Oklahoma starting Safety grad transferring to Stanford - 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: Oklahoma starting Safety grad transferring to Stanford (/thread-22794.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: Oklahoma starting Safety grad transferring to Stanford (/thread-22794.html)
RE: Oklahoma starting Safety grad transferring to Stanford - Goose - 01-01-2022
(01-01-2022, 01:54 PM)gailtate Wrote: Why?? Because he DRAWS this commentary. Like metal shavings to a magnet. And, BTW why do you feel the need to perpetually ask why? Why ask why anyone voices an opinion about anything? Who's keeping score, BTW, and who is arbitrating frequency? Does each poster have a limit or quota or ration of subjects/opinions? When did this become an affiliate of GoStanford.com?You are of course free to post what you want within the rules of the board, as are we all. However, the fact you may do something does not make it useful or rational. It is of course possible to explain anything in terms of one causal factor if that is the only causal factor acknowledged as existing and all other possible explanations are summarily eliminated. Such posts do IMHO considerably lower the entropy of the board, which makes it harder to distinguish good arguments from noise. More noise, less signal. So, yes, you can do this, but for the life of me I can't imagine why. There are enough real points that can be made about Shaw and his program without torturing logic to make clearly bogus ones.
RE: Oklahoma starting Safety grad transferring to Stanford - pefloresjr - 01-01-2022
(01-01-2022, 01:54 PM)gailtate Wrote: Why?? Because he DRAWS this commentary. Like metal shavings to a magnet. And, BTW why do you feel the need to perpetually ask why? Why ask why anyone voices an opinion about anything? Who's keeping score, BTW, and who is arbitrating frequency? Does each poster have a limit or quota or ration of subjects/opinions? When did this become an affiliate of GoStanford.com?Because it's almost all noise and no signal. I'm unhappy about many aspects of Stanford football right now but reading some using every football post as a chance to repeat that Shaw is a terrible coach and should be fired is neither illuminating nor interesting. They are free to do so, but others are also free to call out the fact that it is annoying and won't change anything regarding the team's performance. The subject of this post is a highly fortuitous addition to our defense that could make a real difference. He wasn't in the transfer portal and shouldn't have been on anyone's radar. I know there is a lot that needs to be done before our team is competing at a high level but it seems like we should be able to enjoy surprising good news for what it is. Happy New Year.
Cheers,
Pete F.
RE: Oklahoma starting Safety grad transferring to Stanford - BostonCard - 01-01-2022
(01-01-2022, 12:30 PM)teejers1 Wrote: And it's not just Reid, as someone (SaMcF?) pointed out. But let's take Reid - if Stanford had a snowball's chance of going to the Rose Bowl (or better) next season, do you think Reid and his young wife decide on Utah?
Yes, it was Sam McFadden, and that’s why his argument was 10x better than yours. The argument that there have been a half-dozen transfers of players with eligibility remaining who would have started had they remained at Stanford leaving to start at other power-5 conference teams is much more indicative of a possible systemic problem at Stanford that potentially is due to the coach than taking a single situation for which there are a number of plausible alternative explanations and torturing it into the defining example. Sometimes I think you deliberately pick weak anecdotes just to troll other people on the board.
BC
RE: Oklahoma starting Safety grad transferring to Stanford - teejers1 - 01-01-2022
(01-01-2022, 03:14 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(01-01-2022, 12:30 PM)teejers1 Wrote: And it's not just Reid, as someone (SaMcF?) pointed out. But let's take Reid - if Stanford had a snowball's chance of going to the Rose Bowl (or better) next season, do you think Reid and his young wife decide on Utah?
Yes, it was Sam McFadden, and that’s why his argument was 10x better than yours. The argument that there have been a half-dozen transfers of players with eligibility remaining who would have started had they remained at Stanford leaving to start at other power-5 conference teams is much more indicative of a possible systemic problem at Stanford that potentially is due to the coach than taking a single situation for which there are a number of plausible alternative explanations and torturing it into the defining example. Sometimes I think you deliberately pick weak anecdotes just to troll other people on the board.
