Elf vs Huskerboard

[Mavric]

https://twitter.com/eagles/status/858410879771181060

Yeah, Nebraska tried Gerry at LB...he's not tough, or physical, enough to play LB.

He's Charmin. A soft, weak, half-speed, player.

Sorry fellow Nebraska fans, I'm just not a Nate Gerry fan. I think he embodied and carried forward for two years, every thing wrong about the former coach.

If he excels with the Eagles, terrific, I'll congratulate him. But I'll never root for, or like, him as person or player.

dude, you have a grudge problem, this kid is the sh#t!....he will play a role for the Eagles!

I'm not saying he won't.

I'm saying not a fan of his. His words, after the loss to Purdue in 2015, still rankle me. He flat out admitted that they hadn't "bought in." The extremely poor play we saw against BYU, Illinois, Purdue, etc, painfully highlighted the lack of "buy in."

In football speak, not "buying in" means you go half speed, you don't care, and you're holding a grudge because the coach who recruited you got fired.

And then he didn't do his school work and wasn't eligible for the bowl game his senior year--which was 100% inexcusable.

So yeah...not a fan of the former #25.

The lack of buy-in was on Riley. His job was to coach and inspire this team to win games.
We lost most of those games because of a poor scheme, not because the players weren't trying hard enough. If it was that easy, we wouldn't have just hired two new coordinators.

It's 100% understandable to be upset that his inability to go to class resulted in his suspension, but that kid played hard for us.

Dude, buy in is on the kids...not the coaches. The coaches are already bought in to their program and how they run things. Kids have to step on the bus. You can't make kids you coach do anything...they have to want to do it. You can't force kids you coach to do anything more than I could force a liberal to 'buy in' on conservatism.

We lost those games because the players lacked focus because they didn't care enough....they were still pissed that Pelini was gone...and they admitted they did that.

.... and because our defensive coordinator and special teams coordinator were terrible.

Were they terrible because they were terrible or were they terrible because the kids didn't buy in?

What you said isn't a fact...it's just an opinion. Just like what I said.

Well, my opinion was apparently shared by Riley so.....

Maybe with Reed it was, but it wasn't with Banker. Riley told us why he fired Banker, he was given things to improve upon and those improvements didn't happen. So he's gone. It really is that simple. Just because you want the reason to be different, doesn't mean it is.

And I've got some oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you. Trust me. If I tell you that's what it is, you can just believe it at face value.

LMFAO!!!

You have zero connection to the program, so your opinion is no better or worse than anyone elses here. And, it's just an opinion. If that hurts your feelings, to damn bad because its the truth.

So what connections to the program do you have to know it's the truth?

I don't make claims that my word is to be trusted.

Only one person in this thread has done that and unless you can prove some sort of connection to the program, then your word is pretty worthless.

Yes you are. You're saying that you absolutely know for a fact the entire reasoning for why he was fired.

 

[Elf]

I'm hardly stretching. It's stretching to think Riley would hire Banker if he thought he wasn't any good. Riley told us why he fired Banker and adding anything else to it, like "Banker just wasn't very good" is simply projecting your own opinion into the facts. Riley kept Banker with him for years when he didn't think he was a very good coach? Yeah, I'm not buying that one at all. Lol

Or Banker was adequate to good when he was hired, but then he didn't adjust his philosophy as offenses innovated, and he became a mediocre DC. Oregon State fans wanted him gone for years. Hell, they came over to this board told us he wasn't going to be good enough.

Or he was seen as good enough for a lower-tier team in the defense-optional Pac-10 and Riley wanted to be loyal to a long-time friend but was exposed when the situation changed.

Riley had him on his staff at San Diego, keep believing your fantasies.

Which was a lot of years ago, which goes to saunders' point.

And for a lot of years after that, Banker was kept on Riley's staff. Obviously, Riley didn't view Banker as a bad coach for all those years or he wouldn't have kept him.

And we know for a fact that Riley is capable of firing his friends if they aren't performing up to expectations.

I get what you are saying but at Oregon State he COULD keep those guys on staff because lets face it, there was really not the pressure from fans/press. It is kind of like Northwestern...the Chicago press is not spending a lot of time and resources on NW coverage and even though I have never checked I am guessing that the NW message boards are pretty dead.
At Oregon State...an upset of Oregon, USC, UCLA or Washington ALMOST buys you a free pass for the season.

Riley, not until his last season at OSU, didn't really have a ton of pressure to change assistants. Basically if he made a bowl game every other year he was pretty much fine.

