Did Pitt hire GRob as head coach?

[reedny]

Get ready for a ton of BS penalties against us this year. Big East refs just called an AWFUL holding call on a Pitt TD.

We're used to it, after the B10 officials stunk up the dome with that imaginary out of bounds call on a play that was clearly in-bounds.

 

[OrangePA]

I didn't say you change your opinions, I said you change your narrative.

nar·ra·tive
noun

1.​

a story or account of events, experiences, or the like, whether true or fictitious.

o·pin·ion
noun

1.​

a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

2.​

a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

Okay so I do not change my opinion but I change my narrative.

I'm sorry Scooch but I really have no idea what you're
trying to convey.

See ya.

 

[RF2044]

Well, I think I figured the BE would shake out as follows: (1) Louisville; (2) Rutgers; (3) Cincy; (4) USF or Pitt.

Something like that.

So, no, I didn't pick Pitt to be one of the top teams.

I have to admit, though, I didn't realize that the Panthers had lost so many athletes on defense.

When I suggested during the conference prediction thread a couple of weeks ago that Pitt was going to stink, and that the disruption associated with having a new coaching staff for several times in a few years, you challenged that by declaring that they were one of the top teams in the conference, and it wouldn't surprise you if they ultimately proved to be the top team.

Revisionist history on your part.

 

[OttoMets]

If we're not counting those chickens this year, with both at home on Friday night, then I'm not sure we'll ever be under this regime. So we might as well plan ahead to start counting now. I know I am. Losing those games just can't happen this particular season.

Agreed - those wins are as close to a "need" as anything we've got.

 

[DNABB5]

Agreed - those wins are as close to a "need" as anything we've got.

^^^^^^ Cannot be stressed enough. Pitt looked terrible. But they've looked terrible before and come in and destroyed Syracuse in the Dome.

Losing the Pasqualoni bowl might make OrangePA wistful , but it would be an absolute disaster for Marrone and the views of our own St. Tristan of Dubai might seem more veracious than previously perceived.

 

[kcsu]

Pitt will get betterj over time this year. Their top running back is coming off a major injury and will only get better with time. The D is very young but has talent at almost every position. They are in a new O and D and will improve each game. If they can keep it together and not fall apart they will be very tough to beat. The goal for Syracuse against this team is to take a quick lead do not let them get any confidence if they take the lead or hand around into the third we could be in trouble as they have as much if not more talent than we do

 

[OrangePA]

When I suggested during the conference prediction thread a couple of weeks ago that Pitt was going to stink, and that the disruption associated with having a new coaching staff for several times in a few years, you challenged that by declaring that they were one of the top teams in the conference, and it wouldn't surprise you if they ultimately proved to be the top team.

Revisionist history on your part.

I don't think you're right about that.

I have to honest, I don't really recall the conversation with you at all. I guess don't keep track of your opinions the way you apparently try to keep track of mine. Sorry.

But I'm pretty sure I picked Rutgers, Cincy and Louisville ahead of Pitt. I have always felt that Rutgers and Louisville would be the two most talented teams in the BE this year.

Again, sorry.

 

[OrangePA]

I didn't say you change your opinions, I said you change your narrative.

nar·ra·tive
noun

1.​

a story or account of events, experiences, or the like, whether true or fictitious.

o·pin·ion
noun

1.​

a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

2.​

a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

By the way, I am very humbled that you would spend so much time addressing one of my posts - even if the response is indecipherable to me. Still, good effort!

 

[SWC75]

By the way, I am very humbled that you would spend so much time addressing one of my posts - even if the response is indecipherable to me. Still, good effort!

I have an idea of what he means. I hope this helps.

Last year we had a debate about whether the Dome had been properly used over the years as an ideal place for a high-powered passing attack. You felt that it had not been underused and listed a lot of talented quarterbacks and receivers we'd had over the years. I started talking about BYU and all the success they'd had throwing the ball. They appearred to have a system that worked. Why couldn't we be like them? Then you said that we couldn't do what BYU did because we didn't have the talent necesary to do so. I referred to you prior post listing all the talented quarterbacks and receivers that we had. Then you stated that those weren't the type of quarterbacks and receivers who could run the BYU offense. You said that the East doesn't produce the kind of talent needed for the BYU offense. I made a list of the BYU quarterbacks. A couple made it big in the NFL: Steve Young, Jim McMahon. But most of them were only successful at BYU. And Steve Young went to high school in Connecticut. And there have been many top quarterbacks form the East: Dan Marino, Jim Kelly, Joe Namath. The debate kind of petered out after that.

The point is that your opinion, that the Dome had not been underused for the passing game, didn't change. But your arguments in defending that positon did, (we had a lot of good quarterbacks and receiver...we don't have enough talent to do what BYU does because the East doesn't produce players like that, etc.). I think that's what he means by the narrative changing while the opinion doesn't.

 

[OttoMets]

Pitt will get betterj over time this year. Their top running back is coming off a major injury and will only get better with time. The D is very young but has talent at almost every position. They are in a new O and D and will improve each game. If they can keep it together and not fall apart they will be very tough to beat. The goal for Syracuse against this team is to take a quick lead do not let them get any confidence if they take the lead or hand around into the third we could be in trouble as they have as much if not more talent than we do

This is my concern

 

[SWC75]

Let's worry about Pitt when it's time to play Pitt.

 

[OrangePA]

I have an idea of what he means. I hope this helps.

Last year we had a debate about whether the Dome had been properly used over the years as an ideal place for a high-powered passing attack. You felt that it had not been underused and listed a lot of talented quarterbacks and receivers we'd had over the years. I started talking about BYU and all the success they'd had throwing the ball. They appearred to have a system that worked. Why couldn't we be like them? Then you said that we couldn't do what BYU did because we didn't have the talent necesary to do so. I referred to you prior post listing all the talented quarterbacks and receivers that we had. Then you stated that those weren't the type of quarterbacks and receivers who could run the BYU offense. You said that the East doesn't produce the kind of talent needed for the BYU offense. I made a list of the BYU quarterbacks. A couple made it big in the NFL: Steve Young, Jim McMahon. But most of them were only successful at BYU. And Steve Young went to high school in Connecticut. And there have been many top quarterbacks form the East: Dan Marino, Jim Kelly, Joe Namath. The debate kind of petered out after that.

The point is that your opinion, that the Dome had not been underused for the passing game, didn't change. But your arguments in defending that positon did, (we had a lot of good quarterbacks and receiver...we don't have enough talent to do what BYU does because the East doesn't produce players like that, etc.). I think that's what he means by the narrative changing while the opinion doesn't.

Again, I am truly humbled by your recollection of my thoughts. I have no recollection of the discussion.

The only things recall about your discussions on this board are the things you do every week - you know - the Coaches Show stuff, the Why We Should Win stuff and the Bold Brave Men of Archbold stuff.

As far as the specific issues of SU Football is concerned, the only things that I remember discussing with you in detail was your insistence in the past - while challenging Coach P's abilities and results - that Syracuse University had facilities that were comparable to those of our competitors.

I thought you were wrong about your assessment.

I really have no recollection of the BYU discussion or the "east doesn't produce QBs discussion." I am pretty sure that I knew that western PA produced Len Dawson, Joe Namath, Johnny U, Dan Marino, Kelly and I think Earl Morrall, so I wonder why I would make such an observation, but who knows, I don't remember. I can say that we have never had a QB with the passing abilities of any of those guys.

As far as you helping me in this discussion, I guess my first response would be no thanks - I don't need your help.

But since you have offered to help, I guess I can respond.

First, if you are telling us now that what we saw last week in the Dome is the old BYU offense, I think you're wrong. LaValle Edwards did not run a read option. And, he did not run a spread as far as I can recall. He ran a pro-style offense that very few programs if any were running at the time.

Second, if you're telling us that our QBs - guys like Marvin Graves, Don McPherson, and Don McNabb - were comparable passers to guys like McMahon, Young, Koy and Ty Detmer, Marc Wilson, Gifford Nielson, Steve Sarkasian, Robbie Bosco and a think a few other guys, I don't think that's right. Young was a very strong runner of course but he was a far better passer than our guys - very very accurate. The other guys listed essentially were pure passers - not dual threat QBs.

That is far different than what we had from 1985 to 2008.

Dick McPherson tried to run a pro-style offense when he arrived on the Hill. It didn't work - we didn't have the talent to do it. Greg Robinson tried the Denver offense. It didn't work - we didn't have the talent to do it.

The "pro-option" that DeLeone ran did work for a long time - the essence of the offense was to use a run-based attack along with a passing attack that would take advantage of mis-direction. Our offense functioned very well for many years. So, in that sense, yes, I agree with what I apparently said during our discussion - the Dome was not "underused."