BC
Just to be clear. The talk was Reid. I used him as springboard to comment on general departure of still-eligible players (whom I was aware of just from being a fan, even if I could not remember all the names and where they ended up). This was not a case of taking one player and using that as THE support for the proposition. I (perhaps wrongly) assumed that other fans here were aware of the many players who have left in last 5-8 years left to play elsewhere - some we missed; some we did not. The former is cause for concern; the latter a function of the portal and the need to make room. (Only really in play this upcoming season, given unused scholies in recent years).
RE: Oklahoma starting Safety grad transferring to Stanford - Phogge - 01-01-2022
OK bottom line. It must have been Shaw’s fault that the Giants didn’t win it all.
RE: Oklahoma starting Safety grad transferring to Stanford - old spanish trail - 01-01-2022
(01-01-2022, 04:42 PM)Phogge Wrote: OK bottom line. It must have been Shaw’s fault that the Giants didn’t win it all.
Now, that's funny.
RE: Oklahoma starting Safety grad transferring to Stanford - BostonCard - 01-01-2022
Just to be clear, you picked a bad example, and when you were called out on it, doubled down instead of admitting that maybe your chosen example didn’t make the point you thought it made, but that there were other, better ones.
BC
RE: Oklahoma starting Safety grad transferring to Stanford - teejers1 - 01-01-2022
(01-01-2022, 05:31 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Just to be clear, you picked a bad example, and when you were called out on it, doubled down instead of admitting that maybe your chosen example didn’t make the point you thought it made, but that there were other, better ones.
BC
Whatever, BC. You're not in any position to say that I'm right or wrong (just as you could be right that Reid left Stanford solely for his wife).
But how about you admitting you weren't thinking about all the other kids who bailed on Stanford with eligibility left (that I assumed all Stanford fans would know about, too).
If the above is about Fields, well, you are still avoiding the point about Shaw recruiting "Stanford Men" only. As I said at outset, whatever.
RE: Oklahoma starting Safety grad transferring to Stanford - BostonCard - 01-01-2022
Sometimes, the best contribution one can make is sitting an argument out. Here’s the thread: https://thecardboard.org/board/showthread.php?tid=22775&page=3. There is not a single reply by me after your December 29 post. Plenty of others called you out and noted you were wrong or noted that posting about Reid in a thread ostensibly about Mills was quite the detour, but you just keep doubling down on a dumb argument.
Just take the L here and move on.
BC
lex24 - lex24 - 01-02-2022
(01-01-2022, 10:13 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(01-01-2022, 05:31 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Just to be clear, you picked a bad example, and when you were called out on it, doubled down instead of admitting that maybe your chosen example didn’t make the point you thought it made, but that there were other, better ones.
BC
Whatever, BC. You're not in any position to say that I'm right or wrong (just as you could be right that Reid left Stanford solely for his wife).
But how about you admitting you weren't thinking about all the other kids who bailed on Stanford with eligibility left (that I assumed all Stanford fans would know about, too).
If the above is about Fields, well, you are still avoiding the point about Shaw recruiting "Stanford Men" only. As I said at outset, whatever.
Of course some players have left. Has happened everywhere. The question raised revolved around your assertion that Reid and others left because of dissatisfaction with the program. Which you have yet to back up with any facts. And yet when Phogge and others indicated that Reid may have left for family and “roots” reasons, you make some comment about them “blowing it out their you know what”. Which is one of the best examples I’ve seen of the pot calling the kettle black.
RE: Oklahoma starting Safety grad transferring to Stanford - TrumpCard - 01-02-2022
We should not be this worried about Gabe Reid leaving. Sure, he was a starter last year, and even one of the better ones, but that was on one of the worst defenses in all of college football. I’m disappointed to see him go, but looking forward to see what the next cohort can do.
