9-3 tell me I’m wrong

Donate To GopherHole
Face The Facts said:
On a dream for the sake of dreaming, Wednesday, just think where we would get ranked if we win our next three.



NMSU - big W
Fresno - small W
Ohio - medium W

@ Maryland - small W
Iowa - small W
@ Ohio State -

@ Nebraska
Indiana
@ Illinois
Purdue
Northwestern
@ Wisconsin
Click to expand...

Gophers_4life said:
This. /thread


ALSO, to count (Maryland, Iowa) Purdue, Indiana, even Illinois (yes I know) as wins .... chickens, eggs, counting before hatching. Just not a smart move. Be patient
Click to expand...

:D
 

swingman said:
Andries turned 20 in July. My guess is if a guard went down, Dovich, a fourth year junior, is next man up. If a tackle went down, my guess is Oseland, a fourth year junior, is next man up.
Click to expand...

FWIW Burns said on his latest podcast that if anyone goes down with a significant injury that Faalele (sp?) and Dunlap would be the replacements.
 

If that means they are better than our 4th year guys I do not see the downside.
 

They are certainly bigger.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
Coaches say it to their players so they don't overlook an opponent.
Click to expand...

And that's correct. Therefore, counting wins against X,Y,Z before playing them, is incorrect. Logic.


You (both YOU you, and everyone else you), are allowed to be incorrect on here. Wouldn't be the first time. Heck, even I've been wrong before. Not often, but it does happen
 


Dave H said:
But if you can tell me how me thinking the Gophers will win on Saturday will somehow actually stop them from winning
Click to expand...

Never said any such thing. I said it's not a smart move to do that, not that it actually prevents anything.

The only thing I can't figure out, is if you're clutching to this bizarre red herring as a purposeful attempt to confuse the issue, or if you actually misunderstood what I said that much.
 

Gophers_4life said:
Never said any such thing. I said it's not a smart move to do that, not that it actually prevents anything.

The only thing I can't figure out, is if you're clutching to this bizarre red herring as a purposeful attempt to confuse the issue, or if you actually misunderstood what I said that much.
Click to expand...

Why would I give a crap what you think is a good move?
 

LOL! If you didn’t care you wouldn’t post. Put me on ignore then, sheesh
 

Gophers_4life said:
Never said any such thing. I said it's not a smart move to do that, not that it actually prevents anything.

The only thing I can't figure out, is if you're clutching to this bizarre red herring as a purposeful attempt to confuse the issue, or if you actually misunderstood what I said that much.
Click to expand...

You never said, but your logic certainly attempted to make that point. You were the one who brought up how coaches always say this (to the their players). Coaches say it to their players because they think it will impact how they play. . . and. . . ya know. . . impact the outcome.

It's nice to know that you also don't know what "red herring" means.
 



Bob_Loblaw said:
You never said, but your logic certainly attempted to make that point. You were the one who brought up how coaches always say this (to the their players). Coaches say it to their players because they think it will impact how they play. . . and. . . ya know. . . impact the outcome.

It's nice to know that you also don't know what "red herring" means.
Click to expand...

I do know what it means, along with a host of other ad hominems commonly employed on internet message boards.

It is bizarre to me, that it's so difficult to separate what seems to me to be two obviously different things: me telling message board posters that it isn't smart to count your chickens before they hatch, and coaches demanding that players not overlook their currently schedule opponents. I can justify the former via the latter, and it is still separate, and I'm still correct. I don't see why that's difficult, but obviously it is for some.
 



So, since someone was mocking me earlier, let me chime in.

If the team that is favored won 100% of all games, we would not be having this argument. if the team that is perceived to be "better" won every game, we would not be having this argument.

but, I think I can safely say that the favored team does not win every game. The team that is perceived to be "better" does not win every game.

So, when I hear people saying that a game is a "sure" win or an "easy" win for the Gophers - even a "likely" win - my memory bank kicks in with multiple examples of times the Gophers were favored, or perceived to be the "better" team - and still lost.

in my book, no win is guaranteed. no win is easy. every victory is a game to be savored - no matter who the opponent is.

I know that what I think, or what I post here, has no impact on the game's outcome. But, if people go around talking about "easy" wins, "sure" wins and "likely" wins, there is a possibility that at least some of the players are having the same thoughts. And that can have an impact on the game's outcome.

In my perfect world, every player would go into every game thinking that they were facing the best team in the country, and the Gophers will have to play the best game of their lives to have a chance. I don't want a single player thinking, even for a mili-second, that they are going into an "easy" game.
 



short ornery norwegian said:
in my book, no win is guaranteed. no win is easy. every victory is a game to be savored - no matter who the opponent is.
Click to expand...

Correct. Well said. This is the experienced position to take. The adult position.

People counting on a win vs Illinois ... that schools spends as much as we do on football. They have great coaches, recruit great players, they're in the Big Ten. Were just very competitive with potentially the leading candidate to win the G5 Access Slot this year (UCF did it last year, for example).
 

Gophers_4life said:
Correct. Well said. This is the experienced position to take. The adult position.

People counting on a win vs Illinois ... that schools spends as much as we do on football. They have great coaches, recruit great players, they're in the Big Ten. Were just very competitive with potentially the leading candidate to win the G5 Access Slot this year (UCF did it last year, for example).
Click to expand...

Practice what you preach!
 



Gophers_4life said:
I do know what it means, along with a host of other ad hominems commonly employed on internet message boards.

It is bizarre to me, that it's so difficult to separate what seems to me to be two obviously different things: me telling message board posters that it isn't smart to count your chickens before they hatch, and coaches demanding that players not overlook their currently schedule opponents. I can justify the former via the latter, and it is still separate, and I'm still correct. I don't see why that's difficult, but obviously it is for some.
Click to expand...

