Just watched the Oregon vs. New Mexico Highlights...

#101
#101
Bumi said:
Well aren't you full of yourself. :birgits_giggle:

Of course posters found issue with my post, I'm not only a fan of Oregon, but also a heated rival. UT happens to play them both in the coming weeks, so tension amongst fans is high. I don't expect everyone to be rationale and cordial, hostility is the nature of fandom. Doesn't mean there's nor your own frustrations were warranted. My post had merit, as you've already admitted.

As for your theatrics? I must admit, I did get hardy chuckle out of them. Sadly, rolling out the good ole thesaurus was unnecessary, as your grammatical fortitude doesn't make you any more right than your initial misplaced response. You could paint these forums with words akin to Shakespeare; You're still wrong.

Considering this isn't a philosophical debate, lessons in Epictetus's theories of stoicism would prove irrelevant in this arena. What you're looking for would be debate itself, or something involving communications. :thumbsup:

But I agree, this conversation is finished.
Click to expand...

First of all, you throwin' too many big words at me, and because I don't understand them, I'm gonna take 'em as disrespect.
 
#102
#102
ZDuck75 said:
lol so if UO wins, does that mean tennessee is a 'down' SEC team?
Click to expand...

If UO wins that means that they beat a 'down' Tennessee team. The fact that we're playing UO doesn't have any effect on whether or not we're an 'up' or 'down' team.

Fact is that we've been 'down' more than 'up' over the last six or seven years and we're just not used to it. We're a 'down' team based on where we've been for the last couple of decades.

if tennessee wins, then you'll all crow about how good you are
Click to expand...

No. But I'll be crowing about one of three things:

(1) we beat a good (but not #7) UO team and we're not nearly as bad as we had thought;
(2) we beat a highly overated UO team (if we kill you - not likely) and we still don't know how good we are; or (3) We got lucky to beat UO and I'll take it.

ps thanks for onterrio!
Click to expand...

Thank his addiction to weed. The kid was a good back and we hated to seem him booted. Landed in the land of good weed though, as I understand it....:)
 
Last edited:
#105
#105
TennTakedown said:
I'll tell you till I'm blue in the face that Simms has a LONG way to go before we start puttin him in the same column as former UT QB's. But our QB showed he can be just that, not a glorified scat back. Even Darren Mcfadden can throw a screen pass or a short slant across the middle...that doesn't mean he should've been playing QB.
Click to expand...

Thomas didn't run, actually.

Simms: 14, 24, 181, 1 TD 0 int.
Thomas: 13, 23, 220, 2 TDs 1 int.
 
#107
#107
TheGreenCloaca said:
Thomas didn't run, actually.

Simms: 14, 24, 181, 1 TD 0 int.
Thomas: 13, 23, 220, 2 TDs 1 int.
Click to expand...

like I said, even Darren Mcfadden can throw screens and the occasional slant across the middle on an absent D. So how many of those passes were slants and screens?
 
#108
#108
TennTakedown said:
like I said, even Darren Mcfadden can throw screens and the occasional slant across the middle on an absent D. So how many of those passes were slants and screens?
Click to expand...

Thomas throws a pretty nice deep ball -- better than Masoli. His mid-range stuff gets away from him from time to time. I'm more curious about his running game than his passing game.

YouTube - New Mexico Lobos Vs Oregon Ducks, 9-4-10 2:02 .. a little after that, he throws a nice ball to Jeff Maehl.

Thomas vs. BSU/Wilcox:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iikG-6lKic0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lIqWX_Bqx4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWeYJT8Gnwc&feature=related


"So how many of those passes were slants and screens?"

You might as well start *****ing about Oregon not employing a fullback.
 
Last edited:
#109
#109
Bumi said:
Well aren't you full of yourself. :birgits_giggle:

Of course posters found issue with my post, I'm not only a fan of Oregon, but also a heated rival. UT happens to play them both in the coming weeks, so tension amongst fans is high. I don't expect everyone to be rationale and cordial, hostility is the nature of fandom. Doesn't mean there's nor your own frustrations were warranted. My post had merit, as you've already admitted.

As for your theatrics? I must admit, I did get hardy chuckle out of them. Sadly, rolling out the good ole thesaurus was unnecessary, as your grammatical fortitude doesn't make you any more right than your initial misplaced response. You could paint these forums with words akin to Shakespeare; You're still wrong.

Considering this isn't a philosophical debate, lessons in Epictetus's theories of stoicism would prove irrelevant in this arena. What you're looking for would be debate itself, or something involving communications. :thumbsup:

But I agree, this conversation is finished.
Click to expand...

