Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 23 of 23
  1. #21

    Join Date
    July 11, 2001
    Posts
    18,411
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveInBaltimore View Post
    If the biggest complaint about Greenberg is "1 NCAA in 9 years", and people want to get rid of him before his contract is up because of that, then there is no way on earth any of those people could POSSIBLY want us to hire a guy who has been a head coach for 18 years and had ZERO NCAA appearances. No way at all.

    And doing better than the previous coaches is certainly not something that people who want to fire Greenberg care about, so I don't see why they would be impressed with Everhart on that basis.

    The bottom line is that no one who wants Greenberg gone could possibly want Everhart to be his successor.
    I dont particularly care about this either way, but my point was that the situation in reverse is also funny: is three NCAA appearances really that much more than none. Either way, its a really really small number. So, the fact that the vehement SG defenders would say that his zero appearances means he would be a poor choice for a hire is also funny.

    Like i said originally, i think the two guys are probably much, much more alike than they are different, but people are so married to their "team" in all of this they cant or wont admit it.
    There's a difference between a "fact" and an "opinion that you agree with."

  2. #22

    Join Date
    October 07, 1999
    Location
    Elkridge MD
    Posts
    21,129
    Quote Originally Posted by Groff View Post
    I dont particularly care about this either way, but my point was that the situation in reverse is also funny: is three NCAA appearances really that much more than none. Either way, its a really really small number. So, the fact that the vehement SG defenders would say that his zero appearances means he would be a poor choice for a hire is also funny.

    Like i said originally, i think the two guys are probably much, much more alike than they are different, but people are so married to their "team" in all of this they cant or wont admit it.
    What vehement SG defenders have been saying they don't want Everhart? Obviously, a "vehement SG defender" doesn't want a change at all, so in that respect they don't want Everhart. But I haven't seen anyone who has been a "vehement SG defender" (how many of us are there left? me? Crooked Road? One or two others?) say anything specifically bad about Everhart, other than to point out to the "vehement SG opposers" that if you don't want SG, you shouldn't want Everhart either, because the reasons cited for wanting Greenberg gone don't paint Everhart in a good light either.

    Which is just what you said. I just don't know who the people are that you see that are in denial.
    SteveA

  3. #23

    Join Date
    July 11, 2001
    Posts
    18,411
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveInBaltimore View Post
    What vehement SG defenders have been saying they don't want Everhart? Obviously, a "vehement SG defender" doesn't want a change at all, so in that respect they don't want Everhart. But I haven't seen anyone who has been a "vehement SG defender" (how many of us are there left? me? Crooked Road? One or two others?) say anything specifically bad about Everhart, other than to point out to the "vehement SG opposers" that if you don't want SG, you shouldn't want Everhart either, because the reasons cited for wanting Greenberg gone don't paint Everhart in a good light either.

    Which is just what you said. I just don't know who the people are that you see that are in denial.
    Really?

    In this thread alone, Crooked Road said that Everhart "stinks," That hiring him even as an assistant would be "That would be a huge mistake for the program" and if he were to ever be head coach, it "would set the program back to Bobby Hussey levels."

    That's just one poster in one thread, and let's stop pretending that there isn't a whole cadre of "Seth's Soldiers" on this board now, come on. You really think it's just you and crooked road? Shoot, I don't even see you as that vehement of a defender of the guy compared to a lot of other posters on here.

    I feel my point stands, is valid, and is in the same vein as yours - There are remarkable similarities between the two guys, and pretending like one is or will be great while the other is or will be terrible is merely viewing the issue through a particular "partisan" lens (for lack of a better word). Do you agree?
    There's a difference between a "fact" and an "opinion that you agree with."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •