Are we being to harsh? [On our defense]

[swampcougar1]

Overall offense up all over the country last 20 years and overall defense down. That being said more than a few of our defensive break downs inexcusable. Most modern offenses will not be shut down but no reason except poor play why they can not be slowed down

 

[smack99]

Every team seems to have a season high on offense against our Defense, so no.

Exactly this. We let Dukes worthless offense put up 31 points. Louisville has a pretty solid offense but still put up the their season high against us. Let’s not even begin with the 39 given up against Cal who FSU held to 9. Not being to harsh. Offense is great but it just feels like we’re wasting a great offense because one day when the offense isn’t great which will come, our defense won’t be able to keep us in the game with the way they play in first halves.

 

[JG13]

I am whelmed by the philosophical implications of this question, “Are we being to harsh?” I must attempt to analyze this unassuming revelation, as the first scientist who studied the tiny atoms, which will one day kill us all.

1. “Are we”

The collectivization of a group of individuals into one group, highlighting their uniformity of thought and ultimately speech, is not unique to the author. What fraggle does propose with fresh rigor is the the suggestion that the fan base exists at all as a “we”, which is novel. He is allowing for their to be variation within the We, merely by asking “are?” This is a clever key that unlocks the remainder of our journey into the mirror of our mania.

2. “being”

Here the ***** begins to turn. Are we being? Are we one unified host? Can we exist as a singular entity, if within us dwells and expresses myriad thoughts, beliefs, feelings, and speech? Were not each of us several versions of ourselves on Saturday afternoon? Did we not all at different occupy the same identities of rage and jubilation, from Knoxville to New Zealand? Were we not ultimately one being, with as many splintered layers holding up our hopes as there are wooden buttresses holding up our houses of business and worship throughout the world. The very statement within the question of this one word “being” is a black hole from which certainty cannot escape, and only inky inquiry may consume.

3. “to”

I am undone. If the author added but one more “o” to his device, the meaning of this sentence becomes apparent and banal. There is no need to examine a living tree for what has caused its death. Yet fraggle hath wrought a murder, a killing of our expectations and a stabbing of our comforts. He has placed the dagger in our hands and smeared blood upon our jerseys, holding fast our sweaty faces and clutching our gaze for a moment as we realize: We plunged the blade into the chest. We have done the act “to” the victim in this story. We are the perpetrator — and yes, even the author! We have become fraggle, we have become the killer, we have become death — but onto whom?”

4. “harsh”

Here lies all rest within my soul, buried on the 3rd of November, 2024. How can someone kill Harsh itself? How much more of a monster must one be to slay a word whose very meaning is “grim or unpleasantly severe?” We are beyond the pale beyond the pale — we are the black hole of inquiry, and fraggle is the only saintly mirror large enough to reflect the truth of our horror back upon ourselves, forcing us to ask, “What have we become?!” Have we ventured so far into the void of criticism that we murdered the word Harsh itself? Made it a footstool as we step upon the stage of bellicose vitriol, declaring ourselves judge and god and **** all at once? Is there no longer an authority above or below, does moral navigation exist at all, or have we so broken the gravity of conscience written upon every human heart that Kiki and Meesh are but frail stars we consume for fuel and fury?

Methinks the record of this thread will never bear the weight of its author’s being. Methinks Saturday is now a school day, perhaps Sunday is as well.

Yet I ask: am I being to harsh?

 

[caneULM]

I'm in the crowd of saying personnel changes need to be made on D. I am not a fan of bashing Miami players but it is time for #7 #19 & #0 to have a seat and enjoy the ride. I feel bad for what happened to Richard(who is from my hometown) but he needed to see the bench as well. I just hate it had to be by way of an injury.

I agree with the previous poster who stated with the way offenses are now, 1-3 stops is all you need on D if you have a great offense. In Miami's case, every offense going forward isn't going to be as sorry as FSU's. If the defense is just average, man, I mean just average, I feel Miami can win the title with ease.

 

[Firesite]

I think the majority of realize this team is not winning a Natty an it's going to be because of this defense. But that doesn't mean we can not enjoy this season.

