edit: that means you have to take Holmes OR JENKINS over Thomas. I still think the thrust of the argument holds, although fond memories of Jenkins in West Lafayette kind of start to cloud things.
That means you then have to take Holmes over Thomas. (at least to comport with the rules of this arbitrary game.) I'm comfortable with either, but Thomas over Holmes isn't the razor's edge margin that Fields over Smith is.
that 2025 schedule tho
I count about 5 times in this game (and i'm only in the 3rd quarter) where a RB or a TE has made a spectacular catch as a safety valve on plays that go less than 4 yards.
This is less than 20 years ago and the offense feels prehistoric.
up until last year, though, the answer was about 11.
I am neither negating nor overemphasizing last year, but LSU has had outstanding talent for two decades. Orgeron wasn't responsible for that and arguably hasn't enhanced it. Like I said, you're conflating team results with coaching talent. Which misses the point of stratifying a list of "top coaches" if you're just going to reduce it down to "top programs."
You're also falling for some recency bias with Orgeron. Up until last year, he was mostly a failure with a couple successful interim stints.
Just another way of saying that the environment a coach lands in is easily as important as his native talents.
Man there is some coaching talent in this league if Smith is 12th and Brohm is 10th.
I think they're making the mistake of conflating enduring program strength with coaching talent, though. So much of what builds a successful program is out of a head coach's control. Paul Chryst, i think, is a good example of a wildly overrated coach. He's capably kept the Barry Alvarez Beef Factory rolling, but that's about it.
At least someone in blue finally gets it.
It's an order of operations problem. Assess your goals:
Beat your rival. Win your conference. Be the best team in the country.
If you can't accomplish the first, how can you claim the third?
You still can't convince me that 07 team that showed up in Glendale was the same one that played the regular season. There was some body swap voodoo at play.
I don't see a ton of explosiveness off the ball. In the first clip, the o-lineman takes a step backwards before driving into him and actually gets adeleye off the line of scrimmage (of course, because he's an elite athlete, he easily sheds him and closes, which is extremely impressive).
Is this a function of the role he's playing? Is he not getting the opportunity to be a pure edge rusher?
I agree. Easy to count up wins when we're never really exposed to the losses, and it's absurd to think that everyone who goes someplace else is a recruiting loss. Hard to infer who the good guys were really "in" on as-is.
The good news is that this Oregon team isn't going to be the all-offense Oregon of old. If you have to draw it up for a defense that looks to recover from a few losses and an offense that looks to take a few steps forward, the early season looks promising, at least until the trip to Penn State in late October.
is that retroactive to players already in the transfer portal or is it expected to be implemented at a future date?
sometimes these kids look so young and not ready to play big time ball
...and then they stand next to Day who is just a normal sized dude.
Well you made a conflation there that I think it's important to define and parse out. You implied that the defendant's **attorney** would be the one reaching out to the other party (they will assuredly each be witnesses in each others' case if the case is segregated and they both go to trial). Given that the rights held by a defendant include the option to defend himself and by extension to actively participate in their defense, I would think the judge's order is illegal on its face. For these purposes, I think a defendant's attorney needs to be viewed as an extension of the defendant himself.
This interests me. I would think that any defendent is entitled to pursue and present their own defense in the most effective way possible. By preventing them from knowing beforehand each others' true and accurate version of events, I worry that this restriction impedes them from knowing what the most effective defense even is. This doesn't seem like a fair imposition on the defense.
Any lawyers care to chime in?
after dutiful review and having allowed time to temper my immediate passions, i have reached the inexorable conclusion:
The Spot Was Good.
POINT OF ORDER
Saying that you would chop off your member for an assurance of a superbowl win is categorically different from saying you would chop it off if you won one. The former implies a pact with the devil/supernatural scenario that absolves Vrabel of is own free will as a deterministic input. The latter does not.
a small nit to pick: calling Okudah and Arnette "defections" implies a betrayal or disreputability in their early departure that I think most level-headed fans simply don't feel. "departures" seems more appropriate.
yeah i don't get this "well shucks, they took 7 points off the board late in a game decided by less than 7 points on an incorrect call, but i'm going to pretend like officials don't have that big of a role" thing
rightly or wrongly is fair to argue, but the officials DID decide this game.
this is exactly it. the determining factor has to be recklessness. should wade have reasonably foreseen that his actions would have initiated helmet to helmet contact? of course not. the rest is just football.
It's not a bad call.
It's a bad rule.
the good news: we're still the MUCH better team
there's Lamb. this kid's gonna have to ball out.