McDonald

[SUFan44]

The point is what you say in your first paragraph. Maybe you like tone better than context?

So I guess you're also saying Bambrewer is not rational?

I don't think I've seen one person agree with what he said. But you want to try to make that strawman.

That's not the point. Tone, context, whatever it is, isn't the point. Isn't even relevant in the conversation. Never was, never will be.

Yet for some reason, you - in the middle of everyone rightfully killing the guy for what his words were - bring context into the conversation.

Makes no sense.

 

[rrlbees]

That's not the point. Tone, context, whatever it is, isn't the point. Isn't even relevant in the conversation. Never was, never will be. Yet for some reason, you - in the middle of everyone rightfully killing the guy for what his words were - bring context into the conversation. Makes no sense.

Well it was my point as well as Banbrewer, Crusty, Cuseguy and others. It's pretty simple.

 

[TheCusian]

That's not the point. Tone, context, whatever it is, isn't the point. Isn't even relevant in the conversation. Never was, never will be. Yet for some reason, you - in the middle of everyone rightfully killing the guy for what his words were - bring context into the conversation. Makes no sense.

Yeah - who needs context or tone! Words are enough!! Otherwise, we'd be equipped with complex facial and body languages to provide extra information about what we're saying. That would make no sense.

 

[A Clockwork Orange]

Yeah - who needs context or tone! Words are enough!! Otherwise, we'd be equipped with complex facial and body languages to provide extra information about what we're saying. That would make no sense.

Here's the thing, if I said to you "You're an idiot!" while smiling and rolling my eyes after you said something funny, we would all understand that the context of that comment is fundamentally changed by my body language and the tone of my words.

I would still like to know what context and what body language was he giving off to make those statements not as bad, or okay? Especially in that situation where you're talking to members of the press?

Context? They asked him how he felt, and he said he was blindsided by it. Okay, I can handle that. Maybe a word that has connotations beyond just being surprised, but whatever. Then he makes the University of Arkansas comment. A public person with at least 24 hours to prepare himself for that media conversation doesn't say that. If he was contrite later in the conversation, or said "I was blindsided by it, but this is the profession we choose, and sometimes this stuff happens. I'm here to help this team out any way that I can." Now that's context. That would make it a little bit better. But he didn't say that. So as I said before, what is the context?

I listened to him, he sounded defeated. He didn't sound angry, but does that really matter? He said those words, and he meant what he said. It's good he apologized later because that means he realizes he sounded childish and unprofessional when making those comments. Why people are defending him here, while he had more than a day to prepare what he said, I'll never understand.

 

[TheCusian]

Here's the thing, if I said to you "You're an idiot!" while smiling and rolling my eyes after you said something funny, we would all understand that the context of that comment is fundamentally changed by my body language and the tone of my words. I would still like to know what context and what body language was he giving off to make those statements not as bad, or okay? Especially in that situation where you're talking to members of the press? Context? They asked him how he felt, and he said he was blindsided by it. Okay, I can handle that. Maybe a word that has connotations beyond just being surprised, but whatever. Then he makes the University of Arkansas comment. A public person with at least 24 hours to prepare himself for that media conversation doesn't say that. If he was contrite later in the conversation, or said "I was blindsided by it, but this is the profession we choose, and sometimes this stuff happens. I'm here to help this team out any way that I can." Now that's context. That would make it a little bit better. But he didn't say that. So as I said before, what is the context? I listened to him, he sounded defeated. He didn't sound angry, but does that really matter? He said those words, and he meant what he said. It's good he apologized later because that means he realizes he sounded childish and unprofessional when making those comments. Why people are defending him here, while he had more than a day to prepare what he said, I'll never understand.

I get that. I think the point is that the way you say something matters - if he had said it angrily pointing at Shafer from across the room? Of course what he said matters - but when it was initially "reported" on Twitter - it was just the words. We were left to imagine just how he said it - and I thought it was probably said angrily.

