Feldman on Miami & Golden

[TedHendricksOffspring]

Are you struggling with the point? Since you guys have spent ten pages trying to prove that David Cutcliffe had less talent than us and made them the best team in the Coastal, do you expect that to continue? Or will the 3-9 David Cutcliffe return once the guys who led the 2013 team are gone?

I'll answer the question. I expect Duke to win at least 8 games next year and more depending on Virginia Tech's new QB and our very own Ryan Williams. But at worst they will win 7 games next year.

However, your early post that they're are losing everybody isn't true. The are losing 5 starters on defense: Foxx, Sarmiento, Anunike, ****rell, and Patterson. On offense though, they are losing only 2 starters: Braxton and Harding. Therefore one could assume their offense should still be good, but their excellent defense should depreciate slightly.

 

[Miami82]

Are you struggling with the point? Since you guys have spent ten pages trying to prove that David Cutcliffe had less talent than us and made them the best team in the Coastal, do you expect that to continue? Or will the 3-9 David Cutcliffe return once the guys who led the 2013 team are gone?

They've only spent 10 pages trying to "define" their point, but you and those of your ilk seem incapable of grasping simple logic.

I've not read more circular reasoning in a thread in some time. IMO, you spew the same flawed, incomprehensible points and ignore those that don't fit you're point of view. So its not even a discussion any longer. Not b/c the other side isn't listening and responding, but you cannot seem to comprehend what they're saying.

It's all well and good to have a difference of opinion, but jezuz lord, why can't you (those supporting Al or downplaying the malaise of our program--not you specifically) cede even one or two points just for the sake of moving the "conversation" along? You're dug in like Al with D'onofrio, you seem incapable of reason.

When you have Miami82 liking your posts, that can't be a good sign.

Why don't you practice what you preach. How about conceding a point or two on the other side. Do you think that David Cutcliffe does such a good job of developing "lesser talent" that he is going to continue to win the Coastal with no-name players? No one seems to be able to address that question, despite the embarrassing ***-kissing of Cutcliffe and his alleged developmental prowess.

LMAO, really? He took the time to neuter you. It was a well deserved like. As for the rest of your drivel... blah blah blah.

 

[TedHendricksOffspring]

By that logic, we should just eliminate recruiting rankings/analysis all together.

Amen. The only reason they exist is to sell subscriptions to college football fans. That's exactly the logic I am talking about.

Leadership is not a measurable ability like delivery or arm strength is. It's a pass/fail category.

Exactly. And that's exactly why I wonder why people like yourself fall in love with those rankings. They can't measure leadership, but you want to use them to rank QUARTERBACKS of all people. You don't see a problem with that?

Cutcliffe could have made Morris all world in 4 years.

Based on what? He had Sean Renfree, a four-star, top 10 QB out of high school, since you're all about rankings, and coached him up so well that the guy threw a whole 19 touchdown passes as a senior.

Leader? No. But stellar QB, easily.

There are stellar QB's who aren't leaders? Name them, please.

Then why am I getting from ESPN for free?

You can be the greatest leader in the world, but you need the talent to back it up. Exhibit A is Tim Tebow. Played in a scheme and a coaching staff that played to his strengths and then got exposed as just a leader without the QB skills to make it in the NFL.

According to ESPN, Sean Renfree was the 39th best QB when he graduated high school. 19 touchdowns is pretty good as a senior in a run first offense coming off that ranking. Cutcliffe was also Peyton Manning's personal QB coach for a reason.

Danny Wueffrel, Steve Spurrier, Vinny Testaverde, Steve Walsh, Chris Weinke, Eric Crouch, Jason White, and Sam Bradford to name a few. They were not the primary leaders of their teams.

 

[TedHendricksOffspring]

According to ESPN's rankings, 8 of the top 20 QB's from 2011 ended up playing a different position once in college. But Braxton Miller, Teddy Bridgewater, and Brett Hundley are some successes while Max Wittek, Tony McNeal, and Gary Nova have been less than stellar. I'm not debating that there are busts, but if the #4 QB plays like the #17 QB, how much of difference is that really? Morris by in large played like #48 QB that he is while Boone played above #39. There's been a lot more accurate recruiting hits than misses.

So ESPN's rankings are so accurate that 40% of their top 20 quarterbacks didn't even play quarterback in college. I came into this thinking that high school rankings are silly, but you're giving me even more ammunition.

It's not that the #4 QB is playing like the #17 QB, it's that half of the top ten QBs never even take a snap. Yet 3-4 years later you still want to point to those same rankings as though they mean something.

