What's Simple About It?

[NUance]

Okay. It’s clear that some posters on this board——maybe most posters——disagree with me. Fair enough. But IMHO if a NU sportswriter (or Internet blogger) puts out an article that can be construed as a negative article, then he’s fair game to get bashed by some poster on a Husker message board. I set forth my reasons above why I think it’s a negative slant on Beck, especially considering he’s one month into the job. And I guess if bashing some writer over what I consider to be a negative article makes me a troll or lacking an f’ing clue, well, I’ll live under that bridge.

 

[Saunders]

Okay. It’s clear that some posters on this board——maybe most posters——disagree with me. Fair enough. But IMHO if a NU sportswriter (or Internet blogger) puts out an article that can be construed as a negative article, then he’s fair game to get bashed by some poster on a Husker message board. I set forth my reasons above why I think it’s a negative slant on Beck, especially considering he’s one month into the job. And I guess if bashing some writer over what I consider to be a negative article makes me a troll or lacking an f’ing clue, well, I’ll live under that bridge.

Here's the problem. It's not a negative article in any way whatsoever. You took a few quotes and tried to turn them in to something that could barely be considered a negative point. It's an extremely simple article, and you are claiming that he's bashing Beck, without any shred of evidence. You are the only person who is somehow finding a negative tone to the article, and then you started bashing the writer.

The article can be summed up easily like this: "It's not a drastic change, and on the surface it may appear the same. It's a change in how we run the offense, not what we run."

In fact, I'd say that this article is a defense of Beck. Everyone is throwing "simple" around, which makes people think we're going to be running some High School offense. Steve points out that that isn't possible, and that "simple" is just a buzzword being overused by the Media and coaches.

 

[captain obvious]

OFFSEASON FACEPALM

 

[The Dude]

I can kinda see it from both sides. I don't think he's throwing Beck under the bus, but it's certainly not all sunshine. Somewhere in the middle.

 

[NUance]

Okay. It’s clear that some posters on this board——maybe most posters——disagree with me. Fair enough. But IMHO if a NU sportswriter (or Internet blogger) puts out an article that can be construed as a negative article, then he’s fair game to get bashed by some poster on a Husker message board. I set forth my reasons above why I think it’s a negative slant on Beck, especially considering he’s one month into the job. And I guess if bashing some writer over what I consider to be a negative article makes me a troll or lacking an f’ing clue, well, I’ll live under that bridge.

Here's the problem. It's not a negative article in any way whatsoever. You took a few quotes and tried to turn them in to something that could barely be considered a negative point. It's an extremely simple article, and you are claiming that he's bashing Beck, without any shred of evidence. You are the only person who is somehow finding a negative tone to the article, and then you started bashing the writer.

The article can be summed up easily like this: "It's not a drastic change, and on the surface it may appear the same. It's a change in how we run the offense, not what we run."

In fact, I'd say that this article is a defense of Beck. Everyone is throwing "simple" around, which makes people think we're going to be running some High School offense. Steve points out that that isn't possible, and that "simple" is just a buzzword being overused by the Media and coaches.

You just won’t let it rest, will ya? Fine, I’ll come over to your side then. Scoot over a bit so I can hang onto Steve Ryan’s nucksack like you do, slurping up every dingleberry article the guy pulls out of his a$$.

 

[ADS]

Okay. It’s clear that some posters on this board——maybe most posters——disagree with me. Fair enough. But IMHO if a NU sportswriter (or Internet blogger) puts out an article that can be construed as a negative article, then he’s fair game to get bashed by some poster on a Husker message board. I set forth my reasons above why I think it’s a negative slant on Beck, especially considering he’s one month into the job. And I guess if bashing some writer over what I consider to be a negative article makes me a troll or lacking an f’ing clue, well, I’ll live under that bridge.

Here's the problem. It's not a negative article in any way whatsoever. You took a few quotes and tried to turn them in to something that could barely be considered a negative point. It's an extremely simple article, and you are claiming that he's bashing Beck, without any shred of evidence. You are the only person who is somehow finding a negative tone to the article, and then you started bashing the writer.

