|
Post by baseba1111 on Mar 10, 2020 11:03:39 GMT -8
You can justifiably argue about WT's coaching ability. Which we've already proven to be slightly better than his predecessor. WT > CR Which again is like saying Toyota > Honda. This makes a lot of Beaver fans happy. Too few of us want more than a .500 record. .500 Pac12 record... we'd not be having so many threads!
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Mar 10, 2020 12:37:05 GMT -8
I think that little of either has to do with WT and are more of an indictment on the scandalous lack of support that Oregon State Men's Basketball has received since at least BDC was at the helm. I think that expectations are 7th/8th, because Tinkle put together a better team than Oregon State deserves based on financial support. And I think that he coached to expectations. Getting rid of Tinkle for finishing better than 10th is really missing the boat on how to improve the team. You improve the team by financial outlays. You improve the team by improving facilities JFC Wilky, I think you've lost your mind. First Luke and Simonton, now this ... Our head basketball coach makes more than $2 million a year. Our assistant coaches are paid fairly, we have ample support staff and a more than sufficient recruiting budget. There are plenty of promotions and ticket deals. The MBB locker room was just redone. The lower bowl of the arena was completely renovated three years ago. A new scoreboard, replay boards and new lighting were added within the last two years. A $15 million practice facility is less than 10 years old. The front lobby and front plaza of Gill have been completely redone. You can justifiably argue about WT's coaching ability. But to claim the program does not receive sufficient administrative support, and to say facilities have not been improved, is complete and utter BS. I'm starting to believe you're a duck troll. Has to be or board troll in general. His lengthy rants get worse and weirder. He basically claim his opinions as factual evidence in many cases. And, like this completely ignored actual realities to just make crap up?! And, no matter how you challenge his post... letter from WA attorney/legal authority, stated facts/stats, etc he always comes back with BS solely based on personal bias. No longer worth responding too... I am still waiting on legal authority. Cite a case or statute. All I have heard from you is that you know a guy. I have actually litigated libel cases, and I do not believe that Luke has a case, unless there is some bizarre case or statute in the State of Oregon or Washington of which I am unaware. Congratulations on obfuscating the actual thread with your ad hominem attack.
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Mar 10, 2020 12:44:00 GMT -8
You claim to have litigated cases, but your posts show you have no grasp of Washington state law and how it differs from Oregon state law in juvenile cases. You persist in calling him a felon even though he is nothing of the sort, in fact any legal issues have been completely expunged.
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Mar 10, 2020 12:46:27 GMT -8
Has to be or board troll in general. His lengthy rants get worse and weirder. He basically claim his opinions as factual evidence in many cases. And, like this completely ignored actual realities to just make crap up?! And, no matter how you challenge his post... letter from WA attorney/legal authority, stated facts/stats, etc he always comes back with BS solely based on personal bias. No longer worth responding too... I am still waiting on legal authority. Cite a case or statute. All I have heard from you is that you know a guy. I have actually litigated libel cases, and I do not believe that Luke has a case, unless there is some bizarre case or statute in the State of Oregon or Washington of which I am unaware. Congratulations on obfuscating the actual thread with your ad hominem attack. Lol... I sent you a letter directly from the lawyer. An actual lawyer with credentials in the area of juvenile and sexual offender law. Label it what you will. Posts, ignorance of fact, refusing rebuttals based on fact vs your opinions based in bias, now sudden memory loss and blame. Yeah... troll... wanting attention? Again... no reason to reply we'll all know the crux of any such statement.
|
|
|
Post by nabeav on Mar 10, 2020 13:08:40 GMT -8
I love the irony of two guys who both think the other is unworthy of reply constantly replying to each other.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Mar 10, 2020 14:04:23 GMT -8
He usually put up monster numbers against subpar competition in the first half of the season and disappeared in the second half.
Once again, the numbers say otherwise. Let's look at the final five games of 1999 and the last six of 2000, when Ken supposedly "disappeared." 1999: @ WSU, 9-41, 2 TDs. After missing the previous game with a rib injury, he came in in the third quarter when our offense was stalled and sparked us by scoring two second-half TDs in a 27-13 win. Cal: 31-134, scored a two-point conversion. Arizona: 21-149. @ Oregon, 21-63, 2 TDs. Vs. Hawaii: 18-157, 2 TDs. So in his final five games of 1999, he averaged about 108 yards per game, 5.3 yards per carry, with six touchdowns, against Pac-10 opponents and in a bowl game. So let's go to 2000 Vs. Stanford: 14-81, 1 TD. Vs. WSU: 26-169, 2 TDs. @ Cal: 17-125, 3 TDs. @ Arizona: 19-73, 1 TD. Oregon: 24-113, 1 TD. Notre Dame: 18-85, 1 TD. So, in the last six games of 2000, he averaged 108 yards per game and 5.8 YPC, with 9 TDs, against Pac-10 opponents and in a bowl game. I wish all our RBs would "disappear" like he did. The individual game stats of 1998 are not available on OSUbeavers.com. However I do remember KS scoring four TDs against oregon in our last game of the season. Guess he didn't disappear that night, either. 1998 was the exception, which I have conceded. By the bowl games, Simonton should have been near 100%. Simonton had a relatively disappointing Fiesta Bowl, but he was not really needed. Final five games of 1999 specifically excludes UCLA, which tends to prove my point: 8 carries for 37 yards and a TD. You point out that he missed parts of UCLA and Washington State. This tends to highlight the lack of durability. I will include Stanford in week six, because you included week six in 2000. Simonton was 32 for 115 yards, no TDs, and two fumbles at the Stanford 6 and 7. In the Civil War Simonton started 11 carries for 3 yards and finished 12 carries for 8 yards at halftime. With a huge deficit to mask the run game, he finished the second half with 9 carries for 55 yards. In the final six regular season games of 1999, Simonton had 122 carries for 538 yards, 5 TDs, and 2 fumbles, 4.4 ypc. That would be 89.7 ypg and 0.8 TDs/game. In the other six games: 172 carries for 948 yards, 14 TDs, and a fumble, 5.5 ypc. That would be an average of 158.0 ypg and 2.3 TDs/game. In 2000, you have the order wrong. Stanford was in the first half of the season. You miss the UCLA game again. Simonton lost two fumbles and got hurt in the third quarter. He finished 24 carries for 100 yards and no TDs. He got hurt in the second half of California and sat out most of it. In the first half of Arizona, Simonton had eight carries for a yard. Simonton carried six times for 27 yards. It was only after Joe Tafoya was ejected that Simonton started to find his groove, rushing five times for 47 yards after Arizona started to substitute heavily. In the final six regular season games, Simonton finished 124 carries for 661 yards, 9 TDs, and two fumbles, 5.3 ypc. 110.2 ypg and 1.5 TDs/game. In the other six games, Simonton had 160 carries for 898 yards and 10 touchdowns, 5.6 ypc. 149.7 ypg and 1.7 TDs/game. In aggregate, between 1999 and 2000: Final six regular season games: 246 carries for 1,199 yards and 14 TDs, 4.9 ypc. 99.9 ypg and 1.2 TDs/game. Other six regular season games: 332 carries for 1,746 yards and 24 TDs, 5.3 ypc. 145.5 ypg, and 2.0 TDs/game.
None of this is to say that Simonton is a bad RB. I would just say that, looking at the other great backs over the past 50 years, Simonton is clearly not among the top three and is probably more like fifth.
Additionally, Simonton certainly played his part, but IMO he was not as elite at his position as some of the other players on the team. I have never thought of Simonton as the face of the 1999 and 2000 teams. He was certainly the face of the 2001 team and arguably the face of the 1998 team.
Feel free to disagree. People do. It does not make them secret Duck trolls.
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Mar 10, 2020 14:46:49 GMT -8
I love the irony of two guys who both think the other is unworthy of reply constantly replying to each other. Really not that difficult of a concept when it was stated just recently. Hence, "constant" has no relevance concerning previous posts. Seems pretty basic. Would it be irony to not understand that simple construct, yet say you recognize irony?? Asking for a friend...
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Mar 10, 2020 15:09:10 GMT -8
I have never thought of Simonton as the face of the 1999 and 2000 teams. He was certainly the face of the 2001 team and arguably the face of the 1998 team.
Feel free to disagree. People do. It does not make them secret Duck trolls.
I suppose not. Just terribly misinformed and incorrect. Only you would label a 5-foot-7 guy who had more than 1,000 carries and 5500 yards from scrimmage as not durable, or not the face of the 1999 and 2000 Beavers.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Mar 10, 2020 15:40:02 GMT -8
I have never thought of Simonton as the face of the 1999 and 2000 teams. He was certainly the face of the 2001 team and arguably the face of the 1998 team.
Feel free to disagree. People do. It does not make them secret Duck trolls.I suppose not. Just terribly misinformed and incorrect. Only you would label a 5-foot-7 guy who had more than 1,000 carries and 5500 yards from scrimmage as not durable, or not the face of the 1999 and 2000 Beavers. The Ken Simonton I remember was the Simonton who fumbled away the Stanford game in 1999 and dug us a huge hole against UCLA in 2000. Then, he was on the cover of SI with Joey Harrington himself and jinxed us. I remember the 1998 Civil War win. That's the Simonton I remember fondly. A guy playing his heart out, basically carrying an overachieving mediocre team by himself. A good player on an otherwise generally bad team. Simonton was still able to explode here and there, including roughing up Eastern Washington and the worst Trojan team ever in 2000. He helped steady the ship early in 2000 (first four games), before the other more-talented players were able to play to potential (game six and beyond).
|
|