Recent Recruiting Success & Failure

[BigRedBuster]

OK...so most of the points I made about your opinions are accurate.

 

Stop saying people who say the same thing have a "Strawman" argument then.

[cm husker]

OK...so most of the points I made about your opinions are accurate.

 

Stop saying people who say the same thing have a "Strawman" argument then.

 

 

If "overstated" means "accurate" in your world, then yes.

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

 

Correct. Top 30 or so programs. Which is much different than how you framed it. If you can't see that, I can't help you.

Okay chief

 

I think you purposely word your "points" in such a way that they will be taken "incorrectly" just so you have a reason to debate people when they call you out.

 

 

 

It's referred to as nuance. I admit that nuance does allow people who like to deal in extremes to read something into a statement that isn't really there.

 

There's actually a pretty famous quote about the phenomenon.

 

 

You are absolutely the king of moving the goalposts when your argument is rightfully questioned, and of hiding the true intent of your posts, although most of us have figured it out.

 

That does require some nuance, but it's nothing to be proud of.

 

And if I had to list the posters who prefer to deal in extremes, it wouldn't be the people you're currently arguing with.

[Guy Chamberlin]

ps....I love the guy who keeps following you around and +1's all of your posts. That's a lonely job.

[Sargon]

ps....I love the guy who keeps following you around and +1's all of your posts. That's a lonely job.

 

LOL. Trolls always do that. It's so pathetic. The admins always say "blah blah blah (no, shut up)" to me when I say they need to add -1's here. Doing it would drop tolling 90% and (over time) increase post counts.

[cm husker]

 

 

 

 

 

Correct. Top 30 or so programs. Which is much different than how you framed it. If you can't see that, I can't help you.

Okay chief

 

I think you purposely word your "points" in such a way that they will be taken "incorrectly" just so you have a reason to debate people when they call you out.

 

It's referred to as nuance. I admit that nuance does allow people who like to deal in extremes to read something into a statement that isn't really there.

 

There's actually a pretty famous quote about the phenomenon.

You are absolutely the king of moving the goalposts when your argument is rightfully questioned, and of hiding the true intent of your posts, although most of us have figured it out.

 

That does require some nuance, but it's nothing to be proud of.

 

And if I had to list the posters who prefer to deal in extremes, it wouldn't be the people you're currently arguing with.

Please list a couple of examples of me moving the goalposts.

[HuskerNBigD]

If we're talking about the "foundation", or "core", of our program being built within the 500 mile radius, am I safe to assume that core would be the lineman?

 

If so, could anyone tell me if there has been an o-line or d-line commitment over the last two years from outside the 500 mile radius? Oh sh#t, that is right, they're all within the holy 500-mile radius!

 

Yippee, now we can go get our supplementary skilled guys elsewhere. Oh, what's that...a 4-star WR from California is interested in the program? Riley coached his dad? The kid is known to be a hell of a leader and willing to peer recruit? Oh wait, red flag...red flag. The 1,522 miles of distance between his high school and Lincoln is too much of an opportunity cost, not enough value gained if he signs. Give me a break, people are bitching just to bitch at this point.

[cm husker]

It's not based on positions. Believe it or not (and racial assumptions aside), there are a lot of skill players within 500 miles and lots of linemen outdid of it.

 

No one sees KJJR as a red flag. But the articles about nebraskafornia or whatever are misguided.

 

We'll need to wait awhile to see what Riley actually does.

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

 

 

 

Correct. Top 30 or so programs. Which is much different than how you framed it. If you can't see that, I can't help you.

Okay chief

 

I think you purposely word your "points" in such a way that they will be taken "incorrectly" just so you have a reason to debate people when they call you out.

 

It's referred to as nuance. I admit that nuance does allow people who like to deal in extremes to read something into a statement that isn't really there.

 

There's actually a pretty famous quote about the phenomenon.

You are absolutely the king of moving the goalposts when your argument is rightfully questioned, and of hiding the true intent of your posts, although most of us have figured it out.

 

That does require some nuance, but it's nothing to be proud of.

 

And if I had to list the posters who prefer to deal in extremes, it wouldn't be the people you're currently arguing with.

Please list a couple of examples of me moving the goalposts.

 

 

Every time you ask me for specific examples, I provide you with specific examples.

 

That tends to kill your argument.

 

So you move the goalposts.

 

Just as you're prepared to do right now.

 

Gets tiresome.

[cm husker]

You have no examples of me moving the goalposts. Got it.

[Redux]

You have no examples of me moving the goalposts. Got it.

See post #56 above

[cm husker]

Can't see the numbers on the phone. Can you quote it?

[Redux]

6th post on this page

[cm husker]

How did I move the goal posts?

 

I refuted an argument that NU 90s run was due to being "miles ahead" of everyone in S&C.

 

I simply think that overstates NU's S&C advantage by the mid 90s. By that point, most of the top 1/3 of CFB had invested heavily in S&C.

 

Please explain how that moves the goalposts.

[Redux]

How did I move the goal posts?

I refuted an argument that NU 90s run was due to being "miles ahead" of everyone in S&C.

I simply think that overstates NU's S&C advantage by the mid 90s. By that point, most of the top 1/3 of CFB had invested heavily in S&C.

Please explain how that moves the goalposts.

S&C programs around the country started improving their methods and facilities because of our 90's success.

 

You literally said we weren't that far ahead of the top 30-40 programs at the time. Then you said you didn't say that.

 

By using the 30-40 other programs line you are essentially saying we weren't better than anyone else, but when called out on it you can use the line as "proof" you didn't really say what was implied, we merely just took it wrong.

 

Those posts must be heavy, I assume the phantom +1er is helping you?