Jump to content

hpslugga

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3286
  • Joined

Posts posted by hpslugga

  1. 28 minutes ago, XR4ticlone said:

    Linda Sarsour is one of the main leaders of the Women's March group.  She's pro-sharia law...and just a really vile woman...but the left embraces her. 

    Kinda like Farrakhan 
     

     

    You're asserting as fact something that is not evidently true. In other words, you're lying.

    The women's march attracted approximately 1% of the population to participate. Louis Farrakhan has even less support than that (the NOI claims to have a membership base of around 50,000 at most). Incidentally, that march and the NOI isn't even 100% supportive of those fucking people.

    You're beyond naive if you think "the left," which is just a clunky phrase that you use to label anything you don't like, is limited to those who "embrace" these people. Like I said, the shit you're spewing here is regurgitations of fantasies derived straight from the Land of Make Believe and Pretend, and you're sitting there patting yourself on the back as if you've been making good points. You're not making any good points, and you are absolutely wrong about absolutely everything that you've asserted here, which is par for the course.

     

  2. 39 minutes ago, XR4ticlone said:

    Calling our WWII soldiers 'antifa' is fucked up.    

    In your tiny mind. What's "fucked up" is your sniveling whataboutism that, if logic were fuel, couldn't power a flea's motorcycle around a drop of rain

  3. 2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

    You mean the guy who refused to answer if he had planted evidence and who perjured himself?  That guy?

    Beat me to it. To compare Strzok to fucking Fuhrman, a guy who was caught gleefully bragging on tape how he "framed/beat up niggers," gloated about some pretty horrific incidents on his record, including a few dozen claims of brutality, is just flat out dishonest. I'm not even going to say "intellectually dishonest," it's just flat out fucking lying.

  4. 18 minutes ago, Red Five said:

    “Conservative news outlet”. Lulz

    He says that as if opposition of the local water turning frogs homosexual is "conservative" or "news."

    If anyone hasn't seen it yet, I'd recommend watching that botched encounter he had with Bernie at the airport. That effeminate loser actually blames Hillary Clinton for his Sandy Hook denialism. And why does he do it? Because it's all about the gimmick. It's all about the work. He's never off it. He'd rather climb up a tree and believe a lie than stand on the ground and accept reality. At first I thought he was a snowball artist, but I think the more reasonable explanation is that he started off that way and grew to believe his own bullshit...either that or he knows that he has to keep outdoing himself in order to stay relevant.

     

    • Like 2
  5. Placing CC expectations on ANY coach in Lubbock or Pullman isn’t realistic at all. Coaching is about leaving the program in better shape than you found it.

    Did anyone fear Dykes’ Red Raiders by 1999? As I recall, a fairly mediocre Texas team sent his ass out with his tail between his legs and his balls in his mouth that season. No one gave a shit about Tech by that point, nor should they have.

    Did anyone in the PAC 12 give two chunks of baboon shit about Wazzu in 2011? They went 4-8 and finished dead last in the division, which was typical in their post-2003 era in that very brief period of success they enjoyed. 

  6. 8 minutes ago, Dropout said:

    And you’re talking about one year

    You pick the beginning.

    Clemson was somewhere in the 50's in 2016
    Bama was 4th in 2015
    Ohio State was 35th in 2014
    Florida State was 55th in 2013
    Bama was 15th in 2012 and 12th in 2011
    Auburn was 64th in 2010 (and the team they beat in the MNC game was 104th)

    See what I mean? It's all over the fucking place and there's no positive or negative correlation to it.

    Quote

    And the list I’m looking at has last years champion at 59.

    They were 70th. https://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/2018/team/705/p2

    Either way, that's not a huge difference.

  7. 15 minutes ago, Dropout said:

    So if you were a betting man you’d take the bottom half of those lists over the top half?

    I'm saying that I wouldn't base any hypothetical wagers I'd make on teams by TOP.

    Your question-begging, strawman argument implies that I said there's an inverse correlation. I said no such thing. I said it's unimportant. Those are two different things.

    Seriously, you're talking about a stat where the national champion ranked 70th. Any stat where the national leader has a 6-6 regular season and the national champion ranked 70th is by definition an unimportant statistic.

  8. 3 minutes ago, Dropout said:

    https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/stat/average-time-of-possession-net-of-ot?date=2017-01-10

    Alot of the top ten throughout the years admittedly run gimmick offenses Army Navy Air Force etc. I’d still take my chances with the teams holding the ball more than 30 min than those who don’t. And I didn’t make TOP the golden goose or most important stat ever. I simply asked slorch if he was insinuating it’s not an important aspect of the game. 

    And I answered your question: it's not. Now, you might have your own personal preference, but that in no way proves that it's important.

  9. 53 minutes ago, Dropout said:

    Are you insinuating TOP isn’t important in football? 