This is the dumbest thing I've ever read.

Let's break it down.

(1) We agree - - telling message board posters not to count their chickens is completely different from a coach telling his team to not overlook an opponent. As you said "obviously different things". However, since we aren't goldfish, we have a memory of you using point #2 (coaches saying it to players) as a way to prove a point that it isn't smart for message board posters to overlook an opponent. So while you finally admitted they're obviously different, you don't really act like you believe this. Remember, you responded to a post from someone who made the argument that whether or not he overlooks opponents has "zero impact on the results". You had some weird comments about football gods and all of that. It's been a weird journey.

(2) Here is where we get weird "I can justify the former via the latter". How? They are "obviously" different for precisely the reason you cannot justify the former.
Former - Fans overlooking - - This has ZERO impact on results.
Latter - Players overlooking - - This could have a profound impact on the results.

** This is the entire argument that you lost a hundred posts ago.

So, if you can't make an argument that the fans overlooking an opponent impacts the results, you lost the argument. The rest of us already realize you lost, I think your world might start getting better if you did too.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
This is the dumbest thing I've ever read.

Let's break it down.

(1) We agree - - telling message board posters not to count their chickens is completely different from a coach telling his team to not overlook an opponent. As you said "obviously different things". However, since we aren't goldfish, we have a memory of you using point #2 (coaches saying it to players) as a way to prove a point that it isn't smart for message board posters to overlook an opponent. So while you finally admitted they're obviously different, you don't really act like you believe this. Remember, you responded to a post from someone who made the argument that whether or not he overlooks opponents has "zero impact on the results". You had some weird comments about football gods and all of that. It's been a weird journey.

(2) Here is where we get weird "I can justify the former via the latter". How? They are "obviously" different for precisely the reason you cannot justify the former.
Former - Fans overlooking - - This has ZERO impact on results.
Latter - Players overlooking - - This could have a profound impact on the results.

** This is the entire argument that you lost a hundred posts ago.

So, if you can't make an argument that the fans overlooking an opponent impacts the results, you lost the argument. The rest of us already realize you lost, I think your world might start getting better if you did too.
Click to expand...

Here comes another clunky, nonsensical pivot...in 3, 2, 1...
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
This is the dumbest thing I've ever read.
Click to expand...

LOL, you wish

We agree - - telling message board posters not to count their chickens is completely different from a coach telling his team to not overlook an opponent.
Click to expand...

Good

you don't really act like you believe this.
Click to expand...

That is your interpretation. I don't have to acknowledge or justify anything I've said simply based off your (or anyone's) interpretation, because anyone can claim any arbitrary interpretation of anything they want.

You had some weird comments about football gods and all of that.
Click to expand...

That was not me, that was dpo. I had nothing to do with the football gods stuff. That was a bizarre comment he made about SON (who self identified).

"I can justify the former via the latter". How?
Click to expand...

If coaches tell their players not to do it, then it's probably not a smart thing to do for anyone. Justified.

They are "obviously" different for precisely the reason you cannot justify the former.
Click to expand...

Again conflating two things ... can't justify that fans doing it has an impact, because it doesn't. But that's not what I said. I said it's not smart to do it, which I can justify. See above for how.

if you can't make an argument that the fans overlooking an opponent impacts the results, you lost the argument.
Click to expand...

Wrong, because of the same incorrect conflation as I addressed above.
 


zman said:
I've stayed out of this until now but this is now the dumbest response in this thread.
Click to expand...

You registered in 2009, and you've only posted 2000-ish times. So that proves you're definitely not a troll
 




short ornery norwegian said:
So, since someone was mocking me earlier, let me chime in.

If the team that is favored won 100% of all games, we would not be having this argument. if the team that is perceived to be "better" won every game, we would not be having this argument.

but, I think I can safely say that the favored team does not win every game. The team that is perceived to be "better" does not win every game.

So, when I hear people saying that a game is a "sure" win or an "easy" win for the Gophers - even a "likely" win - my memory bank kicks in with multiple examples of times the Gophers were favored, or perceived to be the "better" team - and still lost.

in my book, no win is guaranteed. no win is easy. every victory is a game to be savored - no matter who the opponent is.

I know that what I think, or what I post here, has no impact on the game's outcome. But, if people go around talking about "easy" wins, "sure" wins and "likely" wins, there is a possibility that at least some of the players are having the same thoughts. And that can have an impact on the game's outcome.

In my perfect world, every player would go into every game thinking that they were facing the best team in the country, and the Gophers will have to play the best game of their lives to have a chance. I don't want a single player thinking, even for a mili-second, that they are going into an "easy" game.
Click to expand...

Then that is on them (the players) not on us. Sorry but I'm going to be positive and no fake football gods will make me think otherwise.

It's a good thing Joe Namath didn't think like you do huh. Confidence in a win /= going to lose. I want my team to think they are going to win every game they play. So do most coaches I know.
 




To the OP

You're wrong. 4-8

Leaky toilet for an offensive line, no Brooks, no Smith, no running holes. Zach will be back-peddling throws all year because we simply cannot block. We couldn't against NMSU, Fresno or Miami, it'll be worse vs B1G competition. Our O line is responsible for our true frosh qb being hurt.
It's also going to leave us with very vanilla and predictable play calling.

That will leave our Defense on the field A LOT, and they will get beat after being exhausted.


It's going to be a long long season, ending with only one more squeaky win over Purdue or Illinois.

4-8....no bowl
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom