The state of Notre Dame football. - Page 53

TomCollins · #**521** 11-10-2007, 12:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Great point StevieG. Claiming that Weis is not responsible for his coaches' lack of progress in development is like say Bush is in no way responsible for the actions of his cabinet.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Bobs to Charlie: "So what would you say ya do here?"

shemp · #**522** 11-10-2007, 01:13 PM

Classic.

1. Blame your predecessor.
2. Blame your staff. (Looks like we are now here)
3. Pack your bags.

And I thought we were going to make it the whole year stuck on 1.

ND didn't play a competitive quarter of football until the second half of the fifth game of the season against Purdue (after Charlie was able to heroically provide extra motivation via a tough talk)-- and it is Ty's fault.

ND gets beat by Navy coming out of a bye for the first Navy victory in the series since prior to the Kennedy assassination and it's because Charlie Weis doesn't have good assistants.

There have been years where it wouldn't have been such an embarrassment because Navy was pretty good and maybe you were flat and or some luck went their way: but this was not one of those years.

Thremp · #**523** 11-10-2007, 01:25 PM

shemp,

You make the standard logical fallacy of saying he has nothing to do with success and everything to do with failure. Your arguments are chock full of holes and you look like a fool. There is no way for a coach to be responsible for a large amount of wins. Most of the poor play is purely variance in player development. Luck causes most of the ups and downs in college and trying to explain it away is stupidity.

Can you explain to me the net value of Weis over his contract so far in wins, since it seems you position that he road Ty's "team" to wins, but now that this is "his" team (LOL @ you) he is doing horribly. Or actually just think for a second about what your saying.

shemp · #**524** 11-10-2007, 01:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]

You make the standard logical fallacy of saying he has nothing to do with success and everything to do with failure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Go ahead and show evidence for your claim about what I think. Like a single quotation. You've just accused me of the perspective that I've scrupulously avoided and explicitly noted as both unfair and typical in either this or the other Hammer-ND thread.

Read more carefully.

shemp · #**525** 11-10-2007, 01:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Can you explain to me the net value of Weis over his contract so far in wins, since it seems you position that he road Ty's "team" to wins, but now that this is "his" team (LOL @ you) he is doing horribly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you explain to me what you are asking and why, since it seems you have something to say, but what you have written is kind of like a coherent sentence (LOL @ you) although it is hard to be sure.

[ QUOTE ]
Or actually just think for a second about what your saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's kind of hard when what I actually need to be thinking about is whatever you are hearing in the echo chamber that is your head rather than what I've been saying.

shemp · #**526** 11-10-2007, 02:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You make the standard logical fallacy of saying he has nothing to do with success and everything to do with failure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Go ahead and show evidence for your claim about what I think. Like a single quotation. You've just accused me of the perspective that I've scrupulously avoided and explicitly noted as both unfair and typical in either this or the other Hammer-ND thread.

Read more carefully.

[/ QUOTE ]

For example:

I'll leave it to the fans to vacillate between being unreasonably hard on their coaches and unreasonably optimistic about them-- I watch and giggle.

You've completely misunderstood/misattributed me. I do think CW has failed this year, but I also allow that it could be a stepping stone in a great career.

This advice may prove useful to you: make your point directly rather than put it in contradistinction to someone else unless you have carefully given the fairest reading of them that you can.

bernie · #**527** 11-10-2007, 03:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
On a side note... Don't position coaches do most of the hands on development work while head coaches do most of the schemes and management issues? Granted he chooses the position coaches. But I find this whole business of attributing too much success or failure to Weis idiotic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find the whole business of how domers attribute success or failure to Weis to be contradictory and laughable. If they succeed, it's Weis and he's a genius. If they fail, it's everyone else's fault.

I still can't see why Weis is cut so much slack. He hasn't done anything notable except take ND to it's lowest level anyone can remember. Not that their's any bias or double standard in play at ND...

Go Air Force.

b

FlyWf · #**528** 11-10-2007, 03:53 PM

This thread has taken a turn to the surreal.

Gregatron · #**529** 11-10-2007, 04:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Most of the poor play is purely variance in player development. Luck causes most of the ups and downs in college and trying to explain it away is stupidity.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is either a very good level or the stupidest thing I have read on this board in a long time.

shemp · #**530** 11-10-2007, 04:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most of the poor play is purely variance in player development. Luck causes most of the ups and downs in college and trying to explain it away is stupidity.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is either a very good level or the stupidest thing I have read on this board in a long time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny. I responded to that post three times and after your quote of it here I went back and read the entire first paragraph for the first time.

The first time I only made it through the first sentence. The second I read the second paragraph, forgetting that I hadn't finished the first. I had no idea what a clinic Thremp was putting on there.

I think I'm going to need a poker analogy to understand why the unpredictable physical/emotional maturation of teenagers, injuries, and so many other things is almost entirely to blame for ND's performance this year.