 

[Colombie]

The defense is not as bad as everyone here is saying it is. But it is still playing poorly in key situations.
The encouraging thing is a lot of frosh youngsters are getting experience and have a chance to get better as the season ends.
Also we are now causing turnovers which hopefully is a trend and not just an aberration.

 

[JamesQuall]

I am whelmed by the philosophical implications of this question, “Are we being to harsh?” I must attempt to analyze this unassuming revelation, as the first scientist who studied the tiny atoms, which will one day kill us all.

1. “Are we”

The collectivization of a group of individuals into one group, highlighting their uniformity of thought and ultimately speech, is not unique to the author. What fraggle does propose with fresh rigor is the the suggestion that the fan base exists at all as a “we”, which is novel. He is allowing for their to be variation within the We, merely by asking “are?” This is a clever key that unlocks the remainder of our journey into the mirror of our mania.

2. “being”

Here the ***** begins to turn. Are we being? Are we one unified host? Can we exist as a singular entity, if within us dwells and expresses myriad thoughts, beliefs, feelings, and speech? Were not each of us several versions of ourselves on Saturday afternoon? Did we not all at different occupy the same identities of rage and jubilation, from Knoxville to New Zealand? Were we not ultimately one being, with as many splintered layers holding up our hopes as there are wooden buttresses holding up our houses of business and worship throughout the world. The very statement within the question of this one word “being” is a black hole from which certainty cannot escape, and only inky inquiry may consume.

3. “to”

I am undone. If the author added but one more “o” to his device, the meaning of this sentence becomes apparent and banal. There is no need to examine a living tree for what has caused its death. Yet fraggle hath wrought a murder, a killing of our expectations and a stabbing of our comforts. He has placed the dagger in our hands and smeared blood upon our jerseys, holding fast our sweaty faces and clutching our gaze for a moment as we realize: We plunged the blade into the chest. We have done the act “to” the victim in this story. We are the perpetrator — and yes, even the author! We have become fraggle, we have become the killer, we have become death — but onto whom?”

4. “harsh”

Here lies all rest within my soul, buried on the 3rd of November, 2024. How can someone kill Harsh itself? How much more of a monster must one be to slay a word whose very meaning is “grim or unpleasantly severe?” We are beyond the pale beyond the pale — we are the black hole of inquiry, and fraggle is the only saintly mirror large enough to reflect the truth of our horror back upon ourselves, forcing us to ask, “What have we become?!” Have we ventured so far into the void of criticism that we murdered the word Harsh itself? Made it a footstool as we step upon the stage of bellicose vitriol, declaring ourselves judge and god and **** all at once? Is there no longer an authority above or below, does moral navigation exist at all, or have we so broken the gravity of conscience written upon every human heart that Kiki and Meesh are but frail stars we consume for fuel and fury?

Methinks the record of this thread will never bear the weight of its author’s being. Methinks Saturday is now a school day, perhaps Sunday is as well.

Yet I ask: am I being to harsh?

This is wonderfully articulated and deeply thought-provoking. Well done, sir! I spent some time pondering your insights and considering whether I had perhaps misinterpreted the author's intent in framing the question. While I certainly agree that you may be correct, I propose a different perspective.

The phrase “are we being” can be interpreted as a reflection on our identity—our essence in action. "Being" suggests that this quality is not just superficial or temporary but may reflect a deeper essence or characteristic that we are expressing in this moment. It’s as if we’re asking, “Is this characteristic (in this case, harshness) something that defines our identity?”

To that, I would say yes. Many people may recall the quote, "To live is to suffer," which is often mistakenly attributed to Friedrich Nietzsche. In reality, this line appears in a foreword to a book by Viktor Frankl, written by Gordon Allport. Frankl himself was fond of quoting Nietzsche, saying, “He who has a why to live can bear with almost any how.” Thus, it’s easy to see how the line could be misattributed to Nietzsche.

But I digress. To suffer is indeed "harsh" because life is inherently unfair. These are fundamental truths of mere existence, especially as human beings on this small, pale blue dot within the vast nothingness of our ever-expanding, seemingly infinite universe.

Therefore, we might interpret "Are we being to harsh?" as asking, “Do we exist to endure harshness?” To which the collective "we," drawing from our own individual experiences, might mostly agree. The answer seems to be yes.