RE: Oklahoma starting Safety grad transferring to Stanford - gailtate - 01-02-2022
(01-01-2022, 03:04 PM)Goose Wrote:(01-01-2022, 01:54 PM)gailtate Wrote: Why?? Because he DRAWS this commentary. Like metal shavings to a magnet. And, BTW why do you feel the need to perpetually ask why? Why ask why anyone voices an opinion about anything? Who's keeping score, BTW, and who is arbitrating frequency? Does each poster have a limit or quota or ration of subjects/opinions? When did this become an affiliate of GoStanford.com?You are of course free to post what you want within the rules of the board, as are we all. However, the fact you may do something does not make it useful or rational. It is of course possible to explain anything in terms of one causal factor if that is the only causal factor acknowledged as existing and all other possible explanations are summarily eliminated. Such posts do IMHO considerably lower the entropy of the board, which makes it harder to distinguish good arguments from noise. More noise, less signal. So, yes, you can do this, but for the life of me I can't imagine why. There are enough real points that can be made about Shaw and his program without torturing logic to make clearly bogus ones.
Please cite, if you will, a "clearly bogus point" that I have made about Shaw, Stanford football, or anything else on this board. BTW, since you brought it up, the "More signal, less noise" tagline, derivative of a cliche already used by a gaggle of unrelated brands out there (Google it), is about as authentic and valid as Fox News' laughable claim of being "Fair and Balanced".
#ShawAndMuirMustGo.
RE: Oklahoma starting Safety grad transferring to Stanford - Goose - 01-02-2022
(01-02-2022, 04:08 PM)gailtate Wrote:How about(01-01-2022, 03:04 PM)Goose Wrote:(01-01-2022, 01:54 PM)gailtate Wrote: Why?? Because he DRAWS this commentary. Like metal shavings to a magnet. And, BTW why do you feel the need to perpetually ask why? Why ask why anyone voices an opinion about anything? Who's keeping score, BTW, and who is arbitrating frequency? Does each poster have a limit or quota or ration of subjects/opinions? When did this become an affiliate of GoStanford.com?You are of course free to post what you want within the rules of the board, as are we all. However, the fact you may do something does not make it useful or rational. It is of course possible to explain anything in terms of one causal factor if that is the only causal factor acknowledged as existing and all other possible explanations are summarily eliminated. Such posts do IMHO considerably lower the entropy of the board, which makes it harder to distinguish good arguments from noise. More noise, less signal. So, yes, you can do this, but for the life of me I can't imagine why. There are enough real points that can be made about Shaw and his program without torturing logic to make clearly bogus ones.
Please cite, if you will, a "clearly bogus point" that I have made about Shaw,
(01-01-2022, 01:54 PM)gailtate Wrote: Why?? Because he DRAWS this commentary. Like metal shavings to a magnet.The magnet by its very nature exerts an invisible force that travels through space that attracts the metal shavings and they inexorably respond. Shaw exerts no force, visible or invisible, that travels through space AFAIK, and certainly not by his very nature. If he does, he is in the wrong business. So it isn't Shaw that compels such posts. Further, the metal shavings have no free will. The people who respond to all events with byzantine reasoning to demonstrate it is Shaw's fault are not compelled to do so. They do have free will. So, IMHO your analogy is a clearly bogus one.
FWIW I don't disagree with each and every post you make. And yes, you can post with whatever frequency you wish. I probably will not respond to most of them, but sometimes I may.
