Elf vs Huskerboard

[Elf]

It's easier to latch onto the semantics of an argument (was banker not good enough vs did he not do a good enough job) when you can't really refute the overall argument. In his two years as DC, Banker didn't do a good enough job for him to warrant staying on the staff. He had an average at best scheme, and his recruiting abilities weren't good enough. Maybe his inability to connect with the players was a contributing factor to the defensive performance too, hence the "buy in" argument, and guys loafing or leaving early. But guess what? That's part of the job too.

That was never the argument. Mav stated as fact that Banker was fired because he wasn't good enough. That is simply conjecture. What we do know as fact is that Riley said he gave Banker things to improve upon and those improvements weren't made so he let Banker go.

You're complaining again about semantics, well, words have meaning for a reason and we don't get to ignore their meaning.

If you're fired for not meeting the metrics of your job, it means you weren't good enough to meet those metrics. Arguing anything beyond that is semantics.

Semantics is arguing about the meaning of words and that's not what we're doing here.

se·man·tics

səˈman(t)iks/Submit

noun

the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning.

the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text.

In regards to the bold, maybe, maybe not. You can be capable of meeting those metrics but still miss the mark for various reasons, some of which might be out of your control.

 

[Elf]

This thread right now:

I guess that's a self portrait?

 

[Elf]

Yes you are. You're saying that you absolutely know for a fact the entire reasoning for why he was fired.

And this right here is a strawman argument. I've never once said this, nor have I implied it and yet you attribute it to me anyway. Imo, these types of attacks are dishonest in the extreme.

This is a perfect example of what Blitz is talking about.

No, you never said it. You're implying it by saying my opinion is worthless unless I have connections within the program to know it's true but you're treating your own opinion as if it were an absolute fact.

That's what I'm referring to.

Please quote where all I gave was my opinion. I'll wait patiently.

*Edit*

Trust me. If I tell you that's what it is, you can just believe it at face value.

Your words, not mine. And this is what I was responding to when I said your opinion was worthless w/o credentials, because it is. Until you show some sort of credentials we're just a pair of schmucks on a message board. Providing credentials would mean only one of us is a schmuck, but I suspect all you have is being a schmuck, just like the rest of us.

If you couldn't tell that a post that was referencing oceanfront property in Arizona was dripping in sarcasm, that explains a lot.

You were trolling, again. I get that.

 

[Mavric]

In regards to the bold, maybe, maybe not. You can be capable of meeting those metrics but still miss the mark for various reasons, some of which might be out of your control.

And if it was things that were out of your control, a competent boss would realize that and not fire you for it.

 

[Elf]

In regards to the bold, maybe, maybe not. You can be capable of meeting those metrics but still miss the mark for various reasons, some of which might be out of your control.

And if it was things that were out of your control, a competent boss would realize that and not fire you for it.

Again, not necessarily. You're speaking in absolutes and there are far to many variables in human interaction to speak in absolutes.

Please quote where all I gave was my opinion. I'll wait patiently.

Nothing but crickets on that one....

 

[RedSavage]

In regards to the bold, maybe, maybe not. You can be capable of meeting those metrics but still miss the mark for various reasons, some of which might be out of your control.

Did you actually watch any of the games last year? It's pretty freaking obvious he DID NOT meet those metrics. This whole discussion makes me want to

 

[Saunders]

In regards to the bold, maybe, maybe not. You can be capable of meeting those metrics but still miss the mark for various reasons, some of which might be out of your control.

And if it was things that were out of your control, a competent boss would realize that and not fire you for it.

Again, not necessarily. You're speaking in absolutes and there are far to many variables in human interaction to speak in absolutes.

Please quote where all I gave was my opinion. I'll wait patiently.

Nothing but crickets on that one....

And yet you continue to say that Riley absolutely didn't fire Banker because he realized that Banker wasn't good enough to get the job done...

 

[Elf]

In regards to the bold, maybe, maybe not. You can be capable of meeting those metrics but still miss the mark for various reasons, some of which might be out of your control.

Did you actually watch any of the games last year? It's pretty freaking obvious he DID NOT meet those metrics. This whole discussion makes me want to

Obviously he didn't meet the metrics because he was fired, and that has never been the argument anyway. Hell, Riley said he didn't meet the metrics and gave that as the specific reason why Banker was let go.

I'm guessing you didn't read my post you quoted very well.

 

[Elf]

In regards to the bold, maybe, maybe not. You can be capable of meeting those metrics but still miss the mark for various reasons, some of which might be out of your control.

