When 9 wins a year isn't the whole story.

[Stumpy1]

but, really, how should we feel for them when they are embarrassed on national tv because their coaches failed to create a viable game plan and prepare them?

How do you figure the coaches failed to create a game plan and prepare them?

From my view of the game, we just poorly executed the fundamentals of the game. The basics you know? We couldn't tackle for the first two drives of that Northwestern game. You can have the BEST game plan and prepare your guys all you want, but if your not taking care of the ball, making tackles and creating pressure on the QB, none of that matters. This has been our issue with every game we have lost this year. We were poor at the basic fundamentals of the game.

Basic fundamentals are taught. So if the guys can't tackle well or protect the ball, then no, the coaches aren't properly preparing them.

Blame the pee-wee coaches and high school coaches then. These players should have the fundamentals for tackling down pretty good by the time they reach college.

 

[kchusker_chris]

Blame the pee-wee coaches and high school coaches then. These players should have the fundamentals for tackling down pretty good by the time they reach college.

So you're implying our coaches are poor evaluators of talent then?

 

[kchusker_chris]

That's not what you said.

This quote implies that it is delusional to think that we would have been a better team without those injuries. That is just flat out laughable.

Delusions that we would have been a significantly better team without those injuries is another.

"better" - and "significantly better" are two entirely different arguments. Which are you going with? Sounds like you're using "better" to argue against "significantly better" and that's weak.

IMO "better" = not getting manhandled by Iowa, only 3 turnovers against MSU. Still 4 losses.

"Significantly better" = 2+ more wins.

The first, certainly plausible with Long/Martinez healthy. The second...not gonna happen regardless. Did you watch the UCLA/SD games?

 

[BigRedBuster]

That's not what you said.

This quote implies that it is delusional to think that we would have been a better team without those injuries. That is just flat out laughable.

Delusions that we would have been a significantly better team without those injuries is another.

"better" - and "significantly better" are two entirely different arguments. Which are you going with? Sounds like you're using "better" to argue against "significantly better" and that's weak.

IMO "better" = not getting manhandled by Iowa, only 3 turnovers against MSU. Still 4 losses.

"Significantly better" = 2+ more wins.

The first, certainly plausible with Long/Martinez healthy. The second...not gonna happen regardless. Did you watch the UCLA/SD games?

What?

 

[kchusker_chris]

What?

Delusions that we would have been a significantly better team without those injuries is another.

!=

This quote implies that it is delusional to think that we would have been a better team without those injuries. That is just flat out laughable.

It's not delusional to think we would have been better - but it is to think we would have been significantly better. This was not an 11 win team, no way, not a chance.

 

[BigRedBuster]

What?

Delusions that we would have been a significantly better team without those injuries is another.

!=

This quote implies that it is delusional to think that we would have been a better team without those injuries. That is just flat out laughable.

It's not delusional to think we would have been better - but it is to think we would have been significantly better. This was not an 11 win team, no way, not a chance.

So, if we had been 100% healthy across the board, you don't think we even have a chance to win those games.

 

[kchusker_chris]

So, if we had been 100% healthy across the board, you don't think we even have a chance to win those games.

No more chance than we had going in w/ the players we played. Wouldn't have changed the final outcome a bit IMO. We might have looked a little "better" along the way (it was quite pathetic at times) - but we probably still finish the season w/ 4 losses. Maybe 3 if we got lucky at some point. But definitely not "significantly" better - which is what you were implying.

 

[sd'sker]

So, if we had been 100% healthy across the board, you don't think we even have a chance to win those games.

No more chance than we had going in w/ the players we played. Wouldn't have changed the final outcome a bit IMO. We might have looked a little "better" along the way (it was quite pathetic at times) - but we probably still finish the season w/ 4 losses. Maybe 3 if we got lucky at some point. But definitely not "significantly" better - which is what you were implying.

You sir need assistance with logic.

i guess i do to, because i agree with him. help us out.

 

[BigRedBuster]

So, if we had been 100% healthy across the board, you don't think we even have a chance to win those games.

No more chance than we had going in w/ the players we played. Wouldn't have changed the final outcome a bit IMO. We might have looked a little "better" along the way (it was quite pathetic at times) - but we probably still finish the season w/ 4 losses. Maybe 3 if we got lucky at some point. But definitely not "significantly" better - which is what you were implying.

So, losing an all American on the line along with the rest of our beat up line. Losing our starting QB and our second string guy wasn't 100% (he had missed the PSU game due to injuries) doesn't make a difference in the Iowa game.

Really?

 

[kchusker_chris]

So, if we had been 100% healthy across the board, you don't think we even have a chance to win those games.

No more chance than we had going in w/ the players we played. Wouldn't have changed the final outcome a bit IMO. We might have looked a little "better" along the way (it was quite pathetic at times) - but we probably still finish the season w/ 4 losses. Maybe 3 if we got lucky at some point. But definitely not "significantly" better - which is what you were implying.

You sir need assistance with logic.

please assist...

 

[kchusker_chris]

So, losing an all American on the line along with the rest of our beat up line. Losing our starting QB and our second string guy wasn't 100% (he had missed the PSU game due to injuries) doesn't make a difference in the Iowa game.

Really?

Like I said, we might not have been as pathetic as we were...but Martinez/Long do not add another 21 points against Iowa's D. Still a loss. Besides, them being healthy wouldn't have changed anything with the way administration handled Bo's status...and we all know that's what caused us to lose the game. (sarcasm)

 

[Stumpy1]

Blame the pee-wee coaches and high school coaches then. These players should have the fundamentals for tackling down pretty good by the time they reach college.

So you're implying our coaches are poor evaluators of talent then?

I am? Let me ask you this...Our coaches are to blame because guys miss tackles. What do you have to say about them when it came to Lavonte. He very seldom missed tackles?

 

[BigRedBuster]

Was Iowa a better team than Georgia?

 

[sd'sker]

So, losing an all American on the line along with the rest of our beat up line. Losing our starting QB and our second string guy wasn't 100% (he had missed the PSU game due to injuries) doesn't make a difference in the Iowa game.

Really?

Like I said, we might not have been as pathetic as we were...but Martinez/Long do not add another 21 points against Iowa's D. Still a loss. Besides, them being healthy wouldn't have changed anything with the way administration handled Bo's status...and we all know that's what caused us to lose the game. (sarcasm)

and i do not feel like the iowa game was what broke the season. winning that would have been nice and probably kept a lot of heat of bo, but the season would have still been pretty lackluster.

 

[Saunders]

That's not what you said.

This quote implies that it is delusional to think that we would have been a better team without those injuries. That is just flat out laughable.

Delusions that we would have been a significantly better team without those injuries is another.

"better" - and "significantly better" are two entirely different arguments. Which are you going with? Sounds like you're using "better" to argue against "significantly better" and that's weak.

IMO "better" = not getting manhandled by Iowa, only 3 turnovers against MSU. Still 4 losses.

"Significantly better" = 2+ more wins.

The first, certainly plausible with Long/Martinez healthy. The second...not gonna happen regardless. Did you watch the UCLA/SD games?

You're really reaching to make this argument work.