Post-Practice Presser - August 14

I **really** like that Travis Fisher. He said some interesting stuff:

When asked about Tre Neal he mentioned that they have "added on to the defense" (that Tre knew at UCF last year). That is Good News, particularly this early in the process. A few wrinkles is going to make it that much harder for this years opponents to rely on last year's UCF tape (particularly with different people at every position). Still speaking about Tre he said "facing THIS offense every day... there is no replica [to this offense]". He knows the stress this offense is going to put on opposing defenses (and particular the way it frustrates safeties).

I also cracked up when Williams claimed he was going to be better than his dad (who Travis Fisher knows and played against in the NFL) and he said, "His dad played in the NFL. He's just in college fighting for a starting position." (This guy knows how to push buttons.) :D

 
cheekygeek said:
That's really nice of you to spin his last post in the most charitable way possible, but what he in fact did was use a huge logical fallacy (strawman argument) to make his point (in addition to assuming that his "opponent" would argue against his strawmen). Particularly surprising/disturbing coming from a MOD.
Click to expand...


Nothing wrong with anything Enhance said whatsoever.  If he happens to agree (in theory) with a poster you disagree with, it doesn't invalidate comments you disagree with.

 
Dilly Dilly said:
Nothing wrong with anything Enhance said whatsoever.  If he happens to agree (in theory) with a poster you disagree with, it doesn't invalidate comments you disagree with.
Click to expand...


Look I realize that this is the point in the discussion where certain people rush to the defense of the MOD (for whatever reason) but you are mischaracterizing the problem I have with his comments. See: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/169/Strawman-Fallacy

I've noticed that some MODs here really call people out on their logical fallacies and other MODs apparently defend them. To each their own, but in my book a logical fallacy is a logical fallacy. Those that employ them don't know how to argue well, and those that are convinced by them don't know how to think very well.

 
It's not a rush to defend anyone.  You are hell bent on a making a point that you can't possibly prove.  With football, as in life, you can't just change one parameter and expect nothing else to change because of it.  Maybe they call plays differently at the end with it tied, or ahead by a couple, who the heck knows.     I can only say with certainty that no one here knows how things would have been different if they kicked extra points.  No one.  It put them in a hole, for sure, by missing the 2pts each time, but again, you can't just change ONE parameter to your liking and have that be the only thing that changes.  Doesn't work that way.

 
Toe said:
Still keeping tight lips on the QB race, it seems?
Click to expand...


I believe tomorrow the offensive coaches speak after practice so maybe we will learn more then.  The simple question for the coach would be "which QB got the most reps since the scrimmage."  

 
HuskerNation1 said:
I believe tomorrow the offensive coaches speak after practice so maybe we will learn more then.  The simple question for the coach would be "which QB got the most reps since the scrimmage."  
Click to expand...




They're not going to answer that, but I wouldn't be surprised if they know the top 2. They kinda need to narrow it down that much to make sure the QB starting the game has a lot of reps.

 
Sker fer life said:
Oregon went for two a lot after touchdowns,  I have to say I don't like this,  seems c$%ky to me.  Kick the extra point,  GET the 7.  There are times when its necessary,  but not after almost every touchdown. Just sayin.
Click to expand...
Oregon list to us a few years back by going for two after every touchdown. After Kelly tho

 
cheekygeek said:
That's really nice of you to spin his last post in the most charitable way possible, but what he in fact did was use a huge logical fallacy (strawman argument) to make his point (in addition to assuming that his "opponent" would argue against his strawmen). Particularly surprising/disturbing coming from a MOD.
Click to expand...
Literally the go to for anyone who doesn’t understand argumentative similarities.  Unfortunately it isn’t a huge logical fallacy.  The extra points mean exactly what?  Would they have gone for 2 again if they converted the first?  Would they have gone for 2 again if they would have they got the second one putting them back on the correct scoring structure, not wanting to take more chances?  You have no idea, none, I am glad your simple math concludes why Nebraska won.  What did happen was our players, mainly TA, went and scored more points then they did.  Then stopped them at the end of the game.  Those plays are non dependent on any 2 point conversion, scored or not scored during the course if the game.  Your lame attempt to put down my argument is just comical.  Should I think outside the box, or use more buzz words that unfortunately are overused in society, and improperly used to try argue a point.

 
Dilly Dilly said:
It's not a rush to defend anyone.  You are hell bent on a making a point that you can't possibly prove.  With football, as in life, you can't just change one parameter and expect nothing else to change because of it.  Maybe they call plays differently at the end with it tied, or ahead by a couple, who the heck knows.     I can only say with certainty that no one here knows how things would have been different if they kicked extra points.  No one.  It put them in a hole, for sure, by missing the 2pts each time, but again, you can't just change ONE parameter to your liking and have that be the only thing that changes.  Doesn't work that way.
Click to expand...
Exactly 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top