Yet, there is hope, found in Allport’s full quote: “To live is to suffer; to survive is to find meaning in the suffering.”

And so, I ask, @fraggle: What meaning can we find within the harshness? When you uncover that, you find your truth in life CiS.

 

[UnForgiven]

I am whelmed by the philosophical implications of this question, “Are we being to harsh?” I must attempt to analyze this unassuming revelation, as the first scientist who studied the tiny atoms, which will one day kill us all.

1. “Are we”

The collectivization of a group of individuals into one group, highlighting their uniformity of thought and ultimately speech, is not unique to the author. What fraggle does propose with fresh rigor is the the suggestion that the fan base exists at all as a “we”, which is novel. He is allowing for there to be variation within the We, merely by asking “are?” This is a clever key that unlocks the remainder of our journey into the mirror of our mania.

2. “being”

Here the ***** begins to turn. Are we being? Are we one unified host? Can we exist as a singular entity, if within us dwells and expresses myriad thoughts, beliefs, feelings, and speech? Were not each of us several versions of ourselves on Saturday afternoon? Did we not all at different moments occupy the same identities of rage and jubilation, from Knoxville to New Zealand? Were we not ultimately one being, with as many splintered layers holding up our hopes as there are within the wooden buttresses holding up our houses of business and worship throughout the world. The very statement within the question of this one word “being” is a black hole from which certainty cannot escape, and only inky inquiry may consume.

3. “to”

I am undone. If the author added but one more “o” to his device, the meaning of this sentence becomes apparent and banal. There is no need to examine a living tree for what has caused its death. Yet fraggle hath wrought a murder, a killing of our expectations and a stabbing of our comforts. He has placed the dagger in our hands and smeared blood upon our jerseys, holding fast our sweaty faces and clutching our gaze for a moment as we realize: We plunged the blade into the chest. We have done the act “to” the victim in this story. We are the perpetrator — and yes, even the author! We have become fraggle, we have become the killer, we have become death — but onto whom?”

4. “harsh”

Here lies all rest within my soul, buried on the 3rd of November, 2024. How can someone kill Harsh itself? How much more of a monster must one be to slay a word whose very meaning is “grim or unpleasantly severe?” We are beyond the pale beyond the pale — we are the black hole of inquiry, and fraggle is the only saintly mirror large enough to reflect the truth of our horror back upon ourselves, forcing us to ask, “What have we become?!” Have we ventured so far into the void of criticism that we murdered the word Harsh itself? Made it a footstool as we step upon the stage of bellicose vitriol, declaring ourselves judge and god and **** all at once? Is there no longer an authority above or below, does moral navigation exist at all, or have we so broken the gravity of conscience written upon every human heart that Kiki and Meesh are but frail stars we consume for fuel and fury?

Methinks the record of this thread will never bear the weight of its author’s being. Methinks Saturday is now a school day, perhaps Sunday is as well.

Yet I ask: am I being to harsh?

My God. This is incredible.

I haven’t laid in bed laughing to myself as quietly as possible like this in weeks. I thought I was going to pop a blood vessel, jfc that’s funny,

 

[PlanoCane]

Our Defense is atrocious yes!
but seems there are no longer any dominant defenses in todays football. The game has changed

Oregon
UGA
OSU
Bama

All have had 30+ points scored on them in games this year

I read what you say but our schedule of schools should not embarrass our secondary on a consistent level. I just hope our O can put up 50 every game.

 

[BODESLAM]

WHO GIVES A $2 FLYIN’ FU@K…MY OL’ SKOOL BLOOD IS PUMPIN’ LIKE A FREIGHT TRAIN!!!!!

 

[Empirical Cane]

This is wonderfully articulated and deeply thought-provoking. Well done, sir! I spent some time pondering your insights and considering whether I had perhaps misinterpreted the author's intent in framing the question. While I certainly agree that you may be correct, I propose a different perspective.

The phrase “are we being” can be interpreted as a reflection on our identity—our essence in action. "Being" suggests that this quality is not just superficial or temporary but may reflect a deeper essence or characteristic that we are expressing in this moment. It’s as if we’re asking, “Is this characteristic (in this case, harshness) something that defines our identity?”

