knapplc Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 You trying to say George Washington couldn't hit a curveball? George Washington: Bats, they are sick. I cannot hit curveball. Straightball I hit it very much. Curveball, bats are afraid. I ask Jobu to come, take fear from bats. I offer him cigar, rum. He will come. Eddie Harris: You know you might think about taking Jesus Christ as your savior instead of fooling around with all this stuff. George Washington: Jesus, I like him very much, but he no help with curveball. Eddie Harris: You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball? Quote Link to comment
dergibog Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 The advantage Washington had was that he was running that guerrilla war strategy. Everybody wanted him to run the West Coast offensive. No wait. Yeah this thread is getting way too stupid. Nice touch of history though. Quote Link to comment
The Dude Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 There is loyalty and there is not doing your job well. 1-5 is failing at his job. If I was only successful at my job one out of every six times I wouldn't expect my employer to be "loyal" to me. Should General Washington have been fired by the Continental Congress with the onset of Winter in 1776? Which Mike Stoops win would equate to Washington winning the Battle of Boston? Also Washington knew how the keep his "coordinators" Stuben never left Washington for possibly greener pastures like Mike's brother did in '09. Yet another history fact Washington has a record of 7-7-1(that's not even counting that he won the war.) Stoops was 41-50 at Arizona and never won his conference. Lets remember that Washington was playing the military equivalent of the '95 Huskers every single battle. How about we don't compare Mike Stoops to George Washington anymore. I don't think you're giving George Washington enough credit: Quote Link to comment
Count 'Bility Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Stoops had a very "Callahanesque" tenure at AZ. Started very slow, made obvious improvements from year to year, and was ready to take the next big step this year, but obvoiusly the wheels fell off. He had his time, he had his chances, but it was proven that it wasnt going to work out. I believe 4 years is plenty of time. Had he been just one more win better it might have been different, but it was getting ugly. Quote Link to comment
Eric the Red Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 There is loyalty and there is not doing your job well. 1-5 is failing at his job. If I was only successful at my job one out of every six times I wouldn't expect my employer to be "loyal" to me. I think I saw something about his last 12 games was like 1-11. Quote Link to comment
brasky Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Stoops had a very "Callahanesque" tenure at AZ. Started very slow, made obvious improvements from year to year, and was ready to take the next big step this year, but obvoiusly the wheels fell off. He had his time, he had his chances, but it was proven that it wasnt going to work out. I believe 4 years is plenty of time. Had he been just one more win better it might have been different, but it was getting ugly. Disagree. Stoops took a pathetic team and made it decent...for a while... Callahan took a decent team and made them pathetic. Quote Link to comment
tjohn deaux Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 just trying to stick up for another coach Quote Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 The point of my bringing up General Washington's record in the early part of our Revolutionalr War was to highlight that the actual W/L record is not what is the most important factor, but the direction of the program is. Is Mike Stoops losing because he inherited a bare cupboard from the previous staff, or has he had the opportunity to fill the roster with his players? Is the team goaing through a transition with a new coaching staff, and if so why? Does the team have a natural recuriting base, a national organization, and good facilities, or are the alumni and fans expecting something from nothing? In looking at Mike Stoops' tenure at Arizona, I believe that he has had a fair opportunity to win... but came up short. Washington on the other hand, turned things around and won big. That said... the British Army was not the Big Red. They had a good offense, but the defensive gameplan was not sound. Quote Link to comment
NUBackInBlack38 Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 The hell are we talking about? Huskers --> Revolutionary history lesson/debate Quote Link to comment
knapplc Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 The hell are we talking about? Huskers --> Revolutionary history lesson/debate We are quite the educated group. Quote Link to comment
WhatDoIKnow Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Washington had the luxury of always playing at home. The British ('83 Huskers) had lots of fire power, but were slow on the defensive side. The Americans ('83 Miami) were mobile, and able to take advantage of the home crowd. 1 Quote Link to comment
Enhance Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 So who was the Brit's Mike Rozier and how did the Americans hurt him? Quote Link to comment
wildman Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 lets not forget Washington had an recruiting advantage since he played his players and was never punished by governing officials for it. Mike Stoops doesn't have this ability. Quote Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Next up... contrasting the Solich Era with the fall of the Ottoman Empire. 1 Quote Link to comment
CornHOLIO Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Next up... contrasting the Solich Era with the fall of the Ottoman Empire. 1 Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.