Adam Rittenberg blog: Q&A: Minnesota coach Jerry Kill

Status
Not open for further replies.
Donate To GopherHole
DMB123 said:
You still don't get it. We all knew he had no record, but it was meant to make him look better to recruits. I'm sure most 18 year old kids weren't aware of Brewster's record and if they wanted to do some research and learn more about him they would look at his own blog and walk away thinking his career record was 113-61-1. I can't believe this is confusing to you.
Click to expand...

It is incomprehensible to think that there were any recruits who didn't realize that Brewster didn't have head coaching experience. They might have been interested in how the teams did where Brewster was an assistant.
 


beatles said:
Technically you're correct, it wasn't a lie.
Click to expand...
Um, this was the whole freaking point. He said Brew lied and he didn't. The technicality is everything. It's like saying "technically the sky is blue" and then saying it's green. There is no room for debate on this point. That was my problem with it and that was seemingly dpdoll's problem with it given the fact that dpdoll said calling Brew "duplicitous, disingenuous, or beguiling" would be ok. I feel the same way. I can understand why someone would consider it to be shady and personally, this is on a list of things I wish he'd never done. But it doesn't make him a liar and IMO it doesn't come close to making him into a slimeball.
 












That same AOL article also says "Obviously, he's taking credit for games that were won while he was an assistant coach. After all, Minnesota is his first head coaching job, and Brewster is just 8-17 in two years with the Gophers."
 




Jesus F this thread has added two pages in the time I've scrolled through reading it. All of it because people can't decide who has the bigger d*ck. Make a new thread or pm each other please this is going nowhere.
 

dpodoll68 said:
Nope, still not a lie. Was not, and is not, a lie. You can even call it duplicitous, disingenuous, or beguiling if you want. A statement of fact, by definition, cannot be a lie.
Click to expand...

One of my favorite adages is "A half-truth is a whole lie." Most people, other than lawyers, understand this is true - if you say something that is technically true, but you say it in a way that's intended to make someone think something that isn't true, you've deceived. And to deceive is to lie.

You aren't a lawyer, are you?
 

But was there an intent to deceive? The AOL article states that it was obvious that he was talking about his career as an assistant, not his career as a head coach. If it is obvious, then he couldn't have been attempting to deceive people into thinking that he had experience as a head coach. Is it credible that any recruit would think that Brewster had head coaching experience? Anyone who knew anything about college football knew that he hadn't been a head coach, and recruits do pay quite a bit of attention to their prospective head coaches. A search for 'record as an assistant coach' returns quite a lot of examples of coaches referring to their record as an assistant. And why did no one think anything about this for two years if it was so outrageous?
 

When you say "you aren't a lawyer, are you" are you referring to just dpodoll or the majority of people that have weighed in on this subject, that happen to agree with him on this? I am NOT a lawyer if you are really asking.

I do think it was dumb and certainly disingenuous of Brewster to put that as his coaching record... for what it is worth. Back when he did it I knew it would be instant fodder for opposing fan message boards, but I wouldn't have guessed we'd still be debating it long after he had been fired. My opinion on the matter doesn't make him a slime ball any more than your road map to your personal definition of a "lie" makes him a liar. As most have said, he was a good guy that happened to not be a very good head football coach for the Gophers.
 

RodentRampage said:
But was there an intent to deceive? The AOL article states that it was obvious that he was talking about his career as an assistant, not his career as a head coach. If it is obvious, then he couldn't have been attempting to deceive people into thinking that he had experience as a head coach. Is it credible that any recruit would think that Brewster had head coaching experience? Anyone who knew anything about college football knew that he hadn't been a head coach, and recruits do pay quite a bit of attention to their prospective head coaches. A search for 'record as an assistant coach' returns quite a lot of examples of coaches referring to their record as an assistant. And why did no one think anything about this for two years if it was so outrageous?
Click to expand...

The people who are most offended and feel deceived or that Brewster lied are the ones who are fn stupid enough to actually not be able to tell the difference between head coaching record and otherwise. In other words, I go back to a previous poster's comment:

"Were you somehow under the impression that Brew came into town with a long history of head coaching experience?"

Stop embarassing yourself and pull your head out.
 

RodentRampage said:
But was there an intent to deceive? The AOL article states that it was obvious that he was talking about his career as an assistant, not his career as a head coach. If it is obvious, then he couldn't have been attempting to deceive people into thinking that he had experience as a head coach. Is it credible that any recruit would think that Brewster had head coaching experience? Anyone who knew anything about college football knew that he hadn't been a head coach, and recruits do pay quite a bit of attention to their prospective head coaches. A search for 'record as an assistant coach' returns quite a lot of examples of coaches referring to their record as an assistant. And why did no one think anything about this for two years if it was so outrageous?
Click to expand...

Brew haters, READ THIS. =)
 

RodentRampage said:
But was there an intent to deceive? The AOL article states that it was obvious that he was talking about his career as an assistant, not his career as a head coach. If it is obvious, then he couldn't have been attempting to deceive people into thinking that he had experience as a head coach. Is it credible that any recruit would think that Brewster had head coaching experience? Anyone who knew anything about college football knew that he hadn't been a head coach, and recruits do pay quite a bit of attention to their prospective head coaches. A search for 'record as an assistant coach' returns quite a lot of examples of coaches referring to their record as an assistant. And why did no one think anything about this for two years if it was so outrageous?
Click to expand...