Quote: BTW, since you brought it up, the "More signal, less noise" tagline, derivative of a cliche already used by a gaggle of unrelated brands out there (Google it),Indeed it is used often. Look at the top of this page. It is used by the Cardboard. <snarky comment self-censored>
RE: Oklahoma starting Safety grad transferring to Stanford - gailtate - 01-02-2022
(01-02-2022, 04:46 PM)Goose Wrote:(01-02-2022, 04:08 PM)gailtate Wrote:How about(01-01-2022, 03:04 PM)Goose Wrote:(01-01-2022, 01:54 PM)gailtate Wrote: Why?? Because he DRAWS this commentary. Like metal shavings to a magnet. And, BTW why do you feel the need to perpetually ask why? Why ask why anyone voices an opinion about anything? Who's keeping score, BTW, and who is arbitrating frequency? Does each poster have a limit or quota or ration of subjects/opinions? When did this become an affiliate of GoStanford.com?You are of course free to post what you want within the rules of the board, as are we all. However, the fact you may do something does not make it useful or rational. It is of course possible to explain anything in terms of one causal factor if that is the only causal factor acknowledged as existing and all other possible explanations are summarily eliminated. Such posts do IMHO considerably lower the entropy of the board, which makes it harder to distinguish good arguments from noise. More noise, less signal. So, yes, you can do this, but for the life of me I can't imagine why. There are enough real points that can be made about Shaw and his program without torturing logic to make clearly bogus ones.
Please cite, if you will, a "clearly bogus point" that I have made about Shaw,
(01-01-2022, 01:54 PM)gailtate Wrote: Why?? Because he DRAWS this commentary. Like metal shavings to a magnet.The magnet by its very nature exerts an invisible force that travels through space that attracts the metal shavings and they inexorably respond. Shaw exerts no force, visible or invisible, that travels through space AFAIK, and certainly not by his very nature. If he does, he is in the wrong business. So it isn't Shaw that compels such posts. Further, the metal shavings have no free will. The people who respond to all events with byzantine reasoning to demonstrate it is Shaw's fault are not compelled to do so. They do have free will. So, IMHO your analogy is a clearly bogus one.
FWIW I don't disagree with each and every post you make. And yes, you can post with whatever frequency you wish. I probably will not respond to most of them, but sometimes I may.
Quote: BTW, since you brought it up, the "More signal, less noise" tagline, derivative of a cliche already used by a gaggle of unrelated brands out there (Google it),Indeed it is used often. Look at the top of this page. It is used by the Cardboard. <snarky comment self-censored>
I brought up the bogus tagline because IT IS used by this board as a tagline, not to pay homage to your usage. But thanks anyway for assisting me make my point. Hope your day improves.
RE: Oklahoma starting Safety grad transferring to Stanford - BostonCard - 01-02-2022
Hey guys (vaguely directed at Goose and gailtate, but broadly applicable to everyone)… what someone writes on a message board is not worth getting mad over. If your new year’s resolution was to have a more healthy relationship with the internet, now would be a good time to step away from the keyboard, and if it wasn’t your resolution, maybe it should be.
We don’t have to always agree, but let’s keep it civil and argue ideas, not people.
BC
RE: Oklahoma starting Safety grad transferring to Stanford - teejers1 - 01-02-2022
(01-02-2022, 05:04 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Hey guys (vaguely directed at Goose and gailtate, but broadly applicable to everyone)… what someone writes on a message board is not worth getting mad over. If your new year’s resolution was to have a more healthy relationship with the internet, now would be a good time to step away from the keyboard, and if it wasn’t your resolution, maybe it should be.
We don’t have to always agree, but let’s keep it civil and argue ideas, not people.
BC
Agreed.
Do you think Shaw, in recruiting, relies too much on the self-selectors?
Are you at all concerned about kids leaving the program with eligibility left, and let's limit it to those who are projected to get meaningful PT?
In all your advice about me "accepting the L and moving on," you so blithely evade the underlying concerns.
Well, I believe they are concerns. Maybe you don't. Maybe you're not alone.
(01-02-2022, 05:04 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Hey guys (vaguely directed at Goose and gailtate, but broadly applicable to everyone)… what someone writes on a message board is not worth getting mad over. If your new year’s resolution was to have a more healthy relationship with the internet, now would be a good time to step away from the keyboard, and if it wasn’t your resolution, maybe it should be.
