Started By
Message
re: Condoleeza picking final 4 ?
Posted on 12/9/14 at 12:51 pm to BamaGradinTn
Posted on 12/9/14 at 12:51 pm to BamaGradinTn
quote:Never once have I said she cant perform on the committee perfectly fine. I am merely arguing the notion of "how much she knows about football"
Many of your points are irrelevant.
1
Posted on 12/9/14 at 12:56 pm to Keltic Tiger
quote:
why, on some plays, a team drops back 8 players & only rushes 3.
If she said this, then she followed it up with, "when it's 3rd and 2."
Posted on 12/9/14 at 1:20 pm to BamaGradinTn
This was not something leaked from the committee; it was just part of a conversation one of ESPN's talking heads had with someone on the committee & that talking head was just repeating what he'd been told. As for me being sexist or racist...not at all. It's more along the lines of thinking along the lines of what Danielson said last wk when asked if he wanted on the committee. He said that there were "a long list" of people who actively wanted on the committee, and that it became apparent early on that politics..not the DC kind..was playing a major role in who got on. So, was she not placed on the committee because of politics? And what is more PC now than having a female, black or white, on an all white male committee? He wanted nothing do do with it.
Posted on 12/9/14 at 3:04 pm to BamaGradinTn
quote:
No, it's not. Hell, there have been successful coaches who have never played the game. Just because you have played the game doesn't mean you are knowledgeable about it either.
Wait... so you're trying to tell me that there are successful coaches out there who have never played a down of football? Now, mind you... I didn't say Division 1 football or college football. I said football.
I know Cutcliffe, O'Leary and Freeze never played college football. But Cutcliffe and Freeze BOTH played high school ball. O'Leary claims he never played a down of football, but he's also a known liar about his background.
So at most, all your argument has among active coaches is O'Leary.
Forgive me if I'm not impressed by your argument.
I happen to like Condoleeza Rice. She's even qualified to be president. I clearly am not. But I guaran-damn-tee you I know more about football than Condoleeza Rice, and a big part of that comes from having PLAYED.
Posted on 12/9/14 at 4:19 pm to SpqrTiger
quote:
SpqrTiger
Mike Leach.
quote:
But I guaran-damn-tee you I know more about football than Condoleeza Rice, and a big part of that comes from having PLAYED.
No, you don't. She has watched every meaningful game this year, and wasn't added to the committee "just because."
I have never played a down of football beyond the grade school level, and yet I'm able to make posts like this when I want to be serious and talk about football.
I think everyone in this thread is vastly overestimating how much they actually know about football.
Posted on 12/9/14 at 4:21 pm to JoeLabruzzo
I like Cunnilingus Rice. I'd take her for POTUS over hillary any day.
Posted on 12/9/14 at 4:53 pm to lsupride87
quote:
lsupride87
How many women have you met truly understand football?
quote:
Never once have I said she cant perform on the committee perfectly fine. I am merely arguing the notion of "how much she knows about football"
This is a perfect example of what we call "backtracking".Posted on 12/9/14 at 4:55 pm to Keltic Tiger
quote:
Keltic Tiger
Condoleeza picking final 4 ?
This was not something leaked from the committee; it was just part of a conversation one of ESPN's talking heads had with someone on the committee & that talking head was just repeating what he'd been told.
I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the word "leaked". Again...if anyone on that committee had leaked...oops, "conversed"...with anyone from the media, we'd be hearing about a lot more than this.
Posted on 12/9/14 at 7:07 pm to lsupride87
Her dad was a coach.
Posted on 12/9/14 at 7:23 pm to BamaGradinTn
quote:Not at all. I dont think she truly understands football, but I still think she is smart enough to perform serviceably on the committee.
This is a perfect example of what we call "backtracking".
This post was edited on 12/9/14 at 7:25 pm
Posted on 12/9/14 at 7:24 pm to observant1
quote:and your point? My dad is a lawyer and I havent got a clue what the hell is going on in the legal world
Her dad was a coach.