Search my post history. I'm not an anti-rival poster, I'm an anti-fail-post poster. You're welcome to check my post history as a reference. Also I wouldn't exactly say I used any theatrics. My arguments were concise, they just contained a lot of content.

Just to let you realize how dumb you are, I will, for the last time, comprehensively and fundamentally break down why you are wrong.

Your Revised Argument/Explaination:

Your argument that Florida in 2010 is less creative and effective than Oregon in 2010 is valid, but irrelevant in the context of the conversation. No one was comparing the Oregon offense to the Florida 2010 offense, because we have not played them. While the claim that Oregon will be better may be true, it is also wholly irrelevantly and thus an invalid counter-argument to the original statement.

The original scenario:

The original argument was a statement that claimed that UT had experience against the speed-option style spread used by Oregon due to the similarities and talent used in the Florida spread-attack, which in the past UT has played against. They will not be wide-eyed and confused was the argument.

Your flawed counter-argument:

What you said was that Florida was not as creative or effective as Florida's spread. The only logical inference, since we established what you "meant" to say was irrelevant anyways, was that said experience against Florida was irrelevant because Oregon has been running a spread option at a higher level.

Why what you said must be inferred as a counter-argument:

The reason that your post had to infer this is because it is the only logical counter-argument available for use given the statements you posted. It must have infer that Oregon's spread was superior because it, by it's very nature, is a counter-argument. A counter-argument is a set of statements disputing the validity or claims of another argument (the post you replied to). Thus the purpose of the creative/effective post you made was to discredit his claim for whatever reason you made up (they eat more or whatever it would be, the reasoning is irrelevant in this argument).

This matters because you claimed to be correct:

Since you insist you're right we'll say it is established that your post was a counter-argument and thus representable by the logically explained inference of my post. The problem is that the information you intended to post (the 2010 comparison) was even more invalid than saying Oregon was better from 07-09 (which you admit to not being the case). Thus your post was a failure because it was wrong, which is why you incurred such a negative response from posters.

For the record, basic level philosophy classes (which I suggested for you) emphasize critical thinking, argument/counter-argument concept, structure, and the line of thought used to construct and break down major philosophical beliefs as much if not more so than they actually focus on what those philosophies were. This is obviously what I was referencing, as it was the only logical (notice this word is coming up a lot) conclusion to draw from my statement.
 
#110
#110
OrangeDust said:
Search my post history. I'm not an anti-rival poster, I'm an anti-fail-post poster. You're welcome to check my post history as a reference. Also I wouldn't exactly say I used any theatrics. My arguments were concise, they just contained a lot of content.

Just to let you realize how dumb you are, I will, for the last time, comprehensively and fundamentally break down why you are wrong.

Your Revised Argument/Explaination:

Your argument that Florida in 2010 is less creative and effective than Oregon in 2010 is valid, but irrelevant in the context of the conversation. No one was comparing the Oregon offense to the Florida 2010 offense, because we have not played them. While the claim that Oregon will be better may be true, it is also wholly irrelevantly and thus an invalid counter-argument to the original statement.

The original scenario:

The original argument was a statement that claimed that UT had experience against the speed-option style spread used by Oregon due to the similarities and talent used in the Florida spread-attack, which in the past UT has played against. They will not be wide-eyed and confused was the argument.

Your flawed counter-argument:

What you said was that Florida was not as creative or effective as Florida's spread. The only logical inference, since we established what you "meant" to say was irrelevant anyways, was that said experience against Florida was irrelevant because Oregon has been running a spread option at a higher level.

Why what you said must be inferred as a counter-argument:

The reason that your post had to infer this is because it is the only logical counter-argument available for use given the statements you posted. It must have infer that Oregon's spread was superior because it, by it's very nature, is a counter-argument. A counter-argument is a set of statements disputing the validity or claims of another argument (the post you replied to). Thus the purpose of the creative/effective post you made was to discredit his claim for whatever reason you made up (they eat more or whatever it would be, the reasoning is irrelevant in this argument).

This matters because you claimed to be correct:

Since you insist you're right we'll say it is established that your post was a counter-argument and thus representable by the logically explained inference of my post. The problem is that the information you intended to post (the 2010 comparison) was even more invalid than saying Oregon was better from 07-09 (which you admit to not being the case). Thus your post was a failure because it was wrong, which is why you incurred such a negative response from posters.

For the record, basic level philosophy classes (which I suggested for you) emphasize critical thinking, argument/counter-argument concept, structure, and the line of thought used to construct and break down major philosophical beliefs as much if not more so than they actually focus on what those philosophies were. This is obviously what I was referencing, as it was the only logical (notice this word is coming up a lot) conclusion to draw from my statement.
Click to expand...