You, like others on here are misinterpreting that line of the article. When they say, "Obviously, he's taking credit for games that were won while he was an assistant coach," they're not saying that it is obvious from reading the article. In fact they are stating the opposite. Thats the point of the article!! Thats why the article is titled "Embellished Tim Brewster Bio removed from coaches site." When they use the word "obvioulsy," they're saying that that is the only possible conclusion to come to. That he MUST be taking credit for wins as an assistant. Im shocked that the Brew defenders can't correctly comprehend that line of the article.
 

beatles said:
You, like others on here are misinterpreting that line of the article. When they say, "Obviously, he's taking credit for games that were won while he was an assistant coach," they're not saying that it is obvious from reading the article. In fact they are stating the opposite. Thats the point of the article!! Thats why the article is titled "Embellished Tim Brewster Bio removed from coaches site." When they use the word "obvioulsy," they're saying that that is the only possible conclusion to come to. That he MUST be taking credit for wins as an assistant. Im shocked that the Brew defenders can't correctly comprehend that line of the article.
Click to expand...

You're the one torturing language to try to make it say something other than what it is. If something is obvious, it is clear to anyone who sees it. If something is the only conclusion they can reach, that does not imply that it is obvious. Embellished does not mean fraudulent, it just implies that a spin is being applied.
 

RodentRampage said:
You're the one torturing language to try to make it say something other than what it is. If something is obvious, it is clear to anyone who sees it. If something is the only conclusion they can reach, that does not imply that it is obvious. Embellished does not mean fraudulent, it just implies that a spin is being applied.
Click to expand...
You, unregistered user, and dpdoll have all been absolutely OWNED in this thread and taken to the woodshed. Please, just stop, you are embarrassing yourselves.
 

DMB123 said:
You, unregistered user, and dpdoll have all been absolutely OWNED in this thread and taken to the woodshed. Please, just stop, you are embarrassing yourselves.
Click to expand...

You actually believe that. Your position has been sliced, diced and made mincemeat out of. I suppose it could be seen as embarrassing to that we have engaged in a battle of wits with the unarmed.

Brewster was a bad coach. I don't know if he was just unready, or never would have been ready. But you are so obsessed with him that you have abandoned facts and logic.
 

The fact that nobody on here can actually comprehend what the AOL article is saying makes it much easier to understand the responses.
 

RodentRampage said:
But was there an intent to deceive? The AOL article states that it was obvious that he was talking about his career as an assistant, not his career as a head coach. If it is obvious, then he couldn't have been attempting to deceive people into thinking that he had experience as a head coach. Is it credible that any recruit would think that Brewster had head coaching experience? Anyone who knew anything about college football knew that he hadn't been a head coach, and recruits do pay quite a bit of attention to their prospective head coaches. A search for 'record as an assistant coach' returns quite a lot of examples of coaches referring to their record as an assistant. And why did no one think anything about this for two years if it was so outrageous?
Click to expand...
Is this for real? Wow, that article went right over your head.
 


beatles said:
You, like others on here are misinterpreting that line of the article. When they say, "Obviously, he's taking credit for games that were won while he was an assistant coach," they're not saying that it is obvious from reading the article. In fact they are stating the opposite. Thats the point of the article!! Thats why the article is titled "Embellished Tim Brewster Bio removed from coaches site." When they use the word "obvioulsy," they're saying that that is the only possible conclusion to come to. That he MUST be taking credit for wins as an assistant. Im shocked that the Brew defenders can't correctly comprehend that line of the article.
Click to expand...

"Can't we all just get along!" - Rodney King

Seriously, One way to think of this is a resume. Think about when you discuss accomplishments. Often those accomplishments were team accomplishments, but you list them because you made a contribution. I don't see it as being any different in this case. If you coached TE's for example then you coached TE's. That's still coaching. The TE's helped the team win, so the players you coached helped determine the the outcome of the game/ the teams record....
 

Unregistered User said:
Horses cannot vomit.
Click to expand...

You are correct, but when cows pi$$ on a flat rock it usually results in $hit forming a pie!!!

Holy Jesus Tap Dancing Christ, what a blast this thread has become.

May the pi$$ing contest continue without me, as I am going to a rules interpretation meeting this weekend to sharpen up on my skills in judging championship threads.
 

RodentRampage said:
You're the one torturing language to try to make it say something other than what it is. If something is obvious, it is clear to anyone who sees it. If something is the only conclusion they can reach, that does not imply that it is obvious. Embellished does not mean fraudulent, it just implies that a spin is being applied.
Click to expand...

Again, you don't understand the article. If you did you wouldn't be using it to defend your point when it actually proves mine.

AOL.com, The Star Tribune, and Rivals.com among others posted articles about this topic. If it was normal for a current head coach to take credit for victories as an assistant I highly doubt these sites would take the time to actually write an article about it. His claim actually made news.

The theme of each article was the deceiving record of a first time head coach taking credit for over 100 victories. It's just a weird thing for a coach to do. I'm shocked anyone would defend him in this regard.

I have nothing against him personally. In fact I get the impression that he's a very good person overall who worked his ass off for our program. Unfortunately as a head coach he's an ass clown.
 


Status
Not open for further replies.



Top Bottom