Reading the SU board

[ZooCougar]

Ok, then explain why his apologists have mounted hundreds of pages on this site in his defense..

He wasn't good enough.

 

[ZooCougar]

By the way, at risk of beating a dead horse, here is a link to Maryland's Rivals page. It looks to me, at least in the early going, that he is bringing in an equivalent class to Pasqualoni right now:

http://rivals.yahoo.com/connecticut/football/recruiting/commitments/2013/maryland-5


Considering he is in his dream job, one would think that he was recruiting a couple of ticks better than that.



Hopefully, Pasqualoni can take us farther and for longer. UConn is all I care about, and right now, Edsall's jacket is red...

 

[ZooCougar]

People who normally feel like they cannot make a point without resorting to name calling are typically obtuse morons. I guess you don't need to pick.

You still don't get it. I didn't state that emphasis on values was a negative, but you seemed to think that I did. I guess you are just a moron. There was no point to be made other than the fact that he placed an emphasis on values.

 

[UConnDan97]

You still don't get it. I didn't state that emphasis on values was a negative, but you seemed to think that I did. I guess you are just a moron. There was no point to be made other than the fact that he placed an emphasis on values.

Once again, if you feel like the only way to try to make a point is to resort to name-calling, it says more about you than it does about me. Do you get it??

 

[pj]

When the thread has devolved to arguments about who called whom by what name first, maybe it's time to turn the conversation to another subject. What did you have for breakfast this morning?

 

[UConnDan97]

When the thread has devolved to arguments about who called whom by what name first, maybe it's time to turn the conversation to another subject. What did you have for breakfast this morning?

Are you asking me what I had for breakfast this morning? Or was that directed at someone else?

 

[CTMike]

When the thread has devolved to arguments about who called whom by what name first, maybe it's time to turn the conversation to another subject. What did you have for breakfast this morning?

That's what all Edsall threads turn in to!

 

[ZooCougar]

Dan,

Once again, if you feel like the only way to try to make a point is to resort to name-calling, it says more about you than it does about me. Do you get it??

Nice deflection. For some strange reason, you assumed that I stated that his emphasis on values was a negative, which was pretty hilarious and stupid assumption on your part. bottom line is that Edsall's hard line beaver cleaver emphasis on values wasn't enough. He didn't win enough big games. He sucked at developing QBs and he was inflexible.

 

[ZooCougar]

Ok, you get credit. You have always been one of the more rational apologists. But the next time someone here wonders out loud here where the Edsall statue ought to be placed, I am going to politely point it to you.

 

[ZooCougar]

That's what all Edsall threads turn in to!

What was the original topic anyways?

 

[UConnDan97]

Dan,


Nice deflection. For some strange reason, you assumed that I stated that his emphasis on values was a negative, which was pretty hilarious and stupid assumption on your part. bottom line is that Edsall's hard line beaver cleaver emphasis on values wasn't enough. He didn't win enough big games. He sucked at developing QBs and he was inflexible.

Oh! Oh, okay. Yeah, I didn't get what you were trying to say when you called me obtuse and a moron. But now that you say that my comment was stupid, it's becoming extremely clear to me! Thank you for clearing that up!!

Listen, friend, my original (and only) comment on that point was "and....that's a bad thing?" All you needed to do was to say, "No, I don't believe it was a bad thing." And then I would have said, "Okay, cool." But you are too much of an obtuse moron with stupid assumptions to keep the discussion on a decent level, huh? I'm sure you'll come up with some more colorful superlatives for me in response, so....whatever. Keep it real, Husky!

 

[UConnDan97]

Don't be baffled (it's not worship, by the way). I'm baffled that some people think his body of work is incomplete after 11 seasons, but let's just focus on your points:

1. Terrible Record against the Top 25. Most do. That's why they are the Top 25.

2. Places a huge emphasis on character and values. And....that's bad?

3. Slow to take responsibility for results on the field, often deflecting blame to the players. Unfortunately, like most coaches do...

4. A good gameplanner who can get alot done with a little. I agree.

5. Slow to evolve and adapt when the plan isn't working or the conditions changed. Unfortunately, like most coaches do. They say, "I'm implementing my system."

6. Lots of blind spots... ??

7. Great at developing running backs.
8. Terrible at developing QBs or QBs seem to get worse as time goes by underneath his glare from the sidelines. So few coaches are good at both. I would just argue that he wasn't very good at recruiting good QB's with the exception of Danny O.

So there you have it. My synopsis of your synopsis in a nutshell.

Here is my original post (from almost a friggin' week ago!) that you keep bitching about. Where did I bash you?? I was commenting on each point, including the ones I agreed with. And my exact words to your statement turned out to be "And...that's bad?" Is that so inflammatory to you that you can't handle it, and that it is bothering you almost a week later?? Wow.

 

[CTMike]

What was the original topic anyways?

There was an original topic? haha. It's like a game of telephone that always dials Edsall's number.

 

[UConnDan97]

There was an original topic? haha. It's like a game of telephone that always dials Edsall's number.

It's more like "Six Degrees to Randy Edsall". No matter where you start, you'll get there in six posts or less...