As far as the "narrative" thought you have tried to present, I think you got it wrong. The "narrative" - and the opinion - have remained the same. We did not have the talent to run the BYU offense but we did run an offense that allowed our QBs and WRs to be very successful - 0ffense wasn't a problem under DeLeone.

I guess you feel that had we run a BYU offense with McNabb, McPherson or Graves we would have won more games. I suspect that that is wrong. I suspect that the coaches ran what they felt gave them the best chance to win.

But, as you and I have discussed in the past you don't feel that P and D were good coaches or that they maximized the talent they had.

As I have in the past, I disagree with you.

 

[SWC75]

Again, I am truly humbled by your recollection of my thoughts. I have no recollection of the discussion.

The only things recall about your discussions on this board are the things you do every week - you know - the Coaches Show stuff, the Why We Should Win stuff and the Bold Brave Men of Archbold stuff.

As far as the specific issues of SU Football is concerned, the only things that I remember discussing with you in detail was your insistence in the past - while challenging Coach P's abilities and results - that Syracuse University had facilities that were comparable to those of our competitors.

I thought you were wrong about your assessment.

I really have no recollection of the BYU discussion or the "east doesn't produce QBs discussion." I am pretty sure that I knew that western PA produced Len Dawson, Joe Namath, Johnny U, Dan Marino, Kelly and I think Earl Morrall, so I wonder why I would make such an observation, but who knows, I don't remember. I can say that we have never had a QB with the passing abilities of any of those guys.

As far as you helping me in this discussion, I guess my first response would be no thanks - I don't need your help.

But since you have offered to help, I guess I can respond.

First, if you are telling us now that what we saw last week in the Dome is the old BYU offense, I think you're wrong. LaValle Edwards did not run a read option. And, he did not run a spread as far as I can recall. He ran a pro-style offense that very few programs if any were running at the time.

Second, if you're telling us that our QBs - guys like Marvin Graves, Don McPherson, and Don McNabb - were comparable passers to guys like McMahon, Young, Koy and Ty Detmer, Marc Wilson, Gifford Nielson, Steve Sarkasian, Robbie Bosco and a think a few other guys, I don't think that's right. Young was a very strong runner of course but he was a far better passer than our guys - very very accurate. The other guys listed essentially were pure passers - not dual threat QBs.

That is far different than what we had from 1985 to 2008.

Dick McPherson tried to run a pro-style offense when he arrived on the Hill. It didn't work - we didn't have the talent to do it. Greg Robinson tried the Denver offense. It didn't work - we didn't have the talent to do it.

The "pro-option" that DeLeone ran did work for a long time - the essence of the offense was to use a run-based attack along with a passing attack that would take advantage of mis-direction. Our offense functioned very well for many years. So, in that sense, yes, I agree with what I apparently said during our discussion - the Dome was not "underused."

As far as the "narrative" thought you have tried to present, I think you got it wrong. The "narrative" - and the opinion - have remained the same. We did not have the talent to run the BYU offense but we did run an offense that allowed our QBs and WRs to be very successful - 0ffense wasn't a problem under DeLeone.

I guess you feel that had we run a BYU offense with McNabb, McPherson or Graves we would have won more games. I suspect that that is wrong. I suspect that the coaches ran what they felt gave them the best chance to win.

But, as you and I have discussed in the past you don't feel that P and D were good coaches or that they maximized the talent they had.

As I have in the past, I disagree with you.

I didn not say that we had facilities that were comperable to our competitors. I said that we were going through a normal upgrade in facilities as we have done since the Dome was built, accellerated in need by what other schools were doing, so we would nbot be at a disavantge in the future. My position was that the facilities were not to blame for losses to Rutgers and Temple and for losing games by scores like 0-49, 0-43, -62, 0-59, 0-51, etc. And I blamed the decline in the program on such nationally televised disasters. Why would good players want to come here after seeing those performances? Your position was those were "mole hills" were making too much of and that the real reason for the decline was the decline in our facilities. But that's another arugment altogether.

The why can't we play like BYU argument: basically, why can we have a "system" like some teams have that produces big numbers, when just the way I described it. You went from arguing that we'd had a lot of fine quarterbacks and receivers so we must not have underused the Dome to arguing that we didn't have the talent to have a high powered passing attack. You changed- and contradicted- your own argument so you wouldn't have to change your position and that's an example of what he was talking about.