

Frankly, both Phillips and Love should come back.  Love, because he wants to be a doctor.  Phillips, because his draft stock likely slid.

[Mick]

I sort of have a feeling that Love may come back now.

Frankly, both Phillips and Love should come back.  Love, because he wants to be a doctor.  Phillips, because his draft stock likely slid.

[teejers1]

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.

[teejers1]

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.

[teejers1]

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.

[teejers1]

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.

[lex24]

I’m curious- on what do you base the statement that TCU was “more highly motivated.” 

We did not lose the game because of TCUs speed.  One play, the open receiver in the end zone, would have completely changed the game.  Having said that, TCU was better prepared and more highly motivated.  Our offense was highly predictable and our defense was often disorganized (possibly due to loss of Reed).  We rarely if ever rushed more than 3 or 4 and never really pressured their QB. Costello, who seemed to be on a nice learning curve for the last few games, reverted back to his early self.  I think Phillips will be downgraded in the draft because he was outplayed by the TCU center and I think Love will lose ground because of seeming to be injury prone.

[lex24]

I’m curious- on what do you base the statement that TCU was “more highly motivated.” 

We did not lose the game because of TCUs speed.  One play, the open receiver in the end zone, would have completely changed the game.  Having said that, TCU was better prepared and more highly motivated.  Our offense was highly predictable and our defense was often disorganized (possibly due to loss of Reed).  We rarely if ever rushed more than 3 or 4 and never really pressured their QB. Costello, who seemed to be on a nice learning curve for the last few games, reverted back to his early self.  I think Phillips will be downgraded in the draft because he was outplayed by the TCU center and I think Love will lose ground because of seeming to be injury prone.

[lex24]

I’m curious- on what do you base the statement that TCU was “more highly motivated.” 

We did not lose the game because of TCUs speed.  One play, the open receiver in the end zone, would have completely changed the game.  Having said that, TCU was better prepared and more highly motivated.  Our offense was highly predictable and our defense was often disorganized (possibly due to loss of Reed).  We rarely if ever rushed more than 3 or 4 and never really pressured their QB. Costello, who seemed to be on a nice learning curve for the last few games, reverted back to his early self.  I think Phillips will be downgraded in the draft because he was outplayed by the TCU center and I think Love will lose ground because of seeming to be injury prone.

[lex24]

I’m curious- on what do you base the statement that TCU was “more highly motivated.” 

We did not lose the game because of TCUs speed.  One play, the open receiver in the end zone, would have completely changed the game.  Having said that, TCU was better prepared and more highly motivated.  Our offense was highly predictable and our defense was often disorganized (possibly due to loss of Reed).  We rarely if ever rushed more than 3 or 4 and never really pressured their QB. Costello, who seemed to be on a nice learning curve for the last few games, reverted back to his early self.  I think Phillips will be downgraded in the draft because he was outplayed by the TCU center and I think Love will lose ground because of seeming to be injury prone.

[stupac2]

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.

The amazing thing to me about this message is that what he's saying, while in the same vein as what you tend to say, is far more specific. It's difficult to demonstrate, of course, you'd have to chart what personnel groupings result in what plays, but presumably someone who's used to looking at film can take mental notes on the fly pretty well. That type of analysis is complementary to statistical analysis and highly useful. I've read a few FishDuck pieces in advance of our games against Oregon that break down film and found myself wishing that we had a similar website, it's incredibly useful.

It is, of course, different from "I dislike the aesthetics/outcomes here and will whine about them at every opportunity whether it makes sense or not."

[stupac2]

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.

The amazing thing to me about this message is that what he's saying, while in the same vein as what you tend to say, is far more specific. It's difficult to demonstrate, of course, you'd have to chart what personnel groupings result in what plays, but presumably someone who's used to looking at film can take mental notes on the fly pretty well. That type of analysis is complementary to statistical analysis and highly useful. I've read a few FishDuck pieces in advance of our games against Oregon that break down film and found myself wishing that we had a similar website, it's incredibly useful.

It is, of course, different from "I dislike the aesthetics/outcomes here and will whine about them at every opportunity whether it makes sense or not."

[stupac2]

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.

The amazing thing to me about this message is that what he's saying, while in the same vein as what you tend to say, is far more specific. It's difficult to demonstrate, of course, you'd have to chart what personnel groupings result in what plays, but presumably someone who's used to looking at film can take mental notes on the fly pretty well. That type of analysis is complementary to statistical analysis and highly useful. I've read a few FishDuck pieces in advance of our games against Oregon that break down film and found myself wishing that we had a similar website, it's incredibly useful.

It is, of course, different from "I dislike the aesthetics/outcomes here and will whine about them at every opportunity whether it makes sense or not."

[stupac2]

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.

The amazing thing to me about this message is that what he's saying, while in the same vein as what you tend to say, is far more specific. It's difficult to demonstrate, of course, you'd have to chart what personnel groupings result in what plays, but presumably someone who's used to looking at film can take mental notes on the fly pretty well. That type of analysis is complementary to statistical analysis and highly useful. I've read a few FishDuck pieces in advance of our games against Oregon that break down film and found myself wishing that we had a similar website, it's incredibly useful.

It is, of course, different from "I dislike the aesthetics/outcomes here and will whine about them at every opportunity whether it makes sense or not."

[Goose]

We do have a predictable offense.

I basically agree.

The predictability comes in the personnel groupings and formations. Having played college ball myself, and having been a defensive coordinator for high school football, there is nothing I loved more than when opponents only ran a certain set of plays from specific formations and personnel groupings. As fans we know far more often than not what play is coming by the personnel on the field and the formation. We make it too easy for defenses to prepare for us.

Not sure I agree here. I think we are pretty predictable no matter who is out there.  :)  As I see it, if Love is in the game, and pretty much for sure if Marx is also in the game, Love is probably going to get the ball and probably run some kind of a play off left tackle. It may be a handoff, it may be a pitch, but that is what you will get. We sometimes will run basically right up the middle, but not often. This play often works pretty well because it is more unexpected. We also do run to the right, but not nearly as often. If we are in Ogre, we are going to run for sure if the game is still in doubt.  If it is third and long, we probably will pass (Duh!). Basically, that sums it up. Do we do other things from time to time? Yes, but not real often. We sometimes pass on first or second down. As has been pointed out on this board, we generally have a better YPA by running. We don't run many true sweeps. There are probably reasons for that.
Our predictability is intentional. These are the plays we run best. Stop us if you can. Some people here do not like this philosophy, but I think that has been the philosophy certainly this year.
With CMac, we would run a few more "stretch" plays, but that may have been OL related. We certainly threw to the running back more, so we were a bit less predictable. However, in 2016, it could be argued that we weren't "better" because of it.
The above may be somewhat oversimplified, but I submit that it is basically accurate.
Next year, if Love does not return, all bets are off. I expect we will look more like Gaffney's year as the feature back, with Scarlett as Gaffney. We may have more talent than that team did, and the result may be correspondingly better. We will be less predictable, for sure.

[Goose]

We do have a predictable offense.

I basically agree.

The predictability comes in the personnel groupings and formations. Having played college ball myself, and having been a defensive coordinator for high school football, there is nothing I loved more than when opponents only ran a certain set of plays from specific formations and personnel groupings. As fans we know far more often than not what play is coming by the personnel on the field and the formation. We make it too easy for defenses to prepare for us.

Not sure I agree here. I think we are pretty predictable no matter who is out there.  :)  As I see it, if Love is in the game, and pretty much for sure if Marx is also in the game, Love is probably going to get the ball and probably run some kind of a play off left tackle. It may be a handoff, it may be a pitch, but that is what you will get. We sometimes will run basically right up the middle, but not often. This play often works pretty well because it is more unexpected. We also do run to the right, but not nearly as often. If we are in Ogre, we are going to run for sure if the game is still in doubt.  If it is third and long, we probably will pass (Duh!). Basically, that sums it up. Do we do other things from time to time? Yes, but not real often. We sometimes pass on first or second down. As has been pointed out on this board, we generally have a better YPA by running. We don't run many true sweeps. There are probably reasons for that.
Our predictability is intentional. These are the plays we run best. Stop us if you can. Some people here do not like this philosophy, but I think that has been the philosophy certainly this year.
With CMac, we would run a few more "stretch" plays, but that may have been OL related. We certainly threw to the running back more, so we were a bit less predictable. However, in 2016, it could be argued that we weren't "better" because of it.
The above may be somewhat oversimplified, but I submit that it is basically accurate.
Next year, if Love does not return, all bets are off. I expect we will look more like Gaffney's year as the feature back, with Scarlett as Gaffney. We may have more talent than that team did, and the result may be correspondingly better. We will be less predictable, for sure.

[Goose]

We do have a predictable offense.

I basically agree.

The predictability comes in the personnel groupings and formations. Having played college ball myself, and having been a defensive coordinator for high school football, there is nothing I loved more than when opponents only ran a certain set of plays from specific formations and personnel groupings. As fans we know far more often than not what play is coming by the personnel on the field and the formation. We make it too easy for defenses to prepare for us.

Not sure I agree here. I think we are pretty predictable no matter who is out there.  :)  As I see it, if Love is in the game, and pretty much for sure if Marx is also in the game, Love is probably going to get the ball and probably run some kind of a play off left tackle. It may be a handoff, it may be a pitch, but that is what you will get. We sometimes will run basically right up the middle, but not often. This play often works pretty well because it is more unexpected. We also do run to the right, but not nearly as often. If we are in Ogre, we are going to run for sure if the game is still in doubt.  If it is third and long, we probably will pass (Duh!). Basically, that sums it up. Do we do other things from time to time? Yes, but not real often. We sometimes pass on first or second down. As has been pointed out on this board, we generally have a better YPA by running. We don't run many true sweeps. There are probably reasons for that.
Our predictability is intentional. These are the plays we run best. Stop us if you can. Some people here do not like this philosophy, but I think that has been the philosophy certainly this year.
With CMac, we would run a few more "stretch" plays, but that may have been OL related. We certainly threw to the running back more, so we were a bit less predictable. However, in 2016, it could be argued that we weren't "better" because of it.
The above may be somewhat oversimplified, but I submit that it is basically accurate.
Next year, if Love does not return, all bets are off. I expect we will look more like Gaffney's year as the feature back, with Scarlett as Gaffney. We may have more talent than that team did, and the result may be correspondingly better. We will be less predictable, for sure.

[Goose]

We do have a predictable offense.

I basically agree.

The predictability comes in the personnel groupings and formations. Having played college ball myself, and having been a defensive coordinator for high school football, there is nothing I loved more than when opponents only ran a certain set of plays from specific formations and personnel groupings. As fans we know far more often than not what play is coming by the personnel on the field and the formation. We make it too easy for defenses to prepare for us.

Not sure I agree here. I think we are pretty predictable no matter who is out there.  :)  As I see it, if Love is in the game, and pretty much for sure if Marx is also in the game, Love is probably going to get the ball and probably run some kind of a play off left tackle. It may be a handoff, it may be a pitch, but that is what you will get. We sometimes will run basically right up the middle, but not often. This play often works pretty well because it is more unexpected. We also do run to the right, but not nearly as often. If we are in Ogre, we are going to run for sure if the game is still in doubt.  If it is third and long, we probably will pass (Duh!). Basically, that sums it up. Do we do other things from time to time? Yes, but not real often. We sometimes pass on first or second down. As has been pointed out on this board, we generally have a better YPA by running. We don't run many true sweeps. There are probably reasons for that.
Our predictability is intentional. These are the plays we run best. Stop us if you can. Some people here do not like this philosophy, but I think that has been the philosophy certainly this year.
With CMac, we would run a few more "stretch" plays, but that may have been OL related. We certainly threw to the running back more, so we were a bit less predictable. However, in 2016, it could be argued that we weren't "better" because of it.
The above may be somewhat oversimplified, but I submit that it is basically accurate.
Next year, if Love does not return, all bets are off. I expect we will look more like Gaffney's year as the feature back, with Scarlett as Gaffney. We may have more talent than that team did, and the result may be correspondingly better. We will be less predictable, for sure.

[phxfan]

[quote author=JPRI link=topic=18454.msg219737#msg219737 date=1514577553]

Every time we lose people seem to want to blame the "predictable" Stanford offense. This is one time when I think that is the least applicable.