To that, I would say yes. Many people may recall the quote, "To live is to suffer," which is often mistakenly attributed to Friedrich Nietzsche. In reality, this line appears in a foreword to a book by Viktor Frankl, written by Gordon Allport. Frankl himself was fond of quoting Nietzsche, saying, “He who has a why to live can bear with almost any how.” Thus, it’s easy to see how the line could be misattributed to Nietzsche.

But I digress. To suffer is indeed "harsh" because life is inherently unfair. These are fundamental truths of mere existence, especially as human beings on this small, pale blue dot within the vast nothingness of our ever-expanding, seemingly infinite universe.

Therefore, we might interpret "Are we being to harsh?" as asking, “Do we exist to endure harshness?” To which the collective "we," drawing from our own individual experiences, might mostly agree. The answer seems to be yes.

Yet, there is hope, found in Allport’s full quote: “To live is to suffer; to survive is to find meaning in the suffering.”

And so, I ask, @fraggle: What meaning can we find within the harshness? When you uncover that, you find your truth in life CiS.

I've read, re-read, and then read again both your and @IndayArtHauz thought provoking and probing deconstructing commentary.

As I sit here in my finely appointed study that is a luxurious, but tasteful fusion, of the Baroque and Romanesque Revival styles, I was struck with the scent of exotic wood paneled walls and the rich smell of leather that calmed, yet inspired my senses while I rubbed the deep rich velvet of my smoking jacket's lapel. I contemplanted your deeper questions over a Baccarat crystal snifter of Louis XIII Black Pearl while arguing your finer points with my exclusive AI program that is programed with all the great masters of antiquity. I thought to myself, "self, how would the script of a Matthew McConaughey car commercial play out?"

Then it hit me. Are We assumes We to begin with in tje first place. A collective audience of porsterati ready and willing to receive @fraggle signal. But what if there is no We?

What if a Porster porsts, and the signal goes into the inky blackness of the void with no receptors? Can there be a We?

Is it enough to say, "I porst therefore I am?"

Without this fundamental physic of porsting being explored, I'm not sure we can truly plumb the depths of harshness in a reality based construct.

Then again, it might be the cognac talking.

 

[SFbayCane]

Yes, we're being too harsh on the D.

 

[Empirical Cane]

My God. This is incredible.

I haven’t laid in bed laughing to myself as quietly as possible like this in weeks. I thought I was going to pop a blood vessel, jfc that’s funny,

Might I suggest you get out more.

ALOT more.

 

[JamesQuall]

I've read, re-read, and then read again both your and @IndayArtHauz thought provoking and probing deconstructing commentary.

As I sit here in my finely appointed study that is a luxurious, but tasteful fusion, of the Baroque and Romanesque Revival styles, I was struck my the scent of exotic wood paneled walls and the rich smell of leather that calmed, yet inspired my senses while I rubbed the deep rich velvet of my smoking jacket's lapel. I contemplanted your deeper questions over a Baccarat crystal snifter of Louis XIII Black Pearl while arguing your finer points with my exclusive AI program that is programed with all the great masters of antiquity. I thought to myself, "self, how would the script of a Matthew McConaughey car commercial play out?"

Then it hit me. Are We assumes We to begin with in tje first place. A collective audience of porsterati ready and willing to receive @fraggle signal. But what if there is no We?

What if a Porster porsts, and the signal goes into the inky blackness of the void with no receptors? Can there be a We?

Is it enough to say, "I porst therefore I am?"

Without this fundamental physic of porsting being explored, I'm not sure we can truly plumb the depths of harshness in a reality based construct.

Then again, it might be the cognac talking.

Ah yes. Descartes @DMoney 's famous objective CiS truth.

I poRst, therefore I am

 

[UnForgiven]

I've read, re-read, and then read again both your and @IndayArtHauz thought provoking and probing deconstructing commentary.

As I sit here in my finely appointed study that is a luxurious, but tasteful fusion, of the Baroque and Romanesque Revival styles, I was struck with the scent of exotic wood paneled walls and the rich smell of leather that calmed, yet inspired my senses while I rubbed the deep rich velvet of my smoking jacket's lapel. I contemplanted your deeper questions over a Baccarat crystal snifter of Louis XIII Black Pearl while arguing your finer points with my exclusive AI program that is programed with all the great masters of antiquity. I thought to myself, "self, how would the script of a Matthew McConaughey car commercial play out?"