 

[eddie in nc]

I get that. I think the point is that the way you say something matters - if he had said it angrily pointing at Shafer from across the room? Of course what he said matters - but when it was initially "reported" on Twitter - it was just the words. We were left to imagine just how he said it - and I thought it was probably said angrily.

I think it might have been better if it was said angrily (is that a word?) in the heat of the moment. That was not the case, he was calculated and concise in his comments and to me that's even worse than being emotional

 

[A Clockwork Orange]

I get that. I think the point is that the way you say something matters - if he had said it angrily pointing at Shafer from across the room? Of course what he said matters - but when it was initially "reported" on Twitter - it was just the words. We were left to imagine just how he said it - and I thought it was probably said angrily.

Gotcha. When I read the tweets initially, I didn't think he said it angrily. I guess just the way we read those things can leave it up for debate!

140 characters is never enough to get into what a regular news article or video can get into. Twitter is another way to tease stories on your site, and not much more. In that sense, his quotes worked very well for the media.

 

[SUFan44]

Yeah - who needs context or tone! Words are enough!! Otherwise, we'd be equipped with complex facial and body languages to provide extra information about what we're saying. That would make no sense.

That's not what is being insinuated here.

 

[rrlbees]

That's not what is being insinuated here.

What's being insinuated?

 

[SUFan44]

What's being insinuated?

There were no facial expressions or body language that altered any meaning to what McDonald's words were. The tone and inflection, while gentle comparatively speaking to the pulled out 'tweeted' version that you are using as gospel, doesn't change anything. That is where context would come into play, if something meant something different.

You are saying his quotes were taken out of context and that the whole interview should be watched instead of reading just the "hot" lines and judging the guy. If that changed how I feel about what he said, then that is where I would agree with the context argument.

The way the interview went changes absolutely nothing about how I feel about George McDonald's actions. Context means nothing in this situation.

 

[phil77]

So it always comes down to a new staff bringing in a new system. Of course it will not fit the players currently on the roster. So what bends first? McDonalds system seems to work in alot of other places around the country so would it work here if he was allowed to run it with his people? Who knows. But I do know the system or a close version of it works all over the county and puts up tons of offensive yard and points. IMO that is the kind of offense you need at the dome. Take advantage of what the dome offers you. An exciting product would also bring the casual fan back to the dome as it would be exciting to watch. NOW that doesn't mean I think McDonald did a good job or is capable of calling that offense. Just commenting on the system itself.

The one thing I like what McDonald is that he didn't bend he was installing a system that could be around for a while. Just because QB wan'ts good enough to run it doesn't mean we should dump the system.

Seems at the end of the day it is a philosophy that is the problem. I believe Lester will install a more run first offense a ground and pound offense. Which can get some wins but I don't think it will be a long term success in the dome in this day and age. McDonald IMO didn't agree with that philosophy and wouldn't change his style to fit what seems like the entire coaching staff wanted so that is why he is gone. That is just me reading the quotes.

We will see is the short term success is worth long term success. Is getting to 6-6 this season and maybe winning 6 games next season worth giving up on what could be a air show in the dome like a Baylor, Arizona State, Texas AM to name a few. Once again not say McDonald himself was good enough to get that system to work properly I am just talking about the system and offensive philosophy.

 

[eddie in nc]

So it always comes down to a new staff bringing in a new system. Of course it will not fit the players currently on the roster. So what bends first? McDonalds system seems to work in alot of other places around the country so would it work here if he was allowed to run it with his people? Who knows. But I do know the system or a close version of it works all over the county and puts up tons of offensive yard and points. IMO that is the kind of offense you need at the dome. Take advantage of what the dome offers you. An exciting product would also bring the casual fan back to the dome as it would be exciting to watch. NOW that doesn't mean I think McDonald did a good job or is capable of calling that offense. Just commenting on the system itself.

The one thing I like what McDonald is that he didn't bend he was installing a system that could be around for a while. Just because QB wan'ts good enough to run it doesn't mean we should dump the system.

Seems at the end of the day it is a philosophy that is the problem. I believe Lester will install a more run first offense a ground and pound offense. Which can get some wins but I don't think it will be a long term success in the dome in this day and age. McDonald IMO didn't agree with that philosophy and wouldn't change his style to fit what seems like the entire coaching staff wanted so that is why he is gone. That is just me reading the quotes.

We will see is the short term success is worth long term success. Is getting to 6-6 this season and maybe winning 6 games next season worth giving up on what could be a air show in the dome like a Baylor, Arizona State, Texas AM to name a few. Once again not say McDonald himself was good enough to get that system to work properly I am just talking about the system and offensive philosophy.

IDK, system this system that, when it comes down to it, you as a coach have to put your kids in the best position to succeed. He may have a great system but if he cant tailor that system to fit the guys that are playing on Saturday than what good is the system? Are we sure that if he had his 4-5 star guys that they would run his system to a tee? Tough to say. You need to fit your system to the guys you do have first. Then, if you are successful with what you have, that gives you the ability to get your guys in the future to really run it the way you want. But, you have to learn to walk before you can run.

 

[phil77]

IDK, system this system that, when it comes down to it, you as a coach have to put your kids in the best position to succeed. He may have a great system but if he cant tailor that system to fit the guys that are playing on Saturday than what good is the system? Are we sure that if he had his 4-5 star guys that they would run his system to a tee? Tough to say. You need to fit your system to the guys you do have first. Then you are a successful coach and then that gives you the ability to get your guy in the future to really run it. You have to learn to walk before you can run.

I disagree. I think players come and go and systems stay forever. With any change in system there will be growing pains until you can get the kids in to run it. Hunt clearly can't run it. Players come and go. To install and exciting product that would get the fan base excited would be my first priority at Syracuse. Getting the players to run it comes next.

For example lets say Long is a perfect QB to run this system but he will not physically be ready for 2 years. So what do you do in those 2 years because you have Hunt who can't run it? Do you run a different offense for 2 years even though it doesn't fit what you want to do as a coach or fit the type of players you want to recruit. Then in 2 years when Hunt leaves do then try to install your system? Then you have the growing pains of trying to install a new offensive system? It is the chicken and the egg. Why break what you want just to put a maybe 6-7 win team out there that would hurt the long term potential of your program.

 

[TheCusian]

There were no facial expressions or body language that altered any meaning in what McDonald's words were. The tone and inflection, while gentle comparatively speaking to the pulled out 'tweeted' version that you are using as gospel, doesn't change anything. That is where context would come into play.

You are saying his quotes were taken out of context and that the whole interview should be watched instead of reading just the "hot" lines and judging the guy. If that changed how I feel about what he said, then that is where I would agree with the context argument.

The way the interview went changes absolutely nothing about how I feel about George McDonald's actions. Context means nothing in this situation.

If you go about judging words without context or tone you'll end up looking like an arse eventually. I agree in this case the words are damning on their own - but to say it plays no part whatsoever in developing your opinion probably writes off all of human communication for all time. It's proven that we gain tons of important information based on facial and body language - that helps you process the information in a context. Again, you're right in that those words are bad read or said - but you're going to far in saying it doesn't matter at all.

 

[eddie in nc]

I disagree. I think players come and go and systems stay forever. With any change in system there will be growing pains until you can get the kids in to run it. Hunt clearly can't run it. Players come and go. To install and exciting product that would get the fan base excited would be my first priority at Syracuse. Getting the players to run it comes next.

For example lets say Long is a perfect QB to run this system but he will not physically be ready for 2 years. So what do you do in those 2 years because you have Hunt who can't run it? Do you run a different offense for 2 years even though it doesn't fit what you want to do as a coach or fit the type of players you want to recruit. Then in 2 years when Hunt leaves do then try to install your system? Then you have the growing pains of trying to install a new offensive system? It is the chicken and the egg. Why break what you want just to put a maybe 6-7 win team out there that would hurt the long term potential of your program.

Its not the chicken or the egg. A system that can only be run with top tier recruits or only your guy is a sh***y system. He gets paid a couple of hundred thow a year to score points. I don't care what system or what personnel he choses or has to use. As an OC you can and should have offensive principles that you believe in and that is your system. The good coordinators take the talent they are given and figure out the best way to score points while keeping their core principles in tact.

 

[SUFan44]

If you go about judging words without context or tone you'll end up looking like an arse eventually. I agree in this case the words are damning on their own - but to say it plays no part whatsoever in developing your opinion probably writes off all of human communication for all time. It's proven that we gain tons of important information based on facial and body language - that helps you process the information in a context. Again, you're right in that those words are bad read or said - but you're going to far in saying it doesn't matter at all.

I have never said context never matters. We aren't talking about linguistics as a whole - we're talking about this isolated case.

 

[RoysRunts]

IMO Hire Joe Cassamento as O.C. or try to Hire the Nova Guy "I doubt he'd leave Andy Talley" McDonald need's experience or maybe his role in life is not to be an O.C..http://www.villanova.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/sam_venuto_11234.html


But give him FSU's 2nd team offenseive linemen and a couple of their reserve Wide outs and see how much he's improved..

 

[TheCusian]

I have never said context never matters. We aren't talking about linguistics as a whole - we're talking about this isolated case.

That's fine. You're still wrong that it doesn't matter at all. But we're fine - agree to disagree.

 

[rrlbees]

There were no facial expressions or body language that altered any meaning to what McDonald's words were. The tone and inflection, while gentle comparatively speaking to the pulled out 'tweeted' version that you are using as gospel, doesn't change anything. That is where context would come into play, if something meant something different. You are saying his quotes were taken out of context and that the whole interview should be watched instead of reading just the "hot" lines and judging the guy. If that changed how I feel about what he said, then that is where I would agree with the context argument. The way the interview went changes absolutely nothing about how I feel about George McDonald's actions. Context means nothing in this situation.

So again, what was Bam, Crusty, Cuseguy, myself and others insinuating?

 

[dinosaurbbq]

IDK, system this system that, when it comes down to it, you as a coach have to put your kids in the best position to succeed. He may have a great system but if he cant tailor that system to fit the guys that are playing on Saturday than what good is the system? Are we sure that if he had his 4-5 star guys that they would run his system to a tee? Tough to say. You need to fit your system to the guys you do have first. Then, if you are successful with what you have, that gives you the ability to get your guys in the future to really run it the way you want. But, you have to learn to walk before you can run.

There were more problems than just supposedly us not having talented enough players on this team to play and succeed within this system. 1. He rotated RBs in without any rhyme or reason or thought as to which player was likely to succeed within the play called -- ex. AAM being told to run wide/outside/East-West way too often; 2. He paid no attention to the attributes of the players he was asking to do certain things even though there were better options for particular targets on particular plays -- ex. threw big and comparatively slow Custis out wide on screens instead of Estime/Broyld/Erv; 3. No in game management of correct plays to call in any given situation -- ex. Calling particular pass or run plays when the situation, down and distance clearly dictated otherwise; 4. The offensive players are making way too many stupid mistakes with false starts, delays of game, etc.; 5. It is not readily apparent that any cohesive thought went into preparing game plans to attack opponents' deficiencies.

 

[dinosaurbbq]

I disagree. I think players come and go and systems stay forever. With any change in system there will be growing pains until you can get the kids in to run it. Hunt clearly can't run it. Players come and go. To install and exciting product that would get the fan base excited would be my first priority at Syracuse. Getting the players to run it comes next.

For example lets say Long is a perfect QB to run this system but he will not physically be ready for 2 years. So what do you do in those 2 years because you have Hunt who can't run it? Do you run a different offense for 2 years even though it doesn't fit what you want to do as a coach or fit the type of players you want to recruit. Then in 2 years when Hunt leaves do then try to install your system? Then you have the growing pains of trying to install a new offensive system? It is the chicken and the egg. Why break what you want just to put a maybe 6-7 win team out there that would hurt the long term potential of your program.

