Oh boy ... where do I begin? Let’s start with your name calling.
I think you called me a drama queen, a Chicken Little, a straw man and a self proclaimed victim. First, the definition of a straw man is “a weak or imaginary opposition set up only to be easily confuted” which I assume you based on my statement that “no defense can hold up if they have to play 45+ minutes every game” as was the case with Kentucky. I believe that statement to be true. You chose to construe my statement to mean all games played thus far, I did not. However, to review all games played thus far the Tennessee’s defense has averaged 36 minutes/game or 60% of the game which, in my opinion (please note this is an opinion and not a proven fact so as to avoid any future diatribes) is excessive and problematic over the course of a season. Now you may choose to consider my logic as weak which is your prerogative but your name calling was uncalled for.
I never called you a drama queen. I said that we won. People should stop creating drama and acting like Chicken littles. I also pointed out that you were basing your argument on a straw man. Now, if that wasn't what you were doing--including the effects of having to play 45 minutes *every game* as an argument why you have soured on the fast tempo--then... OK, I guess?
But I’m quickly souring on the hurry up offense because as we all know, it puts too much pressure on the defense. No defense can hold up if they have to play 45+ minutes every game.
And per the the 36 minutes. That, obviously, isn't 45 minutes. And you are welcome to your opinions. I haven't tried to rob you of your opinions. Merely underlying statements and logic that aren't valid.
My actual reply:
They haven't had to play 45+ minutes every game.
Geez, people. We won last night. Take a day off from the sky-falling, "have to create drama where none exists", chicken-little act.
And per the claim per my "name calling"... I've reread my replies to you and don't see once where I called you a name.
Since you chose to quote the Bible in your reply to me let me add these two verses for you “Luke 6:31 And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them” or how about “Colossians 4:6 Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.”
I have treated you how I like to be treated. I corrected you without once calling you a name.
You further state that I followed up my opinion by “insulting the best offense we may have ever had as a gimmick”. Maybe you should once again re-read my post as I never insulted the offense and in fact, stated that I enjoyed Tennessee’s prolific offense. Once again, you misconstrued my statement. Now back to the dictionary since you seemed to take exception to my use of the word gimmick. To quote Webster’s a gimmick is “an ingenious and usually new scheme or angle”. Once again, I believe this to be true. Like I mentioned in a subsequent post, I think the “hurry up” offense will go the way of the wishbone. It too was innovative and used successfully by a few schools but was not universally adopted and eventually faded away. In time I think we may see rule changes that hinder the hurry up style of play and ultimately it’s demise as well. Of course, I could be wrong but as I stated in my original post I was only my opinion.
A "gimmick" is most widely known as (derogatory):
gimmick
[ˈɡimik]
NOUN
gimmick (noun) ·
gimmicks (plural noun)
- a trick or device intended to attract attention, publicity, or business.
And you partially quoted the definition you wanted to use:
an ingenious or novel device, scheme, or stratagem, especially one designed to attract attention or increase appeal.
The vast majority of references to "gimmick offense" is intended as derogatory. It would appear you're the exception.
And again... Hold any opinion you like. I merely corrected the underlying logic.
i.e.
We should move away from the fast pace. It puts too much pressure on the defense. No defense can survive an opponent's TOP 45 minutes every game.
This offense hasn't done that. You've admitted that. I'm sorry, but that looks a lot like straw man, manufactured drama.
In closing you stated “now you want to play the victim card because UT fans step in to correct you”. Tell me Mr. UT fan, what proof do you have that my opinion is incorrect other than YOUR opinion and besides who appointed you to correct anything anyone says. Furthermore, you seem to believe that your lame name calling replies to me somehow constitutes a “debate”. To me it appears that you are nothing more than another example of cancel culture where absent any reasonable logical argument they resort to name calling. Geesh!
PS I always preferred Nehi to Orange Crush ... so there!
Again... I don't think ever called you a name. Not sure why you keep trying to bang that drum.
You're on a DISCUSSION forum. No one needs to appoint me to correct you. You should expect it. The problem is that repeatedly, when people would correct you or argue against your opinion, you replied back in full-on GEEZE-SHEESH! mode.
It makes you look think skinned and in full-on victim mode.
Just like your most recent response here, claiming I've been a big meany-name-caller with no right to criticize your post, when all I've really done is offer facts, point out an apparent logical fallacy, and inform you that the argument, as presented, appears to be needlessly negative and creating drama where there is none.
If you feel these interactions have been super-mean and overly ungracious, I'll stop responding.
Good evening.