|
|
Post by aztech on Jun 5, 2010 18:01:09 GMT -8
I should jump in here. As Steve and I have discussed via PM, I know nothing about Akbar's position on the matter but I heard from two people with significant inside info who to my knowledge don't know each other that Marshall told Schemmel exactly that. However, as I've also told Steve, Marshall reportedly did so only a few days before 70-7 so he certainly could have changed his mind. Maybe immediately. Why would Marshall think 2.5 years in that Chuck should be given four years? I know it only as hearsay about Marshall but I know it as fact about others whose opinion Weber and our ADs have valued that the team was such a mess when Chuck came in that none expected the Mike Price at UTEP-type immediate turnaround that many on this board thought should happen regardless of who was hired. (My opinion was if they had hired Erickson or Neuheisel that might have been possible because those guys would have insisted on bringing in a bunch of JC transfers immediately and they probably said as much when interviewed. However, as has been discussed before, Schlemiel apparently thought differently.) As far as I'm concerned nobody can tell me otherwise what I can see with my own eyes. I feel I'm smart enough to use logic to draw my own conclusions. Isn't that part of the scientific method they teach you in college? Of course, if one didn't get out of college what they should have then it's likely he/she is gullible enough to buy in to what others believe. |
|
|
|
Post by justafan on Jun 5, 2010 18:09:27 GMT -8
Sorry aztech. I don't want to get into splitting hairs, but I think your "logic" is flawed.
What you are basically saying is that if you and John Wooden, ( RIP) watched a college basketball game and had different opinions on how the players played and the strategy employed, that your opinion should have as much credibility as his because of your ability to apply logic to draw your own conclusions about the the situation.
I don't think so.
Edit: By the way, I think Chuck should have gone also.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztech on Jun 5, 2010 18:39:10 GMT -8
Sorry aztech. I don't want to get into splitting hairs, but I think your "logic" is flawed. What you are basically saying is that if you and John Wooden, ( RIP) watched a college basketball game and had different opinions on how the players played and the strategy employed, that your opinion should have as much credibility as his because of your ability to apply logic to draw your own conclusions about the the situation. I don't think so. Edit: By the way, I think Chuck should have gone also. That's a poor analogy. I am not a basketball coach and he is(was). Get a clue. Look, players are not coaches. I might or might not give credence to what they say outside of their realm. Hell, a lot of players backed our coaches when they were let go. Were they right? |
|
|
|
Post by justafan on Jun 5, 2010 19:17:19 GMT -8
It's only a poor analogy because you don't get it. Apparently your ability to observe and apply your "logic" dosen't include considering that others with greater experience and knowledge of the intricacies of the game may see things differently than you.
I have heard from many coaches and football comenrtators that Marshall Faulk is known as a bona fide student of the game of football, not just a player. Ergo, he has a shitload more credibility that someone like you. That was my point. Ergo, you get a clue, you putz.
Edit: Sorry, the "Putz" thing may have been a bit strong. It was my reaction to your "get a clue" slam.
|
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jun 5, 2010 19:21:04 GMT -8
How much is Marshal donating to the program, that is what I want to know
|
|
|
|
Post by justafan on Jun 5, 2010 19:27:34 GMT -8
Non sequitur
|
|
|
|
Post by aztech on Jun 5, 2010 23:04:45 GMT -8
It's only a poor analogy because you don't get it. Apparently your ability to observe and apply your "logic" dosen't include considering that others with greater experience and knowledge of the intricacies of the game may see things differently than you. I have heard from many coaches and football comenrtators that Marshall Faulk is known as a bona fide student of the game of football, not just a player. Ergo, he has a shitload more credibility that someone like you. That was my point. Ergo, you get a clue, you putz. Edit: Sorry, the "Putz" thing may have been a bit strong. It was my reaction to your "get a clue" slam. Geezus, what a righteous phony. |
|
|
|
Post by justafan on Jun 5, 2010 23:37:34 GMT -8
Can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen, lightweight.
|
|
|
|
Post by steveaztec on Jun 6, 2010 8:24:48 GMT -8
Steeeeeve  I should jump in here. As Steve and I have discussed via PM, I know nothing about Akbar's position on the matter but I heard from two people with significant inside info who to my knowledge don't know each other that Marshall told Schemmel exactly that. However, as I've also told Steve, Marshall reportedly did so only a few days before 70-7 so he certainly could have changed his mind. Maybe immediately. Why would Marshall think 2.5 years in that Chuck should be given four years? I know it only as hearsay about Marshall but I know it as fact about others whose opinion Weber and our ADs have valued that the team was such a mess when Chuck came in that none expected the Mike Price at UTEP-type immediate turnaround that many on this board thought should happen regardless of who was hired. (My opinion was if they had hired Erickson or Neuheisel that might have been possible because those guys would have insisted on bringing in a bunch of JC transfers immediately and they probably said as much when interviewed. However, as has been discussed before, Schlemiel apparently thought differently.) Thanks for mentioning this SGF. As I said many times, I wasn't the only one who thought Chuck Long should have had a fourth year. I will add that I heard Marshall stick to his story at least a couple of times AFTER the 70-7 loss. The same as Jeff Schemmel (which is why Schemmel went on the radio show with the special program after he announced Chuck would be back. That being a couple of weeks after the New Mexico game). And there were many more. Some spoke up and some didn't. Somehow on this board, fans refused to acknowledge that Marshall Faulk, who knows more about football than anyone on this board thought that Chuck Long needed a 4th year (at least). Moving on, I can't wait for the season to start. I like Brady Hoke and staff. I think this is going to be a very exciting season. Go Aztecs!!! |
|
|
|
Post by steveaztec on Jun 6, 2010 8:26:16 GMT -8
