The official Oregon Ducks thread (merged)

[FREE EARL]

In other words, no, you can't point to any instance where I have done what you claimed. Thank you.

Ok, I'll bite. :yes:

A few weeks ago you were gloating about how had knowledge of how Sagarin's ratings work(yes, the hidden one), the formula, and how he came to his conclusions. Because of this, I asked you to break down and explain to me how Illinois finished above Duke using Sagarin's rating system. You skipped the post entirely. :yes:

Perhaps you are not aware of what a forum is. Threads are not question and answer sessions between the OP and the various posters. They are an open conversation amongst a group of people.

Your statement was not clear. Given your previous allusions to things that do not exist, I think it is reasonable for another poster to need clarification in order to know what your point was. In other words, the idea that Oregon and Oklahoma have "the" same offense is an idea that would fit right next to your other wild assertions.

You're trying to hard Pete. You were out of place, and you were called on it. Accept it and move on.

The thread was specifically about no huddle offenses. I responded in context. Period.

Is this not a thread about Oregon?

No; The original thread, before it was merged with this one, wasn't. It was about the effectiveness of no huddle offenses and why more teams don't employ them. Keep up.

I take it that you think Oregon doesn't have good players and you disagree with rjd970 that having good players can make a system look good.

For the most part, outside of 2 or 3 players, Oregon is a team composed of mediocre talent who's abilities are maximized by Kelly's system. Hence the reason not a single upperclassmen from Oregon's team is projected to be a first day draft pick, and the reason Frost thinks the Ducks program will be much improved once they begin reeling in elite talent.

By the way Pete, don't respond to this post, I probably wont respond. Going in circles with you has grown stale, and I no longer wish to exert the time or effort to point out the obvious(Referring to no huddle offenses in threads about no huddle offenses). Go ahead and gloat, beat your chest, etc. Just know I likely wont be reading nor responding.

 

[wheaton4prez]

Ok, I'll bite. :yes:

A few weeks ago you were gloating about how had knowledge of how Sagarin's ratings work(yes, the hidden one), the formula, and how he came to his conclusions. Because of this, I asked you to break down and explain to me how Illinois finished above Duke using Sagarin's rating system. You skipped the post entirely. :yes:

Me choosing not to answer some of your questions or statements is not an example of me missing some previous point or information.

I'm not going to bother digging up the post you are bringing up. Most likely, I felt that I addressed your question in response to another part of your post and was trying to shorten the correspondance. If it was about basketball, I did reply that I don't follow basketball that closely and couldn't speak to the specifics of it.

You're trying to hard Pete. You were out of place, and you were called on it. Accept it and move on.

The thread was specifically about no huddle offenses. I responded in context. Period.

No huddle offenses are not an offense the way you referred to it. You will have to forgive me for reading your statement in the grammatically correct way.

No; The original thread, before it was merged with this one, wasn't. It was about the effectiveness of no huddle offenses and why more teams don't employ them. Keep up.

In other words, you could have just manned up, saved myself and anyone else who read this time by simply writing "Sorry. I meant the no-huddle aspect rather than the entire offense as my statement read."

For the most part, outside of 2 or 3 players, Oregon is a team composed of mediocre talent who's abilities are maximized by Kelly's system. Hence the reason not a single upperclassmen from Oregon's team is projected to be a first day draft pick, and the reason Frost thinks the Ducks program will be much improved once they begin reeling in elite talent.

At least now I understand the nature of your error. You seem to think that the ultimate objective in college football is not to win the national championship but to be the team that sends the most players to the NFL.

I guess we have to define good at what. I mean good at playing college football. Not good at eventually playing NFL football.

If winning games and being highly ranked are not measures of playing good college football, I don't know what else is.

 

[FREE EARL]

Me choosing not to answer some of your questions or statements is not an example of me missing some previous point or information.

I'm not going to bother digging up the post you are bringing up. Most likely, I felt that I addressed your question in response to another part of your post and was trying to shorten the correspondance. If it was about basketball, I did reply that I don't follow basketball that closely and couldn't speak to the specifics of it

*I've decided to go against my word an continue on with this conversation. Why? Making Wheat look silly has become an enjoyable past time.*

Again, you're trying too hard Peter. You asked for me to point out an instance, I did so. Move on.

No huddle offenses are not an offense the way you referred to it. You will have to forgive me for reading your statement in the grammatically correct way.

In other words, you could have just manned up, saved myself and anyone else who read this time by simply writing "Sorry. I meant the no-huddle aspect rather than the entire offense as my statement read."

Again, you're trying to hard. Continuing on for no other reason but to see yourself post. Everybody with the exception of yourself understood that I was referring to a no huddle offense, in a thread dedicated to no huddle offenses. Keep up next time. :thumbsup:

At least now I understand the nature of your error. You seem to think that the ultimate objective in college football is not to win the national championship but to be the team that sends the most players to the NFL.