Oh wow... I didn't even bother to read all that. You're doing too much, and trying too hard.


You win. :eek:k:
 
#113
#113
ZDuck75 said:
heh, what makes you think the ducks are gonna open theirs? We dont need our young qb to be lights out. Even without misdirection and option reads, your teams defense would be very hard pressed to stop the tandem of LMJ and Barner.

CK looks at OOC games as warmups for the real action, which is conference play. We, as duck fans, all want to see another win over an SEC, albeit a down SEC team, but really this game dosnt mean anything to the ducks. The pac10 conference title is the real prize. We win the pac, we go to the rose bowl. Nobody can take that from you. The NC is voted on anyway, not played for, you know it, and i know it... even if you think i'm an idiot. just because the SEC team (see: Tebow) have been the beneficiary of a beauty contest dosnt mean they've always deserved it. But the Rose Bowl, well rankings and polls cant keep you out of it. If you win, you're in.

There's too many people out there that feel the way alot of you do about the ducks (or anything thats different, for that matter) so we know we're never gonna get a title shot. Your past seems to trump any modern accomplishments of a team like the ducks, and the ducks past apparently dictates that they arent allowed to be considered 'good'.

its a nice little hypocrisy you got goin, but its workin for ya...

all that bein said, i still think this will be a good game, hard fought, with a few momentum swings, and the mighty ducks of oregon finally prevailing. Then, if you guys hold your end of the bargain, you'll win the SEC, and maybe we'll play again, later...

Good luck Vols!

GO DUCKS!!!
Click to expand...

This is the most idiotic post I've seen in a LONG time. If you lose this game, you are out of the BCS championship picture, period. But I'm sure all you Duck fans would rather win the Rose bowl than the BCS.
 
#115
#115
Bumi said:
And if people weren't high on Oregon's game last week, this game wouldn't be receiving much hype. It's a double edged sword, after the game, win or lose, you wont have to hear about it any longer.
Click to expand...

I haven't noticed Duck fans in this forum gloating about our win last week much. If anything, it's just constantly repeated in PAC-10 online media sources.
So if that's annoying anyone, don't go read the articles.

Any teams' media coverage is going to consistently re-hash last week game data regardless of specifics.

And i can tell you from the Oregon frontlines, Nobody is making it a big deal. It was fun to see records broken, but nobody here is denying the far inferior opponent, nor are they in anyway carrying on about it, or assuming that the game against the Vols will be any sort of similar game.

We respect this game, we are unsure of what to expect from this game, we respect the talent; albeit young talent mostly. And we respect the intangibles, and the athletes. Our coaches, fans (mature ones), and players are not on our highhorse after last weeks win. We just don't have a large salvo of complaints about our teams' performance. We just also cant apply the performance to the any expectations about playing the Vols.
 
#116
#116
the.one.the.only said:
we could've scored 72 points if we had started every drive from the UTM 30 like oregon did
Click to expand...

We could have scored 72 regardless of field position. CJC and DD took the foot off the gas half way through the 2 quarter..and started vanilla play calling and just wanted to see if simms could manage the game and he did.
 
#117
#117
Bumi said:
Dude, come on; neither New Mexico or Tennessee Martin are world beaters, and wins against them were meaningless. Lets just take the wins for what they were, and get ready for saturday.
Click to expand...
We take our victories where we can get them Go Vols.
 
#120
#120
ZoneReadFTW said:
I haven't noticed Duck fans in this forum gloating about our win last week much. If anything, it's just constantly repeated in PAC-10 online media sources.
So if that's annoying anyone, don't go read the articles.

Any teams' media coverage is going to consistently re-hash last week game data regardless of specifics.

And i can tell you from the Oregon frontlines, Nobody is making it a big deal. It was fun to see records broken, but nobody here is denying the far inferior opponent, nor are they in anyway carrying on about it, or assuming that the game against the Vols will be any sort of similar game.

We respect this game, we are unsure of what to expect from this game, we respect the talent; albeit young talent mostly. And we respect the intangibles, and the athletes. Our coaches, fans (mature ones), and players are not on our highhorse after last weeks win. We just don't have a large salvo of complaints about our teams' performance. We just also cant apply the performance to the any expectations about playing the Vols.
Click to expand...

Then you havent been here long...I think you guys are dismissing the fact that NM was 1-11 last year...but keep bragging it makes you guys look even more stupid
 
#121
#121
TennTakedown said:
someone finally gets me lol...I type 90 wpm but its not very accurate, so I have a lot of "errors" lol. I usually catch em and go back and fix em though but I think I'm just gonna leave that one alone.
Click to expand...
Dude... You made that exact same error twice. Twice! It's a little bit of a stretch to ask us to believe that it was just a typing "error" that you didn't catch.

No big deal, dude... Just take it and move on tho. It's only noteworthy because you you misspelled the word that you were using to call someone else out. It's funnier when that happens.
 
#122
#122
OrangeDust said:
Search my post history. I'm not an anti-rival poster, I'm an anti-fail-post poster. You're welcome to check my post history as a reference. Also I wouldn't exactly say I used any theatrics. My arguments were concise, they just contained a lot of content.

Just to let you realize how dumb you are, I will, for the last time, comprehensively and fundamentally break down why you are wrong.

Your Revised Argument/Explaination:

Your argument that Florida in 2010 is less creative and effective than Oregon in 2010 is valid, but irrelevant in the context of the conversation. No one was comparing the Oregon offense to the Florida 2010 offense, because we have not played them. While the claim that Oregon will be better may be true, it is also wholly irrelevantly and thus an invalid counter-argument to the original statement.

The original scenario:

The original argument was a statement that claimed that UT had experience against the speed-option style spread used by Oregon due to the similarities and talent used in the Florida spread-attack, which in the past UT has played against. They will not be wide-eyed and confused was the argument.

Your flawed counter-argument:

What you said was that Florida was not as creative or effective as Florida's spread. The only logical inference, since we established what you "meant" to say was irrelevant anyways, was that said experience against Florida was irrelevant because Oregon has been running a spread option at a higher level.

Why what you said must be inferred as a counter-argument:

The reason that your post had to infer this is because it is the only logical counter-argument available for use given the statements you posted. It must have infer that Oregon's spread was superior because it, by it's very nature, is a counter-argument. A counter-argument is a set of statements disputing the validity or claims of another argument (the post you replied to). Thus the purpose of the creative/effective post you made was to discredit his claim for whatever reason you made up (they eat more or whatever it would be, the reasoning is irrelevant in this argument).

This matters because you claimed to be correct:

Since you insist you're right we'll say it is established that your post was a counter-argument and thus representable by the logically explained inference of my post. The problem is that the information you intended to post (the 2010 comparison) was even more invalid than saying Oregon was better from 07-09 (which you admit to not being the case). Thus your post was a failure because it was wrong, which is why you incurred such a negative response from posters.

For the record, basic level philosophy classes (which I suggested for you) emphasize critical thinking, argument/counter-argument concept, structure, and the line of thought used to construct and break down major philosophical beliefs as much if not more so than they actually focus on what those philosophies were. This is obviously what I was referencing, as it was the only logical (notice this word is coming up a lot) conclusion to draw from my statement.
Click to expand...

Hopefully the Orange Dust will settle.
 
#123
#123
Bumi said:
In all honesty, I haven't the slightest idea what your issue is or was with my original post. It seems you wished to find issues where none existed.

I never made a comment on what Oregon or Florida would or could do to UT's defense, as both are unknowns. I simply made the point that Oregon runs a more innovative and effective version of the spread than Florida does; which for the time being rings true.
Click to expand...
The issue is context. The context is that we are used to playing fast spread option teams, note the FL team that won multiple championships. You took issue with that per Oregon, then keyed the argument in on Florida's current team, which we haven't played. And even if we had played them, it still does not erase the fact that we have played the FL championship teams.

Get it now? We've been swimming in the big pool for a while. Don't expect us to pee ourselves and run for cover when we see your little upstarts flying our way.
 
#124
#124
Bumi said:
Clearly, I'm not talking about the Florida of 07 & 08, as both squads were littered with NFL talent and a coaching staff that'd been together for years. The Gators no longer have that luxury, and at this point, Steve Addazio hasn't proven he can attain similar successes with his schemes and play calling.

Now again, Oregon IS NOT Florida, nor did I ever make such an assertion. They aren't as talented, they aren't as storied a program, they're in an inferior conference, etc. But all that has little bearing on my claims. No matter which way you cut it, Chip Kelly is a better play caller than Steve Addazio. Anyone who dares argue otherwise has never watched either team play.
Click to expand...

Dang. I know this is a bit of a late reply to your post from last night, but just to clarify something you said: Are you implying that Oregon is a storied program to some degree? Because that is certainly not the case at all. They may become a storied program some day, but they are definitely not anywhere near that level of respect right now. I believe I posted once before that Dooley's first team, La Tech, has a higher all-time winning percentage than Oregon does. Again, just to clarify.
 
#125
#125
I do think that OU might have just whooped a team that UT Martin could beat. Those rose colored glasses won't be so rosey after SAT.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top