Jump to content

Tex Long

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    5318
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Tex Long

  1. On 3/8/2019 at 7:27 AM, Tex Long said:

    This is more than just human trafficking or unlawful sexual activity, this is a matter of National Security. If these alleged massage parlors were in fact surveilled for six months and we only find twenty customers, that's pretty clear evidence that they must have other means of support, which in turn leads directly to the feet of Chinese Intel. There is far, far more to this story, but we may never know the truth.

    Holy shit... reading the headlines the last day or two... can I write 'em, or what?

  2. 2 hours ago, lemonandaturd said:

    Jaren Watkins is listed on the Spring roster. He is a Darren Sproles water bug.  He is a touchdown machine.  https://youtu.be/EzCsiP7tAe8

    His HS is the one that never kicks or punts, except when required (i.e. kickoffs) and even then does onside kicks, so he got more reps...

     

    • Like 1
  3. I think McNeese plays Okie State early this fall, so we'll get some ideas right away.

    Good luck to Sterlin. He acquitted himself reasonably well through the ChuckUp here, will be interesting to see how he does running his own show. 

     

  4. "If" and "likely". Okaayyy.

    As somebody said, if this sort of thing is stated in a text or email (by Bro, Helton, or any SC people), game over. And it's pretty much what I expect to see come out.

    I guess I missed some of the in-depth "portal" ramifications. My original question here was really phrased poorly, I just wasn't clear on the schools' control (if any) over the targeted location to transfer, for one thing, and whether or not the new, improved portally transfer rules included not having to sit out a season.

  5. 1 minute ago, billfromlaketravis said:

    Kingsbury ... lied through his teeth for a month. 

    What lies did Coach Bro tell? I assumed that he played the Mac Brown (FMB) cards, and said things like "I have no plans to leave USC to coach elsewhere."

    It does seem that no one on the Forty, from Bru to CDC, has any worries...

  6. 5 minutes ago, ClubWhatever said:

    Lynn Swann ...’s got no role in this other than his words and actions might have been used as evidence by Bru’s attorney in their application.  

    Evidence of what?

  7. 49 minutes ago, Red Five said:

    It would be unfortunate if we all got to watch Bru in two spring games before playing any actual real football.

    It would. I think it's up to Lynn Swan, not the NC2A, right? Shirley Lynn wouldn't be that big an asshole, would he?

  8. Regarding height fuckery: two words: Elbow. Macaroni.

    Make a half-cup of elbow macaroni, but with ink instead of plain water.

    Allow it to cool.

    Apply liberal amount of Super Glue to top of head, pat on a sufficient thickness of macaroni to add desired height, and comb hair over it.

    Allow to dry for at least two hours.

    Get measured.

    Profit.

     

     

     

    Note: you may substitute other substances, such as dead cockroaches or dog turds, but the overall effect will remain. 

  9. 30 minutes ago, Felix said:

    Legend in his own time.  I guess I'll be reading Dead Solid Perfect again and laughing my ass off.  Gonna hoist a whiskey or six for him tonight.

    Yeah, you and me, both.  Might have to break into The Balvenie 15 I was saving for a special occasion.

  10. This is more than just human trafficking or unlawful sexual activity, this is a matter of National Security. If these alleged massage parlors were in fact surveilled for six months and we only find twenty customers, that's pretty clear evidence that they must have other means of support, which in turn leads directly to the feet of Chinese Intel. There is far, far more to this story, but we may never know the truth.

    • Like 1
  11. 3 minutes ago, drifter379 said:

    Free education, free access to facilities, free travel.....fuck off. That shit is not free. These kids put their bodies and in some cases their lives on the line for those things and your entertainment.
    I really don’t know if they should be paid or not but stop the bullshit “but free stuff” argument.

    Beat me to it. Ain't nothin' free, it's all part of the package. Whether volunteer players need or deserve more in the way of recompense is another matter entirely, but prohibiting them from making money in the side by certain means just is not Right.

    • Like 1
  12. Def one of the Greats. Got to meet him for about ten seconds at a Christmas party in Fort Worth, I think '61. Always bought his books as soon as they hit the shelves. Funny, funny guy and a fucking great writer. RIP.

  13. 1 hour ago, SquishMitten said:

    The term is being used in a stat for incompletions. If the receiver makes the catch, it would not be in the calculation.

    Ed Zachry

  14. 10 hours ago, sushihorn said:

    Then you just don't care about playing defense.  Sometimes the defender makes the play and the the receiver just makes a better one.

    Oh, yeah... right, I forgot it's the Shag Surl. Not giving a fuck about a made-up and essentially pointless stat is clearly an indication of disdain for that side of the team.

     

     

     

  15. 8 hours ago, sushihorn said:

    I can see cases where the DB rips through the hands but the WR still hangs on being considered tight coverage.  Similarly where he rattles the WR's teeth with a hit but the guys still hangs on, like that sideline shot in the Rose Bowl NC game where I wondered if the Trojan receiver was going to even get up but he completed the catch.

    Yeah, nah. "Almost didn't not prevent catch" fits that better than "tight coverage". Not sure I give a fuck whether  the receivers he was covering were wide open or made a miracle catch. Too many completions given up is too many, no matter if coverage was tight or no.

  16. 3 hours ago, SquishMitten said:

    I would think anything that leads to nearly instant contact after the receiver touches the ball...so not necessarily a break-up, but hitting the receiver, forcing him out of bounds or into the ground causing a loss of control. Also keeping the receiver from getting to where he’s supposed to be in his route

    Ummm... "so not necessarily a break-up, but... causing a loss of control" - that is specifically a PBU, not merely "tight coverage".  

    That is not really the point, though. I've never seen a stat line in print or on a screen with a category styled as "tight coverage". 

    Interceptions, yep. PBU, yep. But "tight coverage" (as something in addition to or other than the first two)? All I can think of is something along the lines of having guys you're covering being rarely or not at all targeted. 

Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...