Then it hit me. Are We assumes We to begin with in tje first place. A collective audience of porsterati ready and willing to receive @fraggle signal. But what if there is no We?

What if a Porster porsts, and the signal goes into the inky blackness of the void with no receptors? Can there be a We?

Is it enough to say, "I porst therefore I am?"

Without this fundamental physic of porsting being explored, I'm not sure we can truly plumb the depths of harshness in a reality based construct.

Then again, it might be the cognac talking.

This one is obvious. You are diving too deep and surfacing too shallow.

Remember in the mind of the great one, the world becomes inverted. A distorted fraggle of reality viewed periodically through both sides of a lens. One that reflects back on itself.

Are We is in fact:
Are (side 1 of lens)
Me (side 2 of lens)

Army.

This man is speaking code to his Army of some sort.

Being (side 1 of lens)
To (side “two” of lens, wordplay dancing around “too” from every angle, but actually meaning “to”)
Harsh (bring down the “M” from Me, drop the H, pronounce it phonetically and with an intoxicated slur …”March”

Army Being To March.

Now it is a matter of tracking down this “Being” posthaste.

 

[Empirical Cane]

This one is obvious. You are diving too deep and surfacing too shallow.

Remember in the mind of the great one, the world becomes inverted. A distorted fraggle of reality viewed periodically through both sides of a lens. One that reflects back on itself.

Are We is in fact:
Are (side 1 of lens)
Me (side 2 of lens)

Army.

This man is speaking code to his Army of some sort.

Being (side 1 of lens)
To (side “two” of lens, wordplay dancing around “too” from every angle, but actually meaning “to”)
Harsh (bring down the “M” from Me, drop the H, pronounce it phonetically and with an intoxicated slur …”March”

Army Being To March.

Now it is a matter of tracking down this “Being” posthaste.

Where I was once blind.

You have given me sight.

 

[Moonman]

Does any team play great defense or have the offenses jumped so far in front that we need to out score opponents? Duke had lots of high rankings as a defense..we scored 53, Clemson was the juggernaut that just allowed Louisville to score 33 points. Undefeated Pitt gave up 48 points. Lousy NC St scored 59 points. Every ACC team scored in double digits whether they won or loss although pitiful fsu got a measly 11 points. In any ACC contest you need a minimum of 31 points just to win. The SEC is a different matter but not by much, Vanderbilt held Auburn to 7 points scoring only 17. The B1G is lame when it comes to offense, all there games had teens and twenties scores, we will torture any B1G team although Oregon might be a contest.
I've been battering our defense, maybe we need to look at how other defenses have struggles against ACC offenses. Is there any defense worth emulating? We are 9-0 so we've been good enough!

As I stated in a previous thread, we suffer from a severe lack of perspective.

Penn State just held *osu to 20 points. PSU's defense is inarguably among the best in the country. They're in the top 15 nationally in seven major defensive categories.

Against Bowling Green's offense, which is ranked 84th nationally, PSU's D gave up 24 points in the 1st half.

BGSU's scoring drives:
6 plays, 75 yds, TD
10 plays, 60 yds, FG
10 plays, 73 yds, TD
4 plays, 75 yds, TD

Of course we could be playing better on D. That's not the question. The reality is that our D gave up 31 points to Duke.

We also stopped them on 10 out of 15 drives and forced four 3-and-outs, four turnovers and 5 punts.

Maybe we should appreciate the fact that our D is making stops when we need them to.

Just a thought.

 

[Suhrthing]

This thread has aids from top to bottom, all of you!

 

[Astcloud11]

We are not being harsh. At the end of the day, our defense has regressed from last year. They are supposed to improve in year 2, but we're having year 1 issues (communication and proper assignments). We're also having issues with fundamentals (proper angles and open field tackling). This defense plays like they're thinking way too much and aren't comfortable. To top it off, teams are getting the ball out fast, or running horizontal offenses to negate our Pass Rush...and getting away with blatant holds is not an excuse (because we hardly got those calls last year either).