The article can be summed up easily like this: "It's not a drastic change, and on the surface it may appear the same. It's a change in how we run the offense, not what we run."

In fact, I'd say that this article is a defense of Beck. Everyone is throwing "simple" around, which makes people think we're going to be running some High School offense. Steve points out that that isn't possible, and that "simple" is just a buzzword being overused by the Media and coaches.

You just won’t let it rest, will ya? Fine, I’ll come over to your side then. Scoot over a bit so I can hang onto Steve Ryan’s nucksack like you do, slurping up every dingleberry article the guy pulls out of his a$$.

Possibly the single funniest thing I have ever read. :laughpound

 

[kchusker_chris]

I tried to read the article so I could see what you two were fighting over - fell alseep about half way through, woke up to him talking about Sally. I was dreaming about a Jenny. I now think Beck is suposed to incorporate a Jenny in there somewhere.

PS: The article sucked balls. Who cares what was said (written). Positive, negative...pathetic. He should write for Bleacher Report.

 

[Lyons in the Sea of Red.]

Okay. It’s clear that some posters on this board——maybe most posters——disagree with me. Fair enough. But IMHO if a NU sportswriter (or Internet blogger) puts out an article that can be construed as a negative article, then he’s fair game to get bashed by some poster on a Husker message board. I set forth my reasons above why I think it’s a negative slant on Beck, especially considering he’s one month into the job. And I guess if bashing some writer over what I consider to be a negative article makes me a troll or lacking an f’ing clue, well, I’ll live under that bridge.

Here's the problem. It's not a negative article in any way whatsoever. You took a few quotes and tried to turn them in to something that could barely be considered a negative point. It's an extremely simple article, and you are claiming that he's bashing Beck, without any shred of evidence. You are the only person who is somehow finding a negative tone to the article, and then you started bashing the writer.

The article can be summed up easily like this: "It's not a drastic change, and on the surface it may appear the same. It's a change in how we run the offense, not what we run."

In fact, I'd say that this article is a defense of Beck. Everyone is throwing "simple" around, which makes people think we're going to be running some High School offense. Steve points out that that isn't possible, and that "simple" is just a buzzword being overused by the Media and coaches.

You just won’t let it rest, will ya? Fine, I’ll come over to your side then. Scoot over a bit so I can hang onto Steve Ryan’s nucksack like you do, slurping up every dingleberry article the guy pulls out of his a$$.

Hahahaha, winner.

 

[Saunders]

Okay. It’s clear that some posters on this board——maybe most posters——disagree with me. Fair enough. But IMHO if a NU sportswriter (or Internet blogger) puts out an article that can be construed as a negative article, then he’s fair game to get bashed by some poster on a Husker message board. I set forth my reasons above why I think it’s a negative slant on Beck, especially considering he’s one month into the job. And I guess if bashing some writer over what I consider to be a negative article makes me a troll or lacking an f’ing clue, well, I’ll live under that bridge.

Here's the problem. It's not a negative article in any way whatsoever. You took a few quotes and tried to turn them in to something that could barely be considered a negative point. It's an extremely simple article, and you are claiming that he's bashing Beck, without any shred of evidence. You are the only person who is somehow finding a negative tone to the article, and then you started bashing the writer.

The article can be summed up easily like this: "It's not a drastic change, and on the surface it may appear the same. It's a change in how we run the offense, not what we run."

In fact, I'd say that this article is a defense of Beck. Everyone is throwing "simple" around, which makes people think we're going to be running some High School offense. Steve points out that that isn't possible, and that "simple" is just a buzzword being overused by the Media and coaches.

You just won’t let it rest, will ya? Fine, I’ll come over to your side then. Scoot over a bit so I can hang onto Steve Ryan’s nucksack like you do, slurping up every dingleberry article the guy pulls out of his a$$.

Ok Sean.