We don’t have to always agree, but let’s keep it civil and argue ideas, not people.
BC
Agreed.
Do you think Shaw, in recruiting, relies too much on the self-selectors?
Are you at all concerned about kids leaving the program with eligibility left, and let's limit it to those who are projected to get meaningful PT?
In all your advice about me "accepting the L and moving on," you blithely evade the underlying concerns.
Well, I believe they are concerns. Maybe you don't. Maybe you're not alone.
RE: Oklahoma starting Safety grad transferring to Stanford - McKenwood - 01-02-2022
(01-02-2022, 05:49 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(01-02-2022, 05:04 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Hey guys (vaguely directed at Goose and gailtate, but broadly applicable to everyone)… what someone writes on a message board is not worth getting mad over. If your new year’s resolution was to have a more healthy relationship with the internet, now would be a good time to step away from the keyboard, and if it wasn’t your resolution, maybe it should be.
We don’t have to always agree, but let’s keep it civil and argue ideas, not people.
BC
Agreed.
Do you think Shaw, in recruiting, relies too much on the self-selectors?
Are you at all concerned about kids leaving the program with eligibility left, and let's limit it to those who are projected to get meaningful PT?
In all your advice about me "accepting the L and moving on," you so blithely evade the underlying concerns.
Well, I believe they are concerns. Maybe you don't. Maybe you're not alone.
(01-02-2022, 05:04 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Hey guys (vaguely directed at Goose and gailtate, but broadly applicable to everyone)… what someone writes on a message board is not worth getting mad over. If your new year’s resolution was to have a more healthy relationship with the internet, now would be a good time to step away from the keyboard, and if it wasn’t your resolution, maybe it should be.
We don’t have to always agree, but let’s keep it civil and argue ideas, not people.
BC
Agreed.
Do you think Shaw, in recruiting, relies too much on the self-selectors?
Are you at all concerned about kids leaving the program with eligibility left, and let's limit it to those who are projected to get meaningful PT?
In all your advice about me "accepting the L and moving on," you blithely evade the underlying concerns.
Well, I believe they are concerns. Maybe you don't. Maybe you're not alone.
This entire discussion has turned laughable.
If you haven't sent an email to the President/Provost expressing your concerns you are part of the problem. The cornerstone of the athetic program is in dire straits. Bonus points for emails to Stanford BofT members. Notes to Muir are a waste of time as he has no credibility to help Shaw or force any sort of meaningful change.
RE: Oklahoma starting Safety grad transferring to Stanford - cardcrimson - 01-02-2022
(01-02-2022, 06:07 PM)McKenwood Wrote: If you haven't sent an email to the President/Provost expressing your concerns you are part of the problem. The cornerstone of the athetic program is in dire straits. Bonus points for emails to Stanford BofT members. Notes to Muir are a waste of time as he has no credibility to help Shaw or force any sort of meaningful change.
Maybe a letter to Mark Knopfler might help. . . .
RE: Oklahoma starting Safety grad transferring to Stanford - Phogge - 01-03-2022
Are you saying that Shaw’s salary is Money for Nothing?
RE: Oklahoma starting Safety grad transferring to Stanford - fullmetal - 01-03-2022
Shaw's salary is unrealized Google stock gains, no? :)
Happy new year all!
I think I'm riding that Shawbash Cannonball, but I'd prefer if my fellow riders were a little more incisive and less emotional. We, as a board and as a fanbase (small but mighty), put so much time and energy into Stanford Football -- we're allowed to care about it to the point where we demand as much performance from the head coach as we demand of ourselves on a daily basis.
Until player development improves on The Farm, Shaw et al. need to be combing the transfer portal for contributors. Shaw actually needs to be combing other coaching staff rosters for upgrades...athletic trainers and S&C coaches included.