Long time lurker here ... and the TCU loss has compelled me to register an account.

We do have a predictable offense. The predictability comes in the personnel groupings and formations. Having played college ball myself, and having been a defensive coordinator for high school football, there is nothing I loved more than when opponents only ran a certain set of plays from specific formations and personnel groupings. As fans we know far more often than not what play is coming by the personnel on the field and the formation. We make it too easy for defenses to prepare for us.
[/quote]


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.

[phxfan]

[quote author=JPRI link=topic=18454.msg219737#msg219737 date=1514577553]

Every time we lose people seem to want to blame the "predictable" Stanford offense. This is one time when I think that is the least applicable.

Long time lurker here ... and the TCU loss has compelled me to register an account.

We do have a predictable offense. The predictability comes in the personnel groupings and formations. Having played college ball myself, and having been a defensive coordinator for high school football, there is nothing I loved more than when opponents only ran a certain set of plays from specific formations and personnel groupings. As fans we know far more often than not what play is coming by the personnel on the field and the formation. We make it too easy for defenses to prepare for us.
[/quote]


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.

[phxfan]

[quote author=JPRI link=topic=18454.msg219737#msg219737 date=1514577553]

Every time we lose people seem to want to blame the "predictable" Stanford offense. This is one time when I think that is the least applicable.

Long time lurker here ... and the TCU loss has compelled me to register an account.

We do have a predictable offense. The predictability comes in the personnel groupings and formations. Having played college ball myself, and having been a defensive coordinator for high school football, there is nothing I loved more than when opponents only ran a certain set of plays from specific formations and personnel groupings. As fans we know far more often than not what play is coming by the personnel on the field and the formation. We make it too easy for defenses to prepare for us.
[/quote]


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.

[phxfan]

[quote author=JPRI link=topic=18454.msg219737#msg219737 date=1514577553]

Every time we lose people seem to want to blame the "predictable" Stanford offense. This is one time when I think that is the least applicable.

Long time lurker here ... and the TCU loss has compelled me to register an account.

We do have a predictable offense. The predictability comes in the personnel groupings and formations. Having played college ball myself, and having been a defensive coordinator for high school football, there is nothing I loved more than when opponents only ran a certain set of plays from specific formations and personnel groupings. As fans we know far more often than not what play is coming by the personnel on the field and the formation. We make it too easy for defenses to prepare for us.
[/quote]


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.

[stupac2]

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 ***** 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.

[stupac2]

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 ***** 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.

[stupac2]

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 ***** 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.

[stupac2]

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 ***** 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.

[Goose]

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.

+1

[Goose]

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.

+1

[Goose]

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.

+1

[Goose]

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.

+1

[CompSci87]

One reason our playbook is so large is that it provides the ability to run essentially the same play from different formations, as well as different plays from the same formation. If we are truly predictable in that defenses can usually tell what the play will be from the formation (and not just "a run", but whether it will be power, counter, zone, and where to), then that may be a play calling mistake... or possibly a failure to practice all the variations so that they're available.

[CompSci87]

One reason our playbook is so large is that it provides the ability to run essentially the same play from different formations, as well as different plays from the same formation. If we are truly predictable in that defenses can usually tell what the play will be from the formation (and not just "a run", but whether it will be power, counter, zone, and where to), then that may be a play calling mistake... or possibly a failure to practice all the variations so that they're available.

[CompSci87]

One reason our playbook is so large is that it provides the ability to run essentially the same play from different formations, as well as different plays from the same formation. If we are truly predictable in that defenses can usually tell what the play will be from the formation (and not just "a run", but whether it will be power, counter, zone, and where to), then that may be a play calling mistake... or possibly a failure to practice all the variations so that they're available.

[CompSci87]

One reason our playbook is so large is that it provides the ability to run essentially the same play from different formations, as well as different plays from the same formation. If we are truly predictable in that defenses can usually tell what the play will be from the formation (and not just "a run", but whether it will be power, counter, zone, and where to), then that may be a play calling mistake... or possibly a failure to practice all the variations so that they're available.

[phxfan]

[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?

[phxfan]

[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?

[phxfan]

[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?

[phxfan]

[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?