I get what you're saying here and I believe Riley himself has spoke about the difference in expectations here at NU. And in fact, I believe he told all of his assistants when they got here that things had to be done differently because the expectations were so much higher. (Paraphrasing that last sentence.) At least two of those assistants imo, Reed and Banker, did not live up to their increased expectations.

 

[Saunders]

https://twitter.com/eagles/status/858410879771181060

Yeah, Nebraska tried Gerry at LB...he's not tough, or physical, enough to play LB.

He's Charmin. A soft, weak, half-speed, player.

Sorry fellow Nebraska fans, I'm just not a Nate Gerry fan. I think he embodied and carried forward for two years, every thing wrong about the former coach.

If he excels with the Eagles, terrific, I'll congratulate him. But I'll never root for, or like, him as person or player.

dude, you have a grudge problem, this kid is the sh#t!....he will play a role for the Eagles!

I'm not saying he won't.

I'm saying not a fan of his. His words, after the loss to Purdue in 2015, still rankle me. He flat out admitted that they hadn't "bought in." The extremely poor play we saw against BYU, Illinois, Purdue, etc, painfully highlighted the lack of "buy in."

In football speak, not "buying in" means you go half speed, you don't care, and you're holding a grudge because the coach who recruited you got fired.

And then he didn't do his school work and wasn't eligible for the bowl game his senior year--which was 100% inexcusable.

So yeah...not a fan of the former #25.

The lack of buy-in was on Riley. His job was to coach and inspire this team to win games.
We lost most of those games because of a poor scheme, not because the players weren't trying hard enough. If it was that easy, we wouldn't have just hired two new coordinators.

It's 100% understandable to be upset that his inability to go to class resulted in his suspension, but that kid played hard for us.

Dude, buy in is on the kids...not the coaches. The coaches are already bought in to their program and how they run things. Kids have to step on the bus. You can't make kids you coach do anything...they have to want to do it. You can't force kids you coach to do anything more than I could force a liberal to 'buy in' on conservatism.

We lost those games because the players lacked focus because they didn't care enough....they were still pissed that Pelini was gone...and they admitted they did that.

.... and because our defensive coordinator and special teams coordinator were terrible.

Were they terrible because they were terrible or were they terrible because the kids didn't buy in?

What you said isn't a fact...it's just an opinion. Just like what I said.

Well, my opinion was apparently shared by Riley so.....

Maybe with Reed it was, but it wasn't with Banker. Riley told us why he fired Banker, he was given things to improve upon and those improvements didn't happen. So he's gone. It really is that simple. Just because you want the reason to be different, doesn't mean it is.

And I've got some oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you. Trust me. If I tell you that's what it is, you can just believe it at face value.

LMFAO!!!

You have zero connection to the program, so your opinion is no better or worse than anyone elses here. And, it's just an opinion. If that hurts your feelings, to damn bad because its the truth.

So what connections to the program do you have to know it's the truth?

I don't make claims that my word is to be trusted.

Only one person in this thread has done that and unless you can prove some sort of connection to the program, then your word is pretty worthless.

No, he hasn't. You're edging on making it personal.

 

[Elf]

No, he hasn't. You're edging on making it personal.

He might not be making it personal...but he's committed a crapton of logical fallacies with his posts in arguing his opinion contrary to facts published (a quote from Gerry) in a news publication. Stupid part is...I don't disagree with his opinion...it MIGHT be true...but there are no facts backing it up...just pure conjecture.

But people like me get roasted alive for doing the EXACT same thing (in the past) that Mavric is doing in this thread..only thing different is all of the people running to defend him. Bottom line is...an argument based on conjecture is just that...conjecture. So, let's accept that you can't prove an opinion and MOVE ON everyone.

I don't agree with much of what you say, but this is spot on. I even had a mod yesterday accuse me in PMs of miscontruing his position, but then couldn't come up with an example. Hahahahaha!!!

Oh yeah, +1 for the bolded part.

 

[Elf]

https://twitter.com/eagles/status/858410879771181060

Yeah, Nebraska tried Gerry at LB...he's not tough, or physical, enough to play LB.

He's Charmin. A soft, weak, half-speed, player.

Sorry fellow Nebraska fans, I'm just not a Nate Gerry fan. I think he embodied and carried forward for two years, every thing wrong about the former coach.

If he excels with the Eagles, terrific, I'll congratulate him. But I'll never root for, or like, him as person or player.

dude, you have a grudge problem, this kid is the sh#t!....he will play a role for the Eagles!

I'm not saying he won't.

I'm saying not a fan of his. His words, after the loss to Purdue in 2015, still rankle me. He flat out admitted that they hadn't "bought in." The extremely poor play we saw against BYU, Illinois, Purdue, etc, painfully highlighted the lack of "buy in."

In football speak, not "buying in" means you go half speed, you don't care, and you're holding a grudge because the coach who recruited you got fired.

And then he didn't do his school work and wasn't eligible for the bowl game his senior year--which was 100% inexcusable.

So yeah...not a fan of the former #25.

The lack of buy-in was on Riley. His job was to coach and inspire this team to win games.
We lost most of those games because of a poor scheme, not because the players weren't trying hard enough. If it was that easy, we wouldn't have just hired two new coordinators.

It's 100% understandable to be upset that his inability to go to class resulted in his suspension, but that kid played hard for us.

Dude, buy in is on the kids...not the coaches. The coaches are already bought in to their program and how they run things. Kids have to step on the bus. You can't make kids you coach do anything...they have to want to do it. You can't force kids you coach to do anything more than I could force a liberal to 'buy in' on conservatism.

We lost those games because the players lacked focus because they didn't care enough....they were still pissed that Pelini was gone...and they admitted they did that.

.... and because our defensive coordinator and special teams coordinator were terrible.

Were they terrible because they were terrible or were they terrible because the kids didn't buy in?

What you said isn't a fact...it's just an opinion. Just like what I said.

Well, my opinion was apparently shared by Riley so.....

Maybe with Reed it was, but it wasn't with Banker. Riley told us why he fired Banker, he was given things to improve upon and those improvements didn't happen. So he's gone. It really is that simple. Just because you want the reason to be different, doesn't mean it is.

And I've got some oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you. Trust me. If I tell you that's what it is, you can just believe it at face value.

LMFAO!!!

You have zero connection to the program, so your opinion is no better or worse than anyone elses here. And, it's just an opinion. If that hurts your feelings, to damn bad because its the truth.

So what connections to the program do you have to know it's the truth?

I don't make claims that my word is to be trusted.

Only one person in this thread has done that and unless you can prove some sort of connection to the program, then your word is pretty worthless.

Yes you are. You're saying that you absolutely know for a fact the entire reasoning for why he was fired.

And this right here is a strawman argument. I've never once said this, nor have I implied it and yet you attribute it to me anyway. Imo, these types of attacks are dishonest in the extreme.

This is a perfect example of what Blitz is talking about.

 

[Mavric]

Yes you are. You're saying that you absolutely know for a fact the entire reasoning for why he was fired.

And this right here is a strawman argument. I've never once said this, nor have I implied it and yet you attribute it to me anyway. Imo, these types of attacks are dishonest in the extreme.

This is a perfect example of what Blitz is talking about.

No, you never said it. You're implying it by saying my opinion is worthless unless I have connections within the program to know it's true but you're treating your own opinion as if it were an absolute fact.

That's what I'm referring to.

 

[Mavric]

He might not be making it personal...but he's committed a crapton of logical fallacies with his posts in arguing his opinion contrary to facts published (a quote from Gerry) in a news publication. Stupid part is...I don't disagree with his opinion...it MIGHT be true...but there are no facts backing it up...just pure conjecture.

But people like me get roasted alive for doing the EXACT same thing (in the past) that Mavric is doing in this thread..only thing different is all of the people running to defend him. Bottom line is...an argument based on conjecture is just that...conjecture. So, let's accept that you can't prove an opinion and MOVE ON everyone.

I've posted 24 (now 25) times in this thread. Any time you'd like to pay attention to more than they one that I labeled as a hypothetical to try to argue against would be great.

 

[Saunders]

It's easier to latch onto the semantics of an argument (was banker not good enough vs did he not do a good enough job) when you can't really refute the overall argument. In his two years as DC, Banker didn't do a good enough job for him to warrant staying on the staff. He had an average at best scheme, and his recruiting abilities weren't good enough. Maybe his inability to connect with the players was a contributing factor to the defensive performance too, hence the "buy in" argument, and guys loafing or leaving early. But guess what? That's part of the job too.

 

[Elf]

Yes you are. You're saying that you absolutely know for a fact the entire reasoning for why he was fired.

And this right here is a strawman argument. I've never once said this, nor have I implied it and yet you attribute it to me anyway. Imo, these types of attacks are dishonest in the extreme.

This is a perfect example of what Blitz is talking about.

No, you never said it. You're implying it by saying my opinion is worthless unless I have connections within the program to know it's true but you're treating your own opinion as if it were an absolute fact.

That's what I'm referring to.

Please quote where all I gave was my opinion. I'll wait patiently.

*Edit*

Trust me. If I tell you that's what it is, you can just believe it at face value.