Based on the guys that actually played their positions, the rankings are relatively accurate. You can't judge the accuracy of ranking if it's never tested.

 

[Hobokane]

Are you struggling with the point? Since you guys have spent ten pages trying to prove that David Cutcliffe had less talent than us and made them the best team in the Coastal, do you expect that to continue? Or will the 3-9 David Cutcliffe return once the guys who led the 2013 team are gone?

They've only spent 10 pages trying to "define" their point, but you and those of your ilk seem incapable of grasping simple logic.

I've not read more circular reasoning in a thread in some time. IMO, you spew the same flawed, incomprehensible points and ignore those that don't fit you're point of view. So its not even a discussion any longer. Not b/c the other side isn't listening and responding, but you cannot seem to comprehend what they're saying.

It's all well and good to have a difference of opinion, but jezuz lord, why can't you (those supporting Al or downplaying the malaise of our program--not you specifically) cede even one or two points just for the sake of moving the "conversation" along? You're dug in like Al with D'onofrio, you seem incapable of reason.

When you have Miami82 liking your posts, that can't be a good sign.

Why don't you practice what you preach. How about conceding a point or two on the other side. Do you think that David Cutcliffe does such a good job of developing "lesser talent" that he is going to continue to win the Coastal with no-name players? No one seems to be able to address that question, despite the embarrassing ***-kissing of Cutcliffe and his alleged developmental prowess.

If your points/argument had any logic I might consider that. But you just chase your tail, its tedious to read your posts. You go on & on trying to make some trivial point-- and I can't or don't even want to continue. You bore me bro.

I dont know Miami82 from Adam, but I like the cut of his jib. If he's "liking" me, I think I'm in good company. The man tells it like it is. As do I. And I gather that neither one of us have a lot of time for excuse-makers and apologists-- here or otherwise.

 

[AntwanJ306]

Then why am I getting from ESPN for free?

You can be the greatest leader in the world, but you need the talent to back it up. Exhibit A is Tim Tebow. Played in a scheme and a coaching staff that played to his strengths and then got exposed as just a leader without the QB skills to make it in the NFL.

According to ESPN, Sean Renfree was the 39th best QB when he graduated high school. 19 touchdowns is pretty good as a senior in a run first offense coming off that ranking. Cutcliffe was also Peyton Manning's personal QB coach for a reason.

Danny Wueffrel, Steve Spurrier, Vinny Testaverde, Steve Walsh, Chris Weinke, Eric Crouch, Jason White, and Sam Bradford to name a few. They were not the primary leaders of their teams.

According to Scout, Renfree was the 10th best quarterback. Yet even after four years, you want to use recruiting rankings to compare players. Even when the recruiting rankings don't agree. SMH.

 

[AntwanJ306]

Based on the guys that actually played their positions, the rankings are relatively accurate. You can't judge the accuracy of ranking if it's never tested.

WTF? The rankings ARE tested. And I AM judging the accuracy of the rankings. They suck. When ESPN says that the #5 QB in America signs with a school, and then the kid NEVER PLAYS QUARTERBACK, then the rankings are absolutely worthless.

 

[AntwanJ306]

If your points/argument had any logic I might consider that. But you just chase your tail, its tedious to read your posts. You go on & on trying to make some trivial point-- and I can't or don't even want to continue. You bore me bro.

I dont know Miami82 from Adam, but I like the cut of his jib. If he's "liking" me, I think I'm in good company. The man tells it like it is. As do I. And I gather that neither one of us have a lot of time for excuse-makers and apologists-- here or otherwise.

That's what I figured. When you can't counter a point, just throw insults and ignore the actual posts.

If you think my posts have no logic, then prove to me that the use of high school recruiting rankings is a valid way to compare teams three years later. I'm guessing that you won't. Too much thinking involved to do that.

 

[TedHendricksOffspring]

Then why am I getting from ESPN for free?

You can be the greatest leader in the world, but you need the talent to back it up. Exhibit A is Tim Tebow. Played in a scheme and a coaching staff that played to his strengths and then got exposed as just a leader without the QB skills to make it in the NFL.

According to ESPN, Sean Renfree was the 39th best QB when he graduated high school. 19 touchdowns is pretty good as a senior in a run first offense coming off that ranking. Cutcliffe was also Peyton Manning's personal QB coach for a reason.

Danny Wueffrel, Steve Spurrier, Vinny Testaverde, Steve Walsh, Chris Weinke, Eric Crouch, Jason White, and Sam Bradford to name a few. They were not the primary leaders of their teams.

According to Scout, Renfree was the 10th best quarterback. Yet even after four years, you want to use recruiting rankings to compare players. Even when the recruiting rankings don't agree. SMH.