I should jump in here. As Steve and I have discussed via PM, I know nothing about Akbar's position on the matter but I heard from two people with significant inside info who to my knowledge don't know each other that Marshall told Schemmel exactly that. However, as I've also told Steve, Marshall reportedly did so only a few days before 70-7 so he certainly could have changed his mind. Maybe immediately. Why would Marshall think 2.5 years in that Chuck should be given four years? I know it only as hearsay about Marshall but I know it as fact about others whose opinion Weber and our ADs have valued that the team was such a mess when Chuck came in that none expected the Mike Price at UTEP-type immediate turnaround that many on this board thought should happen regardless of who was hired. (My opinion was if they had hired Erickson or Neuheisel that might have been possible because those guys would have insisted on bringing in a bunch of JC transfers immediately and they probably said as much when interviewed. However, as has been discussed before, Schlemiel apparently thought differently.) As far as I'm concerned nobody can tell me otherwise what I can see with my own eyes. I feel I'm smart enough to use logic to draw my own conclusions. Isn't that part of the scientific method they teach you in college? Of course, if one didn't get out of college what they should have then it's likely he/she is gullible enough to buy in to what others believe. So you know more than Marshall Faulk about college football? You've been dogging me on this topic for a year. That is ok with me. I think I know more about football than you......You think you know more about football than me. Hint....Neither of us know more about football than Marshall Faulk. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Jun 6, 2010 9:27:02 GMT -8
As far as I'm concerned nobody can tell me otherwise what I can see with my own eyes. I feel I'm smart enough to use logic to draw my own conclusions. Isn't that part of the scientific method they teach you in college? Of course, if one didn't get out of college what they should have then it's likely he/she is gullible enough to buy in to what others believe. So you know more than Marshall Faulk about college football? You've been dogging me on this topic for a year. That is ok with me. I think I know more about football than you......You think you know more about football than me. Hint....Neither of us know more about football than Marshall Faulk. It doesn't matter which of you knows more about football than the other, or whether Marshall Faulk knows more about football than either of you. I know more about football than all three of you combined.  ;D |
|
|
|
Post by aztech on Jun 6, 2010 12:25:15 GMT -8
Can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen, lightweight. Supposedly Marshall wanted Chuck to remain as HC. And you? No, I don't want anything to drink with that. Thanks anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by aztech on Jun 6, 2010 12:47:55 GMT -8
So you know more than Marshall Faulk about college football? You've been dogging me on this topic for a year. That is ok with me. I think I know more about football than you......You think you know more about football than me. Hint....Neither of us know more about football than Marshall Faulk. Since you're asking, I never said that. |
|
|
|
Post by steveaztec on Jun 6, 2010 13:37:29 GMT -8
So you know more than Marshall Faulk about college football? You've been dogging me on this topic for a year. That is ok with me. I think I know more about football than you......You think you know more about football than me. Hint....Neither of us know more about football than Marshall Faulk. It doesn't matter which of you knows more about football than the other, or whether Marshall Faulk knows more about football than either of you. I know more about football than all three of you combined. ;D Well, you are from Vista. |
|
|
|
Post by KickAztec on Jun 6, 2010 14:00:33 GMT -8
Hint....Neither of us know more about football than Marshall Faulk. And none of us knows nearly as much about baseball as Tony Gwynn, and he thinks he's the coach to lead the Aztecs to the promised land. Doesn't mean he's right. |
|
|
|
Post by steveaztec on Jun 6, 2010 14:03:38 GMT -8
Hint....Neither of us know more about football than Marshall Faulk. And none of us knows nearly as much about baseball as Tony Gwynn, and he thinks he's the coach to lead the Aztecs to the promised land. Doesn't mean he's right. I think Dave Kingmen would be a great coach.  (Inside joke folks, don't try to figure it out) |
|
|
|
Post by justafan on Jun 6, 2010 14:11:23 GMT -8
Can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen, lightweight. Supposedly Marshall wanted Chuck to remain as HC. And you? No, I don't want anything to drink with that. Thanks anyway. Perhaps you should re-read my original post to you, in particular the last sentence. |
|
|
|
Post by ramrodd23 on Jun 6, 2010 14:27:18 GMT -8
Can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen, lightweight. Supposedly Marshall wanted Chuck to remain as HC. And you? No, I don't want anything to drink with that. Thanks anyway. Who cares. Chuck Long sucked at SDSU. End of story. |
|
|
|
Post by Spud on Jun 6, 2010 15:28:22 GMT -8
As far as I'm concerned nobody can tell me otherwise what I can see with my own eyes. I feel I'm smart enough to use logic to draw my own conclusions. Isn't that part of the scientific method they teach you in college? Of course, if one didn't get out of college what they should have then it's likely he/she is gullible enough to buy in to what others believe. So you know more than Marshall Faulk about college football? You've been dogging me on this topic for a year. That is ok with me. I think I know more about football than you......You think you know more about football than me. Hint....Neither of us know more about football than Marshall Faulk. Alan Greenspan is an expert in economics...doesn't mean he's infallible (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27335454/). I think CL got a raw deal to begin with. Regardless of whether you think he was a good or terrible coach, he had a lot of cleaning up to do. So if nothing else, we can at least see that he cleaned up the academic side of the house. Silver lining... |
|
|
|
Post by aztech on Jun 6, 2010 15:56:06 GMT -8
Supposedly Marshall wanted Chuck to remain as HC. And you? No, I don't want anything to drink with that. Thanks anyway. Perhaps you should re-read my original post to you, in particular the last sentence. That's what I was referring to. Maybe I was too subtle. |
|
