[badger74]

I have seen lots of stories from players about being mentally prepared for winnable games and losing. But relatively little from the Head Coach about getting them ready and motivated to play--which is a BIG part of his job and high pay. This strikes me as very odd. In my experience the coach does most of the talking and takes the heat for this issue. He's the one getting paid.

[jcmanson]

He was asked about it in the presser this week and admitted the team wasn't ready against G-W and he took responsibility for it. He said the coaches do their best to make sure the players don't get too high or too low for any one game.

[ballcoach15]

It is totally puzzling as to why we were not ready to play at G Webb.

[BJWilliams]

Its not really that puzzling if you think about it ballcoach. They were caught up in past history. We had shut them out the last two years and won 8 in a row. No one on the roster currently had ever lost to G-W so they went in with their guard down, and the Runnin Bulldogs hit them with an uppercut to the chin and they never recovered.

[flameshaw]

It is totally puzzling as to why we were not ready to play at G Webb.

You have already been told.............................entitlement. Come on man...... get with the program.

[SuperJon]

You're always talking about agreeing to disagree, yet you always bring up a view you disagree with to make fun of the people who believe it. So are you a hypocrite or just enjoy lying about agreeing to disagree?

[flameshaw]

You're always talking about agreeing to disagree, yet you always bring up a view you disagree with to make fun of the people who believe it. So are you a hypocrite or just enjoy lying about agreeing to disagree?

....

[flameshaw]

You're always talking about agreeing to disagree, yet you always bring up a view you disagree with to make fun of the people who believe it. So are you a hypocrite or just enjoy lying about agreeing to disagree?

Making fun of people? Are you kidding me? How about the way you treat BJ.............. think about that. Now that you have made it personal, I will just say it. You come on here and act like you are the final authority on most every subject. Making multiple broad-brush statements that are just crazy. Just look at the one you just posted to me. "You're always", "you always".
I don't dislike you personally, but you are not nearly as smart as you give yourself credit for. You have been proven wrong here on several occasions, but still continue with the elitist attitude. You will finally figure it out one day, but it will probably take some maturing before that happens.
Now as far as being called out as a hypocrite and/or a liar, that is some pretty heavy stuff to me. Not many people have ever accused me of either. But in this case I will consider the source and chalk it up to immaturity and/or lack of reading comprehension.
I don't ever remember calling you out directly, or by name until now. I may have before and if I did I apologize. (I am pretty old and my memory is not great, it has gone the way of other things):) I have made many not-so-veiled- references, but out of respect I have not called you out personally. I know I have never called you a liar and/or hypocrite because that is out of line and totally disrespectful.
Let's just leave it at that for the time being. If you want to continue the silly, unnecessary personal attacks, I can deal with it, that is your prerogative sir. I prefer not to go there, but when called out, I will not hesitate to vigorously reply.

[SuperJon]

I don't dislike you either. I have a ton of respect for you. But four of your last eight posts were making snide comments about coaching or entitlement - two ideas you disagree with. They were in areas that weren't about that conversation so you brought them up to get a jab in. I'm sure I could find more too. I've learned we disagree on pretty much every topic Liberty related but I respect you so I don't make jokes about your views. Your go to statement when you're done discussing something is "agree to disagree" but you're still making jabs outside of those conversations. Obviously you haven't agreed to disagree. That's okay, but don't say one thing and do another.

Also - it's more respectful to call someone out directly than to take vieled passive aggressive shots.

[flameshaw]

I don't dislike you either. I have a ton of respect for you. But four of your last eight posts were making snide comments about coaching or entitlement - two ideas you disagree with. They were in areas that weren't about that conversation so you brought them up to get a jab in. I'm sure I could find more too. I've learned we disagree on pretty much every topic Liberty related but I respect you so I don't make jokes about your views. Your go to statement when you're done discussing something is "agree to disagree" but you're still making jabs outside of those conversations. Obviously you haven't agreed to disagree. That's okay, but don't say one thing and do another.

Also - it's more respectful to call someone out directly than to take vieled passive aggressive shots.

You are correct, I did use those comments to make a jab at you and may continue to do so, because it is so outrageous, (you know kinda like some of BJ's comments). And Jon, don't flatter yourself they are not always pointed at you. The entitlement ones certainly are....... both of them. However, the coaching ones concerning Lunsford were not at all. I cannot tell you who they were directed to, but I know they weren't you.
Because one says they will agree to disagree, it doesn't mean that the subject is not up for further discussion. It just means that there is no reason to continue that specific conversation, because neither party is going to be convinced otherwise. If you have another understanding of that, it is fine. That is my definition and what I mean.
I don't say one thing and do another. I guard my integrity with my entire being. One time, I was asked not to tell someone a person's name. I promised I wouldn't do it. When the time came, I did not reveal the person's name. That decision cost me over a million dollars personally and I knew at the time, that would be the result. So to be called out as a hypocrite/liar is quite distasteful. If you can live with it, so can I.
Finally as far as your last sentence, we will just have to agree to disagree.

[thepostman]

Hug it out you two.

[Purple Haize]

Also - it's more respectful to call someone out directly than to take vieled passive aggressive shots.

THIS

[badger74]

Same old same old. Gill gets another chance but sheesh. Getting team ready is your JOB. Any good HS coach can teach Xs and Os.

[JK37]

The whole of coaching can be divided into three categories, and the same three at all levels:
1) Recruit them
2) Teach them
3) Motivate them

"Xs and Os guys are a dime-a-dozen." -Lombardi

[SuperJon]

I don't know that we're doing #1 or #2 that well. #3 depends on the game.

[Purple Haize]

The whole of coaching can be divided into three categories, and the same three at all levels:
1) Recruit them
2) Teach them
3) Motivate them

"Xs and Os guys are a dime-a-dozen." -Lombardi

But if you are great at #1 you can ignore 2 and 3. See Calipari etc.

I agree with the theory though

[JK37]

Cal is a prime example of both the good AND the bad of only doing #1.

[JK37]

But I believe he's pretty good at #3, too. And better than average at #2.

[Purple Haize]

But I believe he's pretty good at #3, too. And better than average at #2.

He's average at best at 3. Horrible at 2. Although to be fair no one sticks around long enough to judge

[Liberty22]

Because one says they will agree to disagree, it doesn't mean that the subject is not up for further discussion. It just means that there is no reason to continue that specific conversation

It doesn't mean that the subject is not up for further discussion, it just means it's not up for discussion. For the record, agree to disagree means the discussion is over not to be brought up again cause you can't agree so it's pointless.

[Liberty22]

I don't know that we're doing #1 or #2 that well. #3 depends on the game.

Disagree. We got some really good recruits coming in, especially at the qb position.

[SuperJon]

I don't know that we're doing #1 or #2 that well. #3 depends on the game.

Disagree. We got some really good recruits coming in, especially at the qb position.

That's what we thought about all the recruits we currently have as players.

[alabama24]

But if you are great at #1 you can ignore 2 and 3. See Calipari etc.

I have nothing to add to the rest of the topic, but Football Ain't Basketball. In football, the team with the "best" recruits doesn't always win.

[badger74]

Even in basketball too. 71-64