And if it was things that were out of your control, a competent boss would realize that and not fire you for it.

Again, not necessarily. You're speaking in absolutes and there are far to many variables in human interaction to speak in absolutes.

Please quote where all I gave was my opinion. I'll wait patiently.

Nothing but crickets on that one....

And yet you continue to say that Riley absolutely didn't fire Banker because he realized that Banker wasn't good enough to get the job done...

Quote where I've said that. I'll wait patiently.

 

[Elf]

Trying to argue the difference between 'he wasn't very good' and 'Riley gave him things to improve upon which he didn't' is like trying to argue between 'my life sucks' and 'I've been trying to do things to improve my life and they're not working.'

No one is trying to prove that difference, well, I'm not.

I'll say this one more time. Mavric said Banker was fired (at least in part) because he wasn't good enough. My position is, while that may be true, at this point it is simply conjecture and opinion because Riley told us why he fired Banker and it's because he was given things to improve upon and then failed in that mission. Fact we can find articles and videos that prove this but we can't find any articles or videos to prove Banker was fired because he wasn't good enough.

I don't even know why this is so hard for people.

 

[Enhance]

I don't even know why this is so hard for people.

Because you're coming off as obtuse purely for the sake of being obtuse, Elf.

Your "position" can be easily interpreted and boiled down to a simple statement - Banker didn't do very well at Nebraska. That's what everybody is saying. Is it really worth arguing the semantics of "he wasn't good enough" or his past experiences with Riley? I mean, my God, you're both saying things that are far more similar than they are different.

 

[Saunders]

In regards to the bold, maybe, maybe not. You can be capable of meeting those metrics but still miss the mark for various reasons, some of which might be out of your control.

And if it was things that were out of your control, a competent boss would realize that and not fire you for it.

Again, not necessarily. You're speaking in absolutes and there are far to many variables in human interaction to speak in absolutes.

Please quote where all I gave was my opinion. I'll wait patiently.

Nothing but crickets on that one....

And yet you continue to say that Riley absolutely didn't fire Banker because he realized that Banker wasn't good enough to get the job done...

Quote where I've said that. I'll wait patiently.

Ok?

I'm hardly stretching. It's stretching to think Riley would hire Banker if he thought he wasn't any good. Riley told us why he fired Banker and adding anything else to it, like "Banker just wasn't very good" is simply projecting your own opinion into the facts. Riley kept Banker with him for years when he didn't think he was a very good coach? Yeah, I'm not buying that one at all. Lol

Are we gonna argue the semantics of this statement now?

 

[Saunders]

I don't even know why this is so hard for people.

Because you're coming off as obtuse purely for the sake of being obtuse, Elf.

Your "position" can be easily interpreted and boiled down to a simple statement - Banker didn't do very well at Nebraska. That's what everybody is saying. Is it really worth arguing the semantics of "he wasn't good enough" or his past experiences with Riley? I mean, my God, you're both saying things that are far more similar than they are different.

He's just pissed off because he doesn't like a certain poster here.

Trying to argue the difference between 'he wasn't very good' and 'Riley gave him things to improve upon which he didn't' is like trying to argue between 'my life sucks' and 'I've been trying to do things to improve my life and they're not working.'

No one is trying to prove that difference, well, I'm not.

I'll say this one more time. Mavric said Banker was fired (at least in part) because he wasn't good enough. My position is, while that may be true, at this point it is simply conjecture and opinion because Riley told us why he fired Banker and it's because he was given things to improve upon and then failed in that mission. Fact we can find articles and videos that prove this but we can't find any articles or videos to prove Banker was fired because he wasn't good enough.

I don't even know why this is so hard for people.

 

[Saunders]

I don't even know why this is so hard for people.

Because you're coming off as obtuse purely for the sake of being obtuse, Elf.

Your "position" can be easily interpreted and boiled down to a simple statement - Banker didn't do very well at Nebraska. That's what everybody is saying. Is it really worth arguing the semantics of "he wasn't good enough" or his past experiences with Riley? I mean, my God, you're both saying things that are far more similar than they are different.

Exactly, which goes back to what I said earlier. If Banker was dealt a bad hand (aka was good enough) then he'll get hired somewhere else soon, and do quite well.

 

[Mavric]

Please quote where all I gave was my opinion. I'll wait patiently.

Nothing but crickets on that one....

I have no idea what you're getting at or wanting me to do with this.

Are you trying to make me find a place where you gave an opinion? Your opinion is that the reasons Riley gave publically for firing Banker are the complete and only reasons that he was fired.