forums

Some names to watch before it’s deleted

Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
Sure. But the reality is, the mopers were always going to find some new pretext to allow them to continue their moping. We just made two of the greatest hires in UM Athletics history, in Dan and Mario, and now the mopers are inventing fake myths about the ordering and timing of how you should hire coordinators and position coaches. And then whining when Mario doesn't do exactly what the mopers want him to do.

As for "slurpers", there really aren't any yet. Nothing has happened yet. We haven't had one practice, we haven't played one game. Maybe in a year or two Mario will have slurpers, but for now, people just want to see what he has in story for Year 1.
Click to expand...
Sure. But, using your logic then it's too soon to call these posters "mopers." You acknowledge the mopers, but deny the existence of slurpers. You can't have it both ways.

Let's do away with these labels for a moment.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with posters who want to question the hiring process. You can question Mario's tactics, yet still be a Mario supporter. You can cast doubt on the timing, yet still believe we got ourselves a **** good coach. You can bemoan the criticism thrown at our Program, yet remain steadfast in the belief that we will crush our opponents. These positions and beliefs are not mutually exclusive.

My point is we are way too quick to attack those who voice concern and label the antagonists as being anti-Mario or doomsday worshipers simply because it does not fit a certain narrative.

I appreciate dissenting points of view. I may not agree with the position or align with their conclusions on Mario, the Program, etc., but it causes me to evaluate their arguments so I can draw my own conclusion.
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
Gables Cane said:
Sure. But, using your logic then it's too soon to call these posters "mopers." You acknowledge the mopers, but deny the existence of slurpers. You can't have it both ways.

Let's do away with these labels for a moment.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with posters who want to question the hiring process. You can question Mario's tactics, yet still be a Mario supporter. You can cast doubt on the timing, yet still believe we got ourselves a **** good coach. You can bemoan the criticism thrown at our Program, yet remain steadfast in the belief that we will crush our opponents. These positions and beliefs are not mutually exclusive.

My point is we are way too quick to attack those who voice concern and label the antagonists as being anti-Mario or doomsday worshipers simply because it does not fit a certain narrative.

I appreciate dissenting points of view. I may not agree with the position or align with their conclusions on Mario, the Program, etc., but it causes me to evaluate their arguments so I can draw my own conclusion.
Click to expand...
Woah woah slow down, you're sounding like a rational human. You either have to be far left or far right, so either full-blown slurp piece or hating mope that thinks Mario should be fired already. Did I do it right?
 
OldhamA said:
I would not have a profile picture if I looked like that guy.
Click to expand...
tenor.gif
 
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
But what is his offensive philosophy? Was never a coordinator at the highest level. Doesn't like to recruit. Doesn't handle pressure well. Has been out of the college game for a while. Do not want.
Click to expand...
If Madden can call plays in his current state, then why not this guy?

1642698938459.webp
 
CanesNation26 said:
You think the sole reason people are opposed to hiring Ponce is because he's a Hispanic from Miami? You don't think it has anything to do with the fact that we allegedly have somewhere between $1.5-2M to spend on a coordinator and people don't want to spend that money on a guy who
(1) has no track-record of success,
(2) has called one mediocre offense on the G5 level (if you're looking at the advanced stats),
(3) co-coordinated 6 unimpressive offenses, and
(4) wasn't necessarily mentored by a guy who blows you away with his offenses (Satterfield)?

Hmm... i'm not buying it.
Click to expand...
My issue is with Points (2)-(4). The Satterfield offense is good. Ponce finished 22nd in scoring this year, ahead of Matt Candle in Toledo.

If we look at the ACC, Satterfield was 31st in scoring this year at Louisville. That's ahead of Miami, Arkansas and right behind Ole Miss.

I agree that I want someone with a longer track record, especially at that money. But this is a good offense that scores points.
 
Advertisement
DMoney said:
My issue is with Points (2)-(4). The Satterfield offense is good. Ponce finished 22nd in scoring this year, ahead of Matt Candle in Toledo.

If we look at the ACC, Satterfield was 31st in scoring this year at Louisville. That's ahead of Miami, Arkansas and right behind Ole Miss.

I agree that I want someone with a longer track record, especially at that money. But this is a good offense that scores points.
Click to expand...

What is your issue with advanced stats over a general “scoring” stat?
 
DMoney said:
My issue is with Points (2)-(4). The Satterfield offense is good. Ponce finished 22nd in scoring this year, ahead of Matt Candle in Toledo.

If we look at the ACC, Satterfield was 31st in scoring this year at Louisville. That's ahead of Miami, Arkansas and right behind Ole Miss.

I agree that I want someone with a longer track record, especially at that money. But this is a good offense that scores points.
Click to expand...
Trying to break it to us slowly. Starting with just the tip.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement
Back
Top