I think you missed the point.. I understood his point. I was wrong earlier in this thread to only look at the OP when judging the reactions of some here. And I have been critical of our QB so when people lumped me in with the OP I was offended and actually thought the harsh characterizations of critics was what caused this thread to derail.
That was crazy, how it seemed like they knew exactly what play we were running and exact;y what our blocking scheme was for the play. Happened several times. I wonder if RU changed up how we signal the plays after that.
Well- only way I see it is if you were as much trash in your profession as this very young nan is in his, you would not be posting here. I am going to bet that this 20ish young man is at least 100-1000 more times successful at what he does then you are at what you do.
There were a couple of cases where down/distance indicated the type of D to go with.. and we call a play that did not account for that at all. That is, we call a play that might work on 2nd and short or even a 1st down (play-fake type play) when no one will buy the fake because a run would not be called for in that situation. Was very strange... and, unfortunately, I recall something along those lines happening last year in a very important spot.
lol, put whatever you are drinking down. I was agreeing with you and responding to him!
You can ensure us? If you do it twice, would you be reinsuring us?
What defines success? Guessing that to him it means monetary success, which is an extremely poor measure success. And how does one compare corporate success to football success? Seems like an apples and oranges comparison. But this is a great thread derail, and a more interesting topic of discussion.
This is simply not true. More like - they’ve all collectively agreed that Gleeson will prep a game plan with a bag full of design plays intended to exploit the defense based on the film. The team rehearses those plays at practice and understands the situations in which they’d likely be used. It’s all about match ups and scouting reports. Sometimes more aggressive situational calls will be built into the weekly plan. Other times not. What you won’t likely see is us adjusting on the fly and just “trying something different” that we hadn’t focused on during the week unless we’re already behind. That’s not how Schiano works - he’s a planner and Gleeson surely knew that coming in.
He will never be a "successful" cunning linguist.He is trash when it comes to word usage.
It doesn’t matter who I am but the worst D1 college QB is most likely one of the top 200-300 people in the world at what he does.
Spot on. Can take it a step further. Each drive has its own identity. For example, you cannot compare the defense Ohio is up against down 29-9 with 5 minutes to go in a game or even down 22-6 in Q4 to what RU faced from the same team in a nail biter. Syracuse would’ve been playing deliberate “bend don’t break” style to ride out the clock vs Ohio in the second half.
I mean If I was sitting next to him, I wouldn't call him trash, but I would say, I think its time to move on, QB ain't your thing
Not the most unholiest of insults, is it?
Is your successful career, by any chance, professional metaphor mixer?
Really? Well Art is 1-2 as a starter at Illinois and Rutgers is sitting at 2-0. I think I would take the 2-0 record with Vedral and no turnovers.
Yes you are more successful…..at being a prick. When someone has to assure us how successful they are that usually means they really aren’t as well off as they would like people to believe.
Art is actually 0-2 as a starter. He did not start the Nebraska game.
Hopefully the OP is using this thread as a learning experience, as opposed to feeling insulted. The irony being that he's the one advocating for people skipping right past "political correctness" to "calling it like we see it".