And 247 has him at 20. It's all relative and a composite ranking to a judge a player. The rankings are for judging talent. Production is for judging how the talent has developed and improved. That's my point and it's been my point from the beginning of the thread.

 

[TedHendricksOffspring]

Based on the guys that actually played their positions, the rankings are relatively accurate. You can't judge the accuracy of ranking if it's never tested.

WTF? The rankings ARE tested. And I AM judging the accuracy of the rankings. They suck. When ESPN says that the #5 QB in America signs with a school, and then the kid NEVER PLAYS QUARTERBACK, then the rankings are absolutely worthless.

They don't play because they may fit another position better. Trayone Gray plays QB, but that's not what he'll play in college. Torrance Gibson is technically the best QB in all of high school next year, but he could very easily be the best wide receiver if that was where he played the majority of the time. If someone is just so talented that they can excel at multiple positions, it doesn't make sense to say the ranking was, "wrong," for how well they could play QB or any other position for that matter. It's just means they're one of the real exceptions that could play multiple positions at the highest of levels.

 

[AntwanJ306]

And 247 has him at 20. It's all relative and a composite ranking to a judge a player. The rankings are for judging talent. Production is for judging how the talent has developed and improved. That's my point and it's been my point from the beginning of the thread.

Then how do you know how talented a guy is if (1) the ranking services can't even agree, and (2) the rankings never play out the way they should. What evidence do you have that the ranking services rate the talent accurately? How can you look at all of the mistakes three years later but still rely on them to compare two teams?

 

[AntwanJ306]

Based on the guys that actually played their positions, the rankings are relatively accurate. You can't judge the accuracy of ranking if it's never tested.

WTF? The rankings ARE tested. And I AM judging the accuracy of the rankings. They suck. When ESPN says that the #5 QB in America signs with a school, and then the kid NEVER PLAYS QUARTERBACK, then the rankings are absolutely worthless.

They don't play because they may fit another position better. Trayone Gray plays QB, but that's not what he'll play in college. Torrance Gibson is technically the best QB in all of high school next year, but he could very easily be the best wide receiver if that was where he played the majority of the time. If someone is just so talented that they can excel at multiple positions, it doesn't make sense to say the ranking was, "wrong," for how well they could play QB or any other position for that matter. It's just means they're one of the real exceptions that could play multiple positions at the highest of levels.

But it's stone cold proof that the ranking services are just guessing. They don't even know where a guy is going to play.

 

[Miami82]

If your points/argument had any logic I might consider that. But you just chase your tail, its tedious to read your posts. You go on & on trying to make some trivial point-- and I can't or don't even want to continue. You bore me bro.

I dont know Miami82 from Adam, but I like the cut of his jib. If he's "liking" me, I think I'm in good company. The man tells it like it is. As do I. And I gather that neither one of us have a lot of time for excuse-makers and apologists-- here or otherwise.

That's what I figured. When you can't counter a point, just throw insults and ignore the actual posts.

If you think my posts have no logic, then prove to me that the use of high school recruiting rankings is a valid way to compare teams three years later. I'm guessing that you won't. Too much thinking involved to do that.

 

[AntwanJ306]

Strong contributions, Miami82. Have you even written anything about the topic? What's your take on the accuracy of high school recruiting rankings?

 

[Hobokane]

If your points/argument had any logic I might consider that. But you just chase your tail, its tedious to read your posts. You go on & on trying to make some trivial point-- and I can't or don't even want to continue. You bore me bro.

I dont know Miami82 from Adam, but I like the cut of his jib. If he's "liking" me, I think I'm in good company. The man tells it like it is. As do I. And I gather that neither one of us have a lot of time for excuse-makers and apologists-- here or otherwise.

That's what I figured. When you can't counter a point, just throw insults and ignore the actual posts.

If you think my posts have no logic, then prove to me that the use of high school recruiting rankings is a valid way to compare teams three years later. I'm guessing that you won't. Too much thinking involved to do that.

Unlike you, I don't post if I don't feel I have something to add to the discussion. Think about the original topic of this post and look what its devolved into in the past 2 pages with your inane ramblings.

I don't care about your topic-- you're relying on semantics and parsing of words hoping to prove some uninteresting, irrelevant point. That's why I didn't offer a counter point.

You and your argument BORE me. And whatever it is that you're trying to prove, even if you are deemed 100% correct, it doesn't change certain facts about the state and direction of this once proud program. So go ahead Mr. Message Board Warrior, have at it.

 

[AntwanJ306]

If your points/argument had any logic I might consider that. But you just chase your tail, its tedious to read your posts. You go on & on trying to make some trivial point-- and I can't or don't even want to continue. You bore me bro.

I dont know Miami82 from Adam, but I like the cut of his jib. If he's "liking" me, I think I'm in good company. The man tells it like it is. As do I. And I gather that neither one of us have a lot of time for excuse-makers and apologists-- here or otherwise.

That's what I figured. When you can't counter a point, just throw insults and ignore the actual posts.

If you think my posts have no logic, then prove to me that the use of high school recruiting rankings is a valid way to compare teams three years later. I'm guessing that you won't. Too much thinking involved to do that.

Unlike you, I don't post if I don't feel I have something to add to the discussion. Think about the original topic of this post and look what its devolved into in the past 2 pages with your inane ramblings.

I don't care about your topic-- you're relying on semantics and parsing of words hoping to prove some uninteresting, irrelevant point. That's why I didn't offer a counter point.

You and your argument BORE me. And whatever it is that you're trying to prove, even if you are deemed 100% correct, it doesn't change certain facts about the state and direction of this once proud program. So go ahead Mr. Message Board Warrior, have at it.

Mr. Message Board Warrior........says the guy who admittedly has nothing to add, but who continually finds it necessary to police a thread. Kind of ironic, don't ya think? Go ahead and show us your Message Board Deputy badge while writing another post that has nothing to do with the topic.

 

[AntwanJ306]

You and your argument BORE me. And whatever it is that you're trying to prove, even if you are deemed 100% correct, it doesn't change certain facts about the state and direction of this once proud program.

This is where we get to the core of your problem. Hendricks and I are having a debate, and it's not hurting anyone. We haven't insulted each other once. But if someone isn't posting "FCK DORITO AN GOLDEN, DIS IS DA U BAYBEE", then people like you don't want any part of it, and you have to chime in with your Hialeah High School insults.

 

[Hobokane]

If your points/argument had any logic I might consider that. But you just chase your tail, its tedious to read your posts. You go on & on trying to make some trivial point-- and I can't or don't even want to continue. You bore me bro.

I dont know Miami82 from Adam, but I like the cut of his jib. If he's "liking" me, I think I'm in good company. The man tells it like it is. As do I. And I gather that neither one of us have a lot of time for excuse-makers and apologists-- here or otherwise.

That's what I figured. When you can't counter a point, just throw insults and ignore the actual posts.

If you think my posts have no logic, then prove to me that the use of high school recruiting rankings is a valid way to compare teams three years later. I'm guessing that you won't. Too much thinking involved to do that.

Unlike you, I don't post if I don't feel I have something to add to the discussion. Think about the original topic of this post and look what its devolved into in the past 2 pages with your inane ramblings.

I don't care about your topic-- you're relying on semantics and parsing of words hoping to prove some uninteresting, irrelevant point. That's why I didn't offer a counter point.

You and your argument BORE me. And whatever it is that you're trying to prove, even if you are deemed 100% correct, it doesn't change certain facts about the state and direction of this once proud program. So go ahead Mr. Message Board Warrior, have at it.

Mr. Message Board Warrior........says the guy who admittedly has nothing to add, but who continually finds it necessary to police a thread. Kind of ironic, don't ya think? Go ahead and show us your Message Board Deputy badge while writing another post that has nothing to do with the topic.

Contrary to your assertion, I'm not policing the board-- merely checking back to see if the thread actually goes back to its original topic. And for the record-- MY posts were answers to questions YOU POSED.

Way to hijack the thread and make it ALL about your inane points, rather than the larger, original discussion. This thread is dying a slow death-- nice job.

 

[AntwanJ306]

MY posts were answers to questions YOU POSED.[/B]

Are you on some kind of medication? You haven't written a single word about the accuracy of high school recruiting rankings, or whether or not David Cutcliffe is truly taking lesser talent to the next level. Not one word. You have posted nothing except attacks on me. Stalker.

Don't get me wrong, I understand. You have absolutely no way to refute anything I've written, so your best bet is to insult the poster. Well played.

 

[Miami82]

Strong contributions, Miami82. Have you even written anything about the topic? What's your take on the accuracy of high school recruiting rankings?

LMAO, really??? Even after its been pointed out to you, you still don't see it? You are having a circle jerk with yourself. You don't concede a thing. Your reply back to HoboKane is why don't you concede... and on it goes. You have a position on the topic then use the data available to spin to your way of thinking instead of analyzing the data out there then coming to a conclusion. Why would anyone even attempt to have a debate with you? kudo's to Ted for lasting this long.