What you do is install only parts of that system that our current roster has a decent chance to succeed with and show the promise of the system for the future to allow you to recruit the players you think you really need. Once it is apparent that our players cannot succeed with certain plays due to the inability of the QB to get the ball to the WR in position to run forward with it, inability of the WR to block as is necessary, or inability of the target receiver to turn the ball upfield with speed, you adapt and nix that play from the system or at least minimize its use instead of running it time and time and time again with ugly results.

 

[kcsu]

What you do is install only parts of that system that our current roster has a decent chance to succeed with and show the promise of the system for the future to allow you to recruit the players you think you really need. Once it is apparent that our players cannot succeed with certain plays due to the inability of the QB to get the ball to the WR in position to run forward with it, inability of the WR to block as is necessary, or inability of the target receiver to turn the ball upfield with speed, you adapt and nix that play from the system or at least minimize its use instead of running it time and time and time again with ugly results.

guys he was simply horrible i dont think he could play call with FSU's players.

 

[SUFan44]

That's fine. You're still wrong that it doesn't matter at all. But we're fine - agree to disagree.

In the case of the George McDonald interview, context does not matter at all.

If you'd like to share with me how placing his sentences into the context of his interview changes the fact that he said he'd rather have stayed at Arkansas than came to SU for 18 months, that he said that he was told he was being demoted via phone, and all of the other ridiculous comments he made, please be my guest.

So again, what was Bam, Crusty, Cuseguy, myself and others insinuating?

Last try here - so please follow along.

"Otherwise, we'd be equipped with complex facial and body languages to provide extra information about what we're saying."

This was the quote from the post by TheCusian. This is what I was referring to as "this is not what is being insinuated".

McDonald's facial expressions and body language add nothing to the words he said, and change nothing about the words he said.

He wasn't being sarcastic, he wasn't making any innuendos that were only able to be understood if you saw the interview. Context means nothing in this case. Just because a guy says something "nicer" than it is being perceived on Twitter doesn't mean it he didn't say it. And doesn't mean adding it into the context of the interview changes anything.

The guy had two days to deliberate about what he was going to say. He was calculated with his words. If anything, the interview gives me more of a reason to vilify the guy. He's a complete and utter jacka**.

 

[ClkWrkOrange]

What you do is install only parts of that system that our current roster has a decent chance to succeed with and show the promise of the system for the future to allow you to recruit the players you think you really need.

This is exactly what I think as well.

 

[TheCusian]

In the case of the George McDonald interview, context does not matter at all. If you'd like to share with me how placing his sentences into the context of his interview changes the fact that he said he'd rather have stayed at Arkansas than came to SU for 18 months, that he said that he was told he was being demoted via phone, and all of the other ridiculous comments he made, please be my guest. Last try here - so please follow along. "Otherwise, we'd be equipped with complex facial and body languages to provide extra information about what we're saying." This was the quote from the post by TheCusian. This is what I was referring to as "this is not what is being insinuated". McDonald's facial expressions and body language add nothing to the words he said, and change nothing about the words he said. He wasn't being sarcastic, he wasn't making any innuendos that were only able to be understood if you saw the interview. Context means nothing in this case. Just because a guy says something "nicer" than it is being perceived on Twitter doesn't mean it he didn't say it. And doesn't mean adding it into the context of the interview changes anything. The guy had two days to deliberate about what he was going to say. He was calculated with his words. If anything, the interview gives me more of a reason to vilify the guy. He's a complete and utter jacka**.

This is easy to prove: had he said what he said while punching his fists and flipping off Shafer from across the room - he'd have been escorted out by security.

Body language and context always matter.

Just give it up. It's not worth the arguing... We agree that the comments on their own were horrible.