Oregon hasn't been successful doing either. And for a ton of kids, the ultimate objective of playing collegiate football is to go to the league. :yes:

I guess we have to define good at what. I mean good at playing college football. Not good at eventually playing NFL football.

Define it as you will. In my book, good players, or rather elite talents, go on to play in the NFL(for the most part). System players careers end once they graduate.

E.g. Mike Leach era Texas Tech.(But I've come to learn you don't watch football that doesn't involve Oregon)

If winning games and being highly ranked are not measures of playing good college football, I don't know what else is.

And now you're coloring outside the lines. No one ever claimed Oregon doesn't play good football. Kelly has done a fine job recruiting players that fit his system, and as a result, has been very successful. However, the overall talent level of the team is teetering on mediocre. The Ducks have a few good players, but for the most part, the team is composed of average talents.

 

[wheaton4prez]

*I've decided to go against my word an continue on with this conversation. Why? Making Wheat look silly has become an enjoyable past time.*

Again, you're trying too hard Peter. You asked for me to point out an instance, I did so. Move on.

If you think that saying you aren't going to reply and then immediately doing so makes me look silly, the joke is on you.

I assure you, if I don't reply to everything you write, it is by choice. If you are now saying that is what you were previously referring to, then yes, you got me. You do write things that I deem not worthy of responding to. Is that supposed to be a bad thing?

Again, you're trying to hard. Continuing on for no other reason but to see yourself post. Everybody with the exception of yourself understood that I was referring to a no huddle offense, in a thread dedicated to no huddle offenses. Keep up next time. :thumbsup:

Maybe others are more familiar with your poor grammar than I am. Again, forgive me for giving you the benefit of the doubt and not editing your bad sentences as I go.

Oregon hasn't been successful doing either. And for a ton of kids, the ultimate objective of playing collegiate football is to go to the league. :yes:

Right. However, they have been relatively closer to that mark than most other teams over the last several years. I would say that ranking in the top 25 amongst over 100 teams qualifies as "good".

Define it as you will. In my book, good players, or rather elite talents, go on to play in the NFL(for the most part). System players careers end once they graduate.

Being a good college player does not always translate into being a good NFL player. There are many examples of this.

I'm talking about being a good college player as in helping your team win college football games.

E.g. Mike Leach era Texas Tech.(But I've come to learn you don't watch football that doesn't involve Oregon)

Can you point to where and how you "learned" this specifically?

And now you're coloring outside the lines. No one ever claimed Oregon doesn't play good football. Kelly has done a fine job recruiting players that fit his system, and as a result, has been very successful. However, the overall talent level of the team is teetering on mediocre. The Ducks have a few good players, but for the most part, the team is composed of average talents.

Based on what? Star ratings?

Excuse me for basing my evaluation that Oregon has a lot of good players on things like results on the field and stats.

 

[milohimself]

Still not reading this thread... Ugh.

However, driving home from class at PSU tonight, I noticed the Morrison Bridge lit up in purple and gold. I lol'd hard.

 

[FREE EARL]

If you think that saying you aren't going to reply and then immediately doing so makes me look silly, the joke is on you.

Ok Pete.

I assure you, if I don't reply to everything you write, it is by choice. If you are now saying that is what you were previously referring to, then yes, you got me. You do write things that I deem not worthy of responding to. Is that supposed to be a bad thing?

You didn't reply because you didn't have an answer. So instead of admitting you didn't know, you ignored the post. It's that simple.

Maybe others are more familiar with your poor grammar than I am. Again, forgive me for giving you the benefit of the doubt and not editing your bad sentences as I go.

Sure fire sign that someone's getting abused in a discussion. Grammar patrol. :thumbsup:

(though I don't know where exactly my grammar was flawed, but whatever)

Right. However, they have been relatively closer to that mark than most other teams over the last several years. I would say that ranking in the top 25 amongst over 100 teams qualifies as "good".

No part of your post conflicts with my own.

Being a good college player does not always translate into being a good NFL player. There are many examples of this.

I'm talking about being a good college player as in helping your team win college football games

Though being a good college player doesn't always translate to the next level, being a good college player who isn't deemed a "system player", gets you drafted. There are many examples of this. :yes:

Can you point to where and how you "learned" this specifically?

Your lack of knowledge of all things college football outside of Oregon? :ermm:

Based on what? Star ratings?

Excuse me for basing my evaluation that Oregon has a lot of good players on things like results on the field and stats.

No, based on the fact that the staff believes they need to recruit better players, coupled with the lack of NFL prospects on the roster.

