Part 2 from the Cosm...

[H-D Rider]

Further update from the Cosm.... part 2! More interesting stuff...

Linky....

 

[Burnt Orangeman]

The offense is very worrisome but give me the hard truth like this over the usual mealy mouth coach speak parroting any time.

Regarding quarterback, I'd take a different approach to defaulting to a guy who has proven thus far not to be the answer. I'd say the job is literally nobody's and keep rotating until somebody steps up. Sometimes riding the pine makes a guy perform better next time he gets that precious opportunity and he certainly won't take it for granted. If anybody's fragile ego can't handle that, they aren't who your team needs anyway.

 

[YoLaDu]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....
You think the 'Cosm is "the hard truth".


I say again...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

It's as much opinion as anything else on the web.

 

[glenn]

well, yes, sangre, it is essentially opinion, but the question is always how well-informed are the opinions.

those guys make pains to be sure people realize that the word they are getting is coming from people who at least have considerable access to the program, but that the opinions expressed are simply that: opinions.

sometimes the word turns out to be wrong, but the readers there are paying by their presence to have access to opinions of people who know a lot more than most of us.  so when the scuttlebutt turns out to be false, then we are surprised right along with people who are relatively close to what is going on.

nothing wrong with that as long as readers keep the caveats at the fore, and plenty of times these guys are right on the mark.  and often before others are reporting it, whatever that is worth.

 

[longtex]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

glenn,
I respect many of (hell, make that most of) the opinions on the Cosm. But the day I take anything as the hard truth printed on any website that cites as their source a conveniently anonymous "Big Cigar" is the day I'll turn in my willing-to-think-for-myself card.

In this particular article, I agree completely that 8 wins is a reasonable expectation for 2011 and I have no problems with the staff seeing that as a positive goal (if the "Big Cigar" isn't just blowing a bunch of stinky burnt tobacco and it really IS the staffs expectation). The question really becomes, of the stuff being written, what is the Big Cigar's opinion, and what is the staff's?

And instead of swallowing all of that crap as gospel truth, as some seem all too happy to do, I'll read it with a healthy bit of skepticism, thank you very much. And longtex, if that makes me aggy, well, I'd say your definition of aggy and mine differ significantly.

 

[glenn]

sangre, your long, excellent history (don't mean to suggest that you, like me, are getting old) speaks to your undying support for the texas longhorns.

i agree exactly with your healthy skepticism.  probably about the same skepticism the 'cosm twins employ.  now that i understand your complaint, i find it perfectly reasonable and what i would expect of you, but the way you stated it, it came across as a put-down on the information gleaned there.

i don't have a problem with their not naming their sources, since the first time they do it would be the last time they did it.  come on, you know the gig.  reporters the world over pass on information gotten from sources that must remain anonymous, and some of the most consequential leaks of all time have been handled exactly that way.

i've seen evidence of these guys sitting on information until they can get corroborating word from a largely unrelated source so they can feel more confident in the information.  these guys are doing a very good and responsible job, and their track record is very good.  not bullet-proof, of course, but very good.

please pardon my retort to you, but had you worded your response differently i would have agreed with you then.

 

[glenn]

'all of that crap'

i think it is that sort of red-flag verbiage that rattles my cage door.  i don't understand why you feel the need to belittle the information if you, in fact, pay attention to it.

color me poozled.

regarding how close are the opinions to the staff's opinions?  well, of course, it depends on who the sources are.  many believe that muschamp was a source before he left.  even then, of course, if that was true, it is just one person's opinion and not the staff opinion or even that of the most important member of the staff.  i doubt any member of the coaching staff is leaking word these days, but whoever is talking (more than one person, i gather) seems to be close enough to have a pretty good handle on what the staff is thinking.  it behooves us, however, to listen to this information but leave room for doubt.

regarding what is source opinion and what is 'cosm opinion.  i'm going to have to think about that, but i feel like i know when the writer is injecting personal takes.  i'll try to remember to look for that the next exposé i read.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

I find the stuff on the Cosm by turns informative, insightful, and then irritating as hell. Some of it is the style of the prose, some of it is the relentless assault on perceived faults with the program (which may not be faults at all, but somehow the Cosm seems to wish to set itself up as the arbiter of all things good and bad in Belmont).

So, yes, I can see where my statements towards the Cosm may have been puzzling, since I have somewhat conflicted feelings about the site. However, the first post was directed at folks who slavishly follow all of the Cosm's pronouncements as gospel truth, and not at the Cosm itself.

The second bit, "all that crap" probably should have been worded differently.

 

[longtex]

SN, I do agree with a lot of what you say... Barking'Cosm can be pretty irritating at times.

That said, what I like about it is that the principals are very active, clearly identifiable, pretty open-minded, and they do temper their statements with reality factors rather than being simply dogmatic. They also don't (so far) pimp paid memberships with annoying interjections.

I don't find Mack-hating there so much as skepticism. If you've read anything I've written here over the years, you know that I tend to hold the same attitude - of course, if you haven't, you'll just have to take my word for it. You can color me "in the middle" on the subject - I don't believe Mack is as good - or as pure - as some seem to think, but I don't think he needs to be drawn and quartered, either.

Onward and upward.

 

[ViperHorn]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[longtex]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[tholly]

"If anybody got their *** whipped in 2009, it was us..." ____________________________________________ ________ .. I would argue that both offenses got their asses whipped. We probably out gained them but not by much. They helped us out with the poor kickoff and costly penalty mentioned, and we helped them with Kirkendalls drop of long TD and Buckners ill-advised fumble prior to their lead taking drive. Anyway, just one more game they found a way to lose and/or we found a way to win. '09 and '06 were games you could at least argue that neb found a way to lose; however, the other games we won I would argue that we simply brought our best game that day. Some of those could have been our best played game of the season. Last yr was a good example. I consider '01, '04, '05, '08, '09 as our elite teams under Mack (even though 01, 04, and 09 were not elite all season). As badly as neb fared against Texas, they only played against one of those 5 best Texas teams.

 

[kbrown]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

I remember a pretty thorough *** kicking the first time we played them as conference foes, and we even had the Mackovic anchor strapped around our necks at that time.

 

[ViperHorn]

When you are thoroughly dominated by a school, it is an *** whipping. Remind me again of the Texas record against Nebraska during the Big XII years.

 

[longtex]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[glenn]

you can't look at the 2009 season without considering the backdrop of the heisman race.  that colored the water the whole season and particularly the game with the cornshuckers.

colt's bud sam bradford had won the trophy the previous season, and colt very much wanted to take it home with him the following year.  his problem in 2009 is that the offense was missing quan in particular and a few key others that had made the offense click in 2008.  if you recall the early part of 2009, colt didn't look at all with it.  i think he knew there were serious issues that weren't fully realized (along with some brand new issues) as long as colt was there to mask them.

in the waning moments, particularly, of the nebraska game, colt was desperate to make a heisman-winning statement, i think, and it warped his judgement.  he very nearly cost us that game in the final seconds.  we have suh to thank for saving a precious second on the clock.  had he not been bearing down on colt, i think colt would have let the clock run out.  he couldn't have been focused on time remaining while desperately looking for someone to throw to.  and he was woefully short on reliable targets, as we have discovered.

i don't know how much that quest for a heisman moment affected the rest of the game, but i'm pretty sure it was a key factor throughout.

i don't say this to say whether anybody's butt got whipped in that game, but just to say that that game cannot be viewed with any clarity without referencing the background story.

if there is anything like ***-kicking in our series with nebraska, it is the series record itself.

 

[longtex]

In reply to:

---

---