    I can't speak for slorch, but I'm telling you directly that it isn't. Look at the top 10 teams in TOP last season and understand those teams, combined, had a 59-48 regular season record in 2017. 3 of them had losing records, 1 had a .500 record, and another would have had Harvey not cancelled the UH vs. UTSA game (no fucking way UTSA wins that game). Either way, that's a winning percentage of 55%. That should tell you that there's a shitload of considerations when it comes to statistics, and TOP isn't the golden goose you imply that it is.

    Or to put it another way, here's the final regular season poll and to the in parentheses is their TOP ranking (playoff teams highlighted).

    1. Clemson (49th)
    2. Auburn (31st)
    3. Oklahoma (23rd)
    4. Wisconsin (2nd)
    5. Alabama (70th)
    6. Georgia (19th)
    7. Miami (123rd)
    8. Ohio State (98th)
    9. Penn State (58th)
    10. USC (43rd)

    Avg TOP rank: 52nd (it's 40th among the CFP teams)

    It's not important, at least not as much as you make it out to be.

    • Like 1
  10. 7 hours ago, Shmitty said:

    Explain.  That 2007 LSU defense was loaded.  

    Individual talent means jack shit compared to team output. All those draft picks mean is that they were a good team on paper, no different than that 2003 Texas team that wound up with 13 drafted players from that squad.

    You’re literally suggesting that a 2-loss team with a defense that surrendered 20 points per game somehow had a better defense than Ohio State in 2002; a unit that surrendered 13 points per game.

    -Ohio State got to that BCS game on their own merits in 2002. They had a perfect season.

    -LSU needed outside help in 2007, namely Kansas losing to Missouri. Les Miles actually campaigned for LSU to get into the BCS title game on the grounds that “we’re undefeated in regulation.” A truly dominant team shouldn’t have to have their coach say something that ridiculous on their behalf...but they evidently did, especially given the loss to unranked Arkansas at the end of the year. I’m sorry, but that Arkansas game alone is a trump card against them. 

    Also, 2002 Ohio State beat a much better team in the MNC game than LSU beat. That’s not in dispute.

    EDIT: And having said all that, the question you posted is highly inappropriate. I specifically stated  that there was “no reason to believe” the comment you made. I don’t need to explain shit to you. When you state that you disagree with a comment like “there’s no reason to believe X,” you therefore assume the burden of proof because you made the positive claim by implying that in fact there is a reason to believe it. So what are the reasons? Well you said that LSU’s 2007 defense was “loaded” and that was it. That’s not terribly convincing.

  11. 23 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

    twice in one day?? At my age??

    Well I mean as long as we’re jackin’ off fantasizin’ about shit.

    • Like 1
  12. 2007 LSU over 2002 Ohio State. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Obviously I take no issue with 2005 Texas being at the top, but that list completely falls apart after that. And I have to jump back on the first thing I said: I cannot take seriously anyone who says that a 2-loss team, who only got into the BCS MNC game because Kansas had a stupid loss to Missouri at the end of the season and cost themselves a berth in the Big 12 CCG, was better than perhaps the greatest defense of the BCS era. Hell, it's arguable that LSU wasn't even the best team in the SEC that year.

     

     

  13. 18 minutes ago, Jkwellborn said:


    They were running around 100 plays a game in the 70s for each side? Bullshit.

    No one runs 100 plays a game in the present era. Hell, no one even runs 90 per game. Yeah, those 100's do happen in today's era, but those are outliers and are usually done by teams on the very high end of offensive efficiency (none of those MAC schools do that).

    Last year, Syracuse led the nation in plays per game at 88, UTEP was at the bottom at 58, and if you look closely at the list, there's very little separation between teams and is a steady drop from top to bottom. In other words, it's safe to assume that the mean and the median are roughly the same. Since that's the case, the actual number for today is around 73 plays per game (88+58=146, /2=73). 

    In 1970, it was around 76-77 plays per game. I'll grant you it's not a huge difference, but it was still a greater number. In fact, Texas ran 84 plays per game with its wishbone offense, which would put them at 4th place nationally in 2017, ahead of the fucking Washington State Mike Leaches at 82.9.

    So no, it's not "bullshit" by any means other than one's own preconceived perceptions.

     

  14. Just now, kopp0e said:

    What assumption was most likely based on wanting to run a "ball controlled" offense, which theoretically keeps the defense fresher, with less snaps taken on that side...

    That may have been tenable when everyone was running the same type of equally "uncreative" offense as Knoxhorn put it, but that's a universe apart from today's environment. I liken that whole dynamic to, and I admit this is a bizarre comparison, a back and forth from Vice City: "The families can't keep their backs turned while our enemies reap the rewards." Besides, fewer snaps are taken today than were in the 70's, so again, that wasn't an assumption: it was a wish upon a star.

  15. 1 hour ago, Knoxtnhorn said:

    This was before my time but, whenever I watch older games on LHN, I am amazed at how uncreative the offense used to be.  

    Even more amazing is that for years, we've had fans that wanted to return to that era under the faulty presumption that it will somehow magically help the defense.

Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...