I have most of the 1920s home programs and I've never even seen a picture of the 1926 Wilmington program. And given how awesome the rest of the 1926s are, I'd really love to see it. I've seen 1923 OWU, but don't have it. I'll ask around, too.
That's exactly what "bartram buck" is. Bill Greene or Rivals posts something and it ends up, eventually, on that forum via "bartram." He NEVER has the jump on anyone. It's ALWAYS trailing information.
I really can't believe you're downgrading Curry's assists because Curry is so good he gets double-teamed. Someone might argue that Curry's ability creates those assists. Yeah, there's a reason Green is never doubled. And it take some real chutzpah to somehow argue that Green gets credit for Curry's steals. But, hey, if reality is no concern, why not? And LOL at better "playmaking ability." Now I'm starting to believe you've never watched the Warriors.
But there is one point to address since you FINALLY cited an objective metric -- Box +/-. Curry's overall Box +/- is 12.4 to Green's 5.9. According to that metric, Green provides more on the defensive end; Curry provides more on the offensive end. And when they're combined, it's not even "remotely" close whose numbers are better for the all-around game. As has been stated numerous times, every other all-around objective metric reaches the same conclusion. End of story.
As I said, anyone saying Green > Curry just doesn't know hoops and is offering up an afternoon drive talkshowy/clickbait position. I guess it worked -- I got suckered in to several posts destroying the argument, reducing it the "ignore the stats, trust me" nonsense it is. But, it was fun.
And there we are. Appropriate snarky lead in as predicted.
Steph Curry led the league in steals per game. Steph Curry was 10th in the league in assists (Green was 7th -- and Curry can't pass to Curry). Green's defensive win share was 5.1; Curry's was 4.1. Curry's offensive win share was 13.8; Green's was 6.0. His total win share leads the league, as does his value over replacement and box +/- (both of which include defense). As I said.
I'll readily concede Green is a better rebounder. It's not nearly enough to overcome how much better Curry is at scoring. Curry passes the ball really well, is top 10 defensive player in terms of win share and, yeah, scores the ball with stupid efficiency. Green is a really good player and he had a really great season -- he is a top 10 player. He's not Curry. Not even close by any objective measure.
Again, I can only point to objective facts. You have your opinion. It's pretty clear it's not based on any sort of objective metric. And, of course, if someone disagrees with your opinion it means they haven't actually watched the Warriors play. Cute little tautology.
I'm certainly not holding his loss against him. However, I think his accomplishments w/ SF are overstated. Great NFL coaches do it over the long haul. And, TBH, I think they also do it with multiple QBs (but, hey, I'm not going to ding Belichek). JH had a phenomenal defensive nucleus. He just had to get the offense to competent. I give him a lot of credit for dumping Smith and riding with Kapernick. That was a ballsy decision that paid off. But, still, it was the defense.
In the same way, I'll judge his M tenure mostly on 2017 going forward. Those will be his teams and his program.
I'm far more impressed with what he did at Stanford because he built that program from crap. It seems to me that you have to assess where a program/team is talent-wise. That's why his efforts at Stanford impress me more.
I'm of the opinion he's a very good coach, but I'm not putting up there with the best in CFB just yet. I wouldn't be surprised if he gets there, though.
No. Just one of those people who look at a player's complete game, how he affects the game and how he makes others better. Pick whatever metric you want -- win share, box +/-, value over replacement, etc., ...Curry is the best in the league (this season) and considerably better than Green. I think the final 3 possessions of regulation against Portland illustrated his value nicely -- he brilliantly sets up Green for a dunk of the roll; then he creates a wide open 3 for Barnes who knocks it down to tie the game and then he creates a great look from 10 feet that he actually misses. LOL. He was great in OT, but he was fantastic w/o scoring in the final minute of regulation to get GSW to OT.
But, let's be honest - there's no point in discussing this further because every single objective measure supports the glaringly obvious. Anything further will amount to your subjective opinion mixed in with increasing amounts of condescension. It's the internet. You have nothing objective to support Green > Curry so that's how it'll go.
Goodness. I'm a Cavs fan, but Curry is the real deal. The guy is absolutely critical to the team. He takes them from 58-59 wins to 73. He creates spacing that makes it so difficult to defend and allows everyone else on that team to be better.
The notion that Draymond Green is more important to GSW is overthinking talk-show stuff. I'd bet my house Steve Kerr would take Curry over Green 100 times out of 100. There isn't a single metric that says otherwise, too.
The guy is phenomenal. I'd still take LBJ for a playoff series, I think..but I'm not sure if that's my bias. But it's a hard call for me.
I was referring to recruiting rankings. M finished ahead of MSU in every recruiting ranking and the 247 Composite. We're all painfully aware of how the regular season went.
As for the NFL, he walked into a good situation in SF. He did a nice job getting the offense up to competent, but you're right -- the defense made that team. Studs all over.
He also walked into a good situation at M, with lots of returning players and, fortunately for him, a QB transferring in. He basically did what Hoke did -- Hoke was +4 and JH was +5. He better win this year, though, because he's taking a step back in 2017.
LOL at Harbaugh's career being "amazing." If his career is "amazing" to date then UFM's is off-the-hook-mind-blowingly-stunning. I mean, in UFM's first 8 years he won 2 national titles and took a dour Utah program to 12-0. And, well, his next 6 seasons have been ok, too. And he's younger than Harbaugh!