Your words, not mine. And this is what I was responding to when I said your opinion was worthless w/o credentials, because it is. Until you show some sort of credentials we're just a pair of schmucks on a message board. Providing credentials would mean only one of us is a schmuck, but I suspect all you have is being a schmuck, just like the rest of us.

 

[Elf]

It's easier to latch onto the semantics of an argument (was banker not good enough vs did he not do a good enough job) when you can't really refute the overall argument. In his two years as DC, Banker didn't do a good enough job for him to warrant staying on the staff. He had an average at best scheme, and his recruiting abilities weren't good enough. Maybe his inability to connect with the players was a contributing factor to the defensive performance too, hence the "buy in" argument, and guys loafing or leaving early. But guess what? That's part of the job too.

That was never the argument. Mav stated as fact that Banker was fired because he wasn't good enough. That is simply conjecture. What we do know as fact is that Riley said he gave Banker things to improve upon and those improvements weren't made so he let Banker go.

You're complaining again about semantics, well, words have meaning for a reason and we don't get to ignore their meaning.

 

[Saunders]

It's easier to latch onto the semantics of an argument (was banker not good enough vs did he not do a good enough job) when you can't really refute the overall argument. In his two years as DC, Banker didn't do a good enough job for him to warrant staying on the staff. He had an average at best scheme, and his recruiting abilities weren't good enough. Maybe his inability to connect with the players was a contributing factor to the defensive performance too, hence the "buy in" argument, and guys loafing or leaving early. But guess what? That's part of the job too.

That was never the argument. Mav stated as fact that Banker was fired because he wasn't good enough. That is simply conjecture. What we do know as fact is that Riley said he gave Banker things to improve upon and those improvements weren't made so he let Banker go.

You're complaining again about semantics, well, words have meaning for a reason and we don't get to ignore their meaning.

If you're fired for not meeting the metrics of your job, it means you weren't good enough to meet those metrics. Arguing anything beyond that is semantics.

 

[Saunders]

Please quote where all I gave was my opinion. I'll wait patiently.

*Edit*

Trust me. If I tell you that's what it is, you can just believe it at face value.

Your words, not mine. And this is what I was responding to when I said your opinion was worthless w/o credentials, because it is. Until you show some sort of credentials we're just a pair of schmucks on a message board. Providing credentials would mean only one of us is a schmuck, but I suspect all you have is being a schmuck, just like the rest of us.

Um.....

And I've got some oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you. Trust me. If I tell you that's what it is, you can just believe it at face value.

 

[Mavric]

Yes you are. You're saying that you absolutely know for a fact the entire reasoning for why he was fired.

And this right here is a strawman argument. I've never once said this, nor have I implied it and yet you attribute it to me anyway. Imo, these types of attacks are dishonest in the extreme.

This is a perfect example of what Blitz is talking about.

No, you never said it. You're implying it by saying my opinion is worthless unless I have connections within the program to know it's true but you're treating your own opinion as if it were an absolute fact.

That's what I'm referring to.

Please quote where all I gave was my opinion. I'll wait patiently.

*Edit*

Trust me. If I tell you that's what it is, you can just believe it at face value.

Your words, not mine. And this is what I was responding to when I said your opinion was worthless w/o credentials, because it is. Until you show some sort of credentials we're just a pair of schmucks on a message board. Providing credentials would mean only one of us is a schmuck, but I suspect all you have is being a schmuck, just like the rest of us.

If you couldn't tell that a post that was referencing oceanfront property in Arizona was dripping in sarcasm, that explains a lot.

 

[Saunders]

This thread right now:

 

[Elf]

It's easier to latch onto the semantics of an argument (was banker not good enough vs did he not do a good enough job) when you can't really refute the overall argument. In his two years as DC, Banker didn't do a good enough job for him to warrant staying on the staff. He had an average at best scheme, and his recruiting abilities weren't good enough. Maybe his inability to connect with the players was a contributing factor to the defensive performance too, hence the "buy in" argument, and guys loafing or leaving early. But guess what? That's part of the job too.

That was never the argument. Mav stated as fact that Banker was fired because he wasn't good enough. That is simply conjecture. What we do know as fact is that Riley said he gave Banker things to improve upon and those improvements weren't made so he let Banker go.

You're complaining again about semantics, well, words have meaning for a reason and we don't get to ignore their meaning.

If you're fired for not meeting the metrics of your job, it means you weren't good enough to meet those metrics. Arguing anything beyond that is semantics.

Semantics is arguing about the meaning of words and that's not what we're doing here.

se·man·tics

səˈman(t)iks/Submit

noun

the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning.

the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text.

In regards to the bold, maybe, maybe not. You can be capable of meeting those metrics but still miss the mark for various reasons, some of which might be out of your control.