Posted on 12/9/14 at 7:34 pm to lsupride87
How can you possibly discern whether someone you've never met has a understanding of a sport?
If you've only met one female who understands football, then you really haven't met many intelligent females.
If you've only met one female who understands football, then you really haven't met many intelligent females.
Posted on 12/9/14 at 7:35 pm to lsupride87
quote:
lsupride87
This is getting ridiculous. What do you define as an "understanding" of football?
Posted on 12/9/14 at 7:40 pm to bamafan425
quote:What the hell does intelligence and football have to do with one another?
If you've only met one female who understands football, then you really haven't met many intelligent females.
Posted on 12/9/14 at 7:42 pm to lsupride87
quote:
I havent got a clue what the hell is going on
U said it.
Posted on 12/9/14 at 7:42 pm to SpqrTiger
quote:
But I guaran-damn-tee you I know more about football than Condoleeza Rice, and a big part of that comes from having PLAYED.
Why is this so important to you that you make wildly unsubstantiated claims? You have absolutely no idea how much or how little she knows about football. If you had a shred of real evidence about the extent of her knowledge, you'd be trumpeting and linking to it like crazy here. All you have right now is personal supposition based on a flawed premise -- that it's literally impossible for someone who hasn't played to have extensive and thorough knowledge of the topic. Unless you can present actual evidence to that effect, all this nattering is simply your ego and prejudices being tossed out here like a bad case of Internet bravado. It's possible you do know more than she does. It's also entirely possible that she'd make you look like an idiot if it came to empirical testing on the topic. But it's entirely certain that you're making yourself look like an idiot by charging ahead full speed in this debate without bothering to offer even the slightest substantive grounding for your claims.
Posted on 12/9/14 at 7:43 pm to NaturalLight00
quote:Ughh again people? I am sure she can watch games and tell who is better, she is very intelligent. the arguments started when someone said she knows "more about football then 90% of this board and men" I balked at that completely. I dont believe she could explain to me the difference in a 3-4 and a 4-3, why it is important for the defensive end to set the edge, why slot receivers get favorable matchups etc etc. I still think she is fine on the committee though
This is getting ridiculous. What do you define as an "understanding" of football?
Posted on 12/9/14 at 8:22 pm to lsupride87
quote:
balked at that completely. I dont believe she could explain to me the difference in a 3-4 and a 4-3, why it is important for the defensive end to set the edge, why slot receivers get favorable matchups etc etc.
Why don't you believe that? My sister can without any problem, and, you guessed it, she's never played football in her life.
Posted on 12/9/14 at 8:25 pm to lsupride87
quote:
I dont believe she could explain to me the difference in a 3-4 and a 4-3, why it is important for the defensive end to set the edge, why slot receivers get favorable matchups etc etc. I still think she is fine on the committee though
So, because she did not play football, she doesn't know the difference between a 3-4 and a 4-3?
Posted on 12/9/14 at 8:54 pm to lsupride87
quote:
why it is important for the defensive end to set the edge
To prevent the offense from "turning the corner" and having leverage/control on the perimeter. And it generally helps if your end is a big, physical guy too.
quote:
I dont believe she could explain to me the difference in a 3-4 and a 4-3
4-3 is four down linemen and three linebackers. 3-4 is three down lineman and four linebackers. And that's a really, really basic explanation without getting into shooting the gaps, flexibility of schemes, and etc.
quote:
why slot receivers get favorable matchups etc etc
Are you referring to the slot receiver usually being quicker than the linebacker and safety in that case? I'm curious as to what you're defining as a favorable matchup.
And I wouldn't consider myself all that knowledgable about football.
All that said, given her Dad was a football coach (and she admits spending a lot of time with him while he was coaching) then she probably has the answers you're looking for.
This post was edited on 12/9/14 at 8:54 pm
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News