I will give Harbaugh credit -- he has 1 fewer losses at M than Meyer has at Ohio State. And I thought he did a great job to hang within 4 TDs of OSU and to finish 2nd in the B10 in recruiting last season. I think he as a good shot to get back-to-back silvers. And when he was at Stanford, his best/only good team did manage to hold Oregon to 52.
He does deserve credit for getting to the SB and losing. That puts him in some hallowed ranks with the likes of Jim Caldwell, Jim Fassell, Ken Whisenhunt, John Fox and Lovie Smith...to name a few. Elite.
No. He'd have to go to law school as Saul Goodman and then take the bar as Saul Goodman to do this.
My guess is that the Jimmy-Chuck thing runs its course in S3 with Jimmy finally going nuclear on Chuck -- like, say, pointing out to all Hamlin clients that Chuck is loony. Maybe bringing them by the house. The one thing Gilligan did with BB was eventually serve hated characters their comeuppance. This is what will push him over the edge. Odenkirk has said he doesn't really feel like one slowly becomes Saul Goodman...you drift into that neighborhood then you fall off a cliff. I think his coming war with his brother is that cliff.
As for the "Don't" note -- it's Fring -- probably an associate, but it's Fring. Gilligan and Gould have both said they were surprised the fans figured out their coded anagram (first letter of each S2 episode title=Fring's Back). But now that the cat's out of the bag they've explicitly said he's coming back in some form in S3.
I think it was Gus. There was a lot of "easter egg" puzzle solving before the finale -- if you take the first letter from each episode and rearrange them it spells "Frings Back" -- and Mike was on the house the entire scene. I'm not sure how Nacho gets out of the house w/o Mike seeing him. I don't think Nacho can outsmart Mike like that.
It has to be Fring.
Spurs will win on GD if it comes down to that. Who would have thought that a team could clinch the BPL in the ManU-Leicester match and it wouldn't be ManU?
I think the tempo and urgency of the match favors Leicester. They don't need 3 points -- ManU does. That means ManU should press the action and that plays into LCFC's counter. I expect Kante to be immense and have a feeling LCFC gets it done. I mean in the season of the impossible, why not clinch at the Theatre of Dreams?
In any event, Everton are a bit of a mess, so it'd be a surprise if LCFC didn't beat them. They have both hands on the trophy right now. Even if they only get a single point from their final 3 that means Spurs would have to win their final 3. If this were any a "big side" everyone would call it game over.
In other news -- a much deserved vindication for the Hillsbrough 96.
Maryland seems the overwhelming likelihood.
Generally agree, though Spurs have only taken 1 point against LCFC this season. They did knock them out of the FAC.
I also disagree about "devastating" the European coefficient long-term. If, .e.g, England get three sides out of group play again, then it won't matter a lick. ManU didn't devastate the coefficient this year and their failure to get through rates as fantastic.
Yeah, I know what I Geordie is and I'm just as sure that you know that NUFC fans are commonly referred to as Geordies.
As for their style of football, we'll just disagree. It's certainly not Arse's Invincibles, but they have scored as many goals as any team in the league, though City are close and have a game in had. Their counter, as noted, is devastating, but they also work the ball well through the midfield as well. They don't play particularly negative. An interesting thing, for me, is to watch how they've had to cope with being favorites playing lesser sides. It's one thing sit back and counter bigger clubs on the road, but it's another to have to break down lesser clubs.
They are not accidentally top of the table. They're fortunate none of the "big" clubs are truly elite this season, but that's about it. What separates them is some fantastic road results...3-1 at City, 1-0 at WHL, 3-2 at Everton...
As for "divers" - meh. Whatever. Vardy went down easy at Emirates, but eh, so what?
Vardy, to the best of my knowledge, has been investigated wrt his "Jap" comment. I mean, what's there to investigate? It was on film. The FA issued their warning. I don't much care about Vardy one way or the other. He's have a career season. Mahrez is the jewel and Kante is not far behind.
I can't believe there is a fellow Geordie fan on this board. Though, at least I signed up in 1996 when Kevin Keegan's rollicking band of buccaneers were playing fantastic football. The match at Anfield that season hooked me on the sport for good. Unfortunately, heartbreak followed -- well, as much heartbreak as a johnny-come-lately can have -- and now they're just miserable. Huge match this weekend.
Leicester is the greatest global sports story of the past 25 years. As noted, they were 5000:1. To put that into perspective, the franchise that knows no bottom and is constantly redefining incompetence -- the Cleveland Browns -- are currently 225:1 to win the Super Bowl. What's more, LCFC has done it with really nice football and the some really good players -- Riyad Mahrez first and foremost. They've won matches on world class goals that lesser clubs shouldn't win on. Those were wins reserved for Henry, Drogba, Giggs, etc. And now they're so close. I think 15 points from their final 8 will see them home. I really hope they don't have to go to Stamford Bridge needing a result.
Great thread. I'll have to post some pictures when I get a chance, but I'm mostly old programs. 1930 or older. I have the entire 1922 season. I have the 1916 Western Conference championship game against NW. I have 4 19-aughts Thanksgiving programs. Unique games against Ohio schools like Mount Union, Kenyon, and Muskingum.
Non-program wise, I collected every Rose Bowl ticket from 1950 to 1997 and put them into a single frame. Its pre-2000 Rose Bowls (except for the impossible to find 1921).
Anyway, great thread. I'll try to share pictures in the near future.