Winning games doesn't always mean you have a talent laden roster. It can sometimes be attributed to the system a team utilizes. See 07 Hawaii, 08 Texas Tech, Boise State, etc.

 

[wheaton4prez]

Still not reading this thread... Ugh.

However, driving home from class at PSU tonight, I noticed the Morrison Bridge lit up in purple and gold. I lol'd hard.

Yeah. They pulled that one last year too. Was pretty clever in hindsight. Now that they basically don't have a chance to win it seems like a waste of money.

You didn't reply because you didn't have an answer. So instead of admitting you didn't know, you ignored the post. It's that simple.

*sigh*

If I had a dime for every question or point I have made in our exchange that you didn't answer, I'd be at least $59.99 richer.

Go ahead and post any question or statement you have made that you think I don't have an answer to. I will take a look and let you know.

Sure fire sign that someone's getting abused in a discussion. Grammar patrol. :thumbsup:

Not when the grammar is the cause of the misunderstanding. I responded to a correct reading of your own sentence and you're acting like I did something wrong to interpret what you wrote in English.

(though I don't know where exactly my grammar was flawed, but whatever)

I KNOW! That's the problem.

Though being a good college player doesn't always translate to the next level, being a good college player who isn't deemed a "system player", gets you drafted. There are many examples of this. :yes:

Didn't I already clarify that this is not what I was referring to? I don't really care about the NFL. It's boring compared to college football.

Your lack of knowledge of all things college football outside of Oregon? :ermm:

Can you point to an example of something that demonstrates "a lack of all knowledge"?

No, based on the fact that the staff believes they need to recruit better players, coupled with the lack of NFL prospects on the roster.

Where has it been established that the staff thinks that they "need" to recruit better players? Isn't that stupid on the face of it considering that they are ranked #1 in the nation?

Frost's comments establish that he thinks they will improve by recruiting better. That doesn't mean that he thinks the current players aren't good. Good enough to be undefeated and ranked #1 at this point in the season is pretty good in most peoples eyes. As long as you're quoting staff members, you should include Chip Kelly's repeated mocking of the star rating system and how they missed some of Oregon's under-rated players.

Winning games doesn't always mean you have a talent laden roster. It can sometimes be attributed to the system a team utilizes. See 07 Hawaii, 08 Texas Tech, Boise State, etc.

So, a stack of paper is out on the field making tackles? A chalkboard is throwing passes? Defenders are being blocked by film cannisters?

 

[FREE EARL]

Yeah. They pulled that one last year too. Was pretty clever in hindsight. Now that they basically don't have a chance to win it seems like a waste of money.



*sigh*

If I had a dime for every question or point I have made in our exchange that you didn't answer, I'd be at least $59.99 richer.

Go ahead and post any question or statement you have made that you think I don't have an answer to. I will take a look and let you know.



Not when the grammar is the cause of the misunderstanding. I responded to a correct reading of your own sentence and you're acting like I did something wrong to interpret what you wrote in English.



I KNOW! That's the problem.



Didn't I already clarify that this is not what I was referring to? I don't really care about the NFL. It's boring compared to college football.



Can you point to an example of something that demonstrates "a lack of all knowledge"?



Where has it been established that the staff thinks that they "need" to recruit better players? Isn't that stupid on the face of it considering that they are ranked #1 in the nation?

Frost's comments establish that he thinks they will improve by recruiting better. That doesn't mean that he thinks the current players aren't good. Good enough to be undefeated and ranked #1 at this point in the season is pretty good in most peoples eyes. As long as you're quoting staff members, you should include Chip Kelly's repeated mocking of the star rating system and how they missed some of Oregon's under-rated players.



So, a stack of paper is out on the field making tackles? A chalkboard is throwing passes? Defenders are being blocked by film cannisters?

Ok Pete. :mf_surrender:

 

[Nightowl]

Still not reading this thread... Ugh.

However, driving home from class at PSU tonight, I noticed the Morrison Bridge lit up in purple and gold. I lol'd hard.

They did it last year too. A UW alum pays for it. :banghead2:

Oh well. On Saturday, the Ducks are going to extend the win streak over UW to 7, the longest win streak in series history. :machgun:

 

[wheaton4prez]

Ok Pete. :mf_surrender:

Sure thing Sally.

 

[wheaton4prez]

They did it last year too. A UW alum pays for it. :banghead2:

Oh well. On Saturday, the Ducks are going to extend the win streak over UW to 7, the longest win streak in series history. :machgun:

Someone needs to bring some money into the economy here. It might as well be Huskies buying bridge lights.

Kitzhaber sure isn't going to do it!

 

[Nightowl]

Kitzhaber sure isn't going to do it!

Ugh. Don't remind me... :no: