Sorry
That's the best you have?
No, it is not.
Jack said one of the best coaching jobs he's ever seen.
Yup, and that's why I corrected his mis-quote, thanks.
I'm sure he wasnt talking about "one of the best hundred he's seen".
I bet you are pretty sure about that. I mean, you could just take what he said at face value but evidently you're a mind reader.
You're grasping at straws if you can't take anything the other side says because he didn't get the quote exactly right.
It's but one example. Ya'll keep wondering why, why, why and it's because there's so much simple shit like this that gets perverted when it doesn't need to be. Cooler heads keep pointing this out but instead it's just digging in and doubling down.
It was a ridiculous statement by Jack.
Of course, it was said numerously by people all over the country during the off-season. Here's Bill C. from back in May, for example:
Kelly's Fighting Irish suffered a little bit of bad turnover luck, lost their starting running back in the first week of the season, lost their quarterback in the second week and dealt with a secondary that was banged up all year. They were adapting on the fly, from fall camp through November...
...Kelly deserved more votes [National Coach of the Year] than the one of 60 he received. His squad took on more adversity than almost any other and handled it with aplomb.
With a redshirt freshman at quarterback and a wide receiver at running back, Notre Dame ranked seventh in Off. S&P+. And while the defense ranked only 35th in Def. S&P+ -- even with injuries in the secondary, a unit with this recruiting should produce better results -- it still held nine opponents under 30 points, typically good enough when you've got a top-10 offense. And even with iffy defense, Notre Dame had one of the most consistent teams in the country, which is remarkable considering the youth at quarterback.
This was Kelly's best coaching job; this might have been Kelly's best team, even better than the one that made the 2012 BCS Championship. (S&P+ says 2012 was slightly better, but only slightly.)
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/5/16/11663944/notre-dame-football-2016-pr...
It's literally not a controversial statement in the least bit from Swarbrick.
--
-Ya boy Jackmerius Tacktheritrix
Complete thread:
- Swarbrick at the Echoes banquet -
Jay,
2016-12-09, 18:58
- Funny quip. -
Savage,
2016-12-09, 19:03
- I hope this is satire -
JD in Portland,
2016-12-09, 23:06
- Nice -
DEM,
2016-12-10, 09:05
- What? -
JD in Portland,
2016-12-10, 12:03
- How am I supposed to rad alt right lunatics ? -
DEM,
2016-12-10, 12:18
- a bunch of scorched earth internet bomb throwers -
JD in Portland,
2016-12-10, 12:21
- Oh I guess that's what alt right means -
DEM,
2016-12-10, 12:27
- At the risk of extending a pointless and silly exchange -
JD in Portland,
2016-12-10, 13:00
- If that was your point I agree with it -
DEM,
2016-12-10, 13:23
- Jim''s a lot of things. Disingenuous isn't on the list. -
San Pedro,
2016-12-11, 06:01
- exactly -
Jay,
2016-12-11, 08:53
- Well I disagree -
DEM,
2016-12-11, 09:13
- Having just ventured over there... -
PMan,
2016-12-11, 10:12
- Just opened up this morning's copy of the NYT - DEM, 2016-12-11, 15:13
- Having just ventured over there... -
PMan,
2016-12-11, 10:12
- Well I disagree -
DEM,
2016-12-11, 09:13
- exactly -
Jay,
2016-12-11, 08:53
- Jim''s a lot of things. Disingenuous isn't on the list. -
San Pedro,
2016-12-11, 06:01
- If that was your point I agree with it -
DEM,
2016-12-10, 13:23
- At the risk of extending a pointless and silly exchange -
JD in Portland,
2016-12-10, 13:00
- Oh I guess that's what alt right means -
DEM,
2016-12-10, 12:27
- a bunch of scorched earth internet bomb throwers -
JD in Portland,
2016-12-10, 12:21
- How am I supposed to rad alt right lunatics ? -
DEM,
2016-12-10, 12:18
- Aren't all of us University stakeholders? -
Jack,
2016-12-10, 10:28
- you managed to address -
DEM,
2016-12-10, 10:30
- And you managed to miss my point too, so we're even - Jack, 2016-12-10, 10:35
- you managed to address -
DEM,
2016-12-10, 10:30
- What? -
JD in Portland,
2016-12-10, 12:03
- Not satire, you can read my response to 99 below. -
Savage,
2016-12-09, 23:36
- I''m mystified as to where the idea comes from that - Jack, 2016-12-10, 10:12
- If you want to make the comparison -
CW (Rakes),
2016-12-10, 04:52
- I don't think any comparison is necessary -
Rob (Rakes of Mallow),
2016-12-10, 06:48
- Agree completely. It's going way beyond where it should - Jack, 2016-12-10, 10:32
- I don't think any comparison is necessary -
Rob (Rakes of Mallow),
2016-12-10, 06:48
- My political-Swarbrick thoughts: -
nedhead,
2016-12-10, 00:31
- This is really good. And it goes hand in hand with... - Greg, 2016-12-10, 14:02
- Oh yeah?!?! - Busco21, 2016-12-10, 12:07
- Outstanding post - Jack, 2016-12-10, 10:41
- This is a truly great post - JD in Portland, 2016-12-10, 10:39
- The Ubiquitous They -
Mike (bart),
2016-12-10, 05:08
- Public servants are well compensated? -
San Pedro,
2016-12-10, 05:17
- I think so - Mike (bart), 2016-12-10, 05:29
- Public servants are well compensated? -
San Pedro,
2016-12-10, 05:17
- Nice -
DEM,
2016-12-10, 09:05
- [Eye roll] You know, sometimes a joke is just a joke -
Jack,
2016-12-09, 21:06
- Indeed. I acknowledged it as such - punchy, genre-savvy, etc - Savage, 2016-12-09, 21:39
- good joke for the setting -
Jay,
2016-12-09, 21:10
- Pee Wee Herman made an identical quip -
Pete,
2016-12-10, 05:02
- yes! -
Jay,
2016-12-10, 07:24
- So annoying when celebs swipe anecdotes - Mike (bart), 2016-12-10, 07:31
- yes! -
Jay,
2016-12-10, 07:24
- Pee Wee Herman made an identical quip -
Pete,
2016-12-10, 05:02
- It's shocking really -
Bill,
2016-12-09, 20:03
- Buck Mulligan said it best - Jeff (BGS), 2016-12-09, 20:37
- What's he supposed to do? -
San Pedro,
2016-12-09, 19:49
- In fairness there are also earnest manners of response that -
Mike (bart),
2016-12-10, 05:18
- speaking of eye of the beholder -
Jay,
2016-12-10, 07:45
- I think, as a leader, Swarbrick is forced to decide whether -
Mike (bart),
2016-12-10, 08:33
- Would the result be any different? -
Bill,
2016-12-10, 09:03
- Probably not! -
Mike (bart),
2016-12-10, 09:17
- I know you're joking -
Jay,
2016-12-10, 09:22
- It isn't if you're prejudiced against Swarbrick - Mike (bart), 2016-12-10, 09:42
- I know you're joking -
Jay,
2016-12-10, 09:22
- Probably not! -
Mike (bart),
2016-12-10, 09:17
- Would the result be any different? -
Bill,
2016-12-10, 09:03
- I think, as a leader, Swarbrick is forced to decide whether -
Mike (bart),
2016-12-10, 08:33
- speaking of eye of the beholder -
Jay,
2016-12-10, 07:45
- One of the criticisms I find odd -
Jim (fisherj08),
2016-12-09, 20:52
- I don't recall him saying any such thing in the first place - Jack, 2016-12-10, 10:48
- Don't worry. This is likely a drive by post -
Domer99,
2016-12-09, 20:50
- This really was not intended to be a drive-by. -
Savage,
2016-12-09, 21:29
- Your quote: -
Eric M,
2016-12-10, 13:42
- Come on -
Rob (Rakes of Mallow),
2016-12-10, 14:02
- Sorry -
Eric M,
2016-12-10, 15:34
- So let me get this straight -
Rob (Rakes of Mallow),
2016-12-10, 15:53
- You do know that two different people made those comments? -
Pat (Moco),
2016-12-10, 18:31
- Good burn, bro -
Rob (Rakes of Mallow),
2016-12-10, 19:16
- are we going to work our way out of this death spiral? -
Jay,
2016-12-10, 19:41
- I was actually trying to post in good faith. -
Pat (Moco),
2016-12-10, 21:03
- Eric's analysis showed that it was one of -
Rob (Rakes of Mallow),
2016-12-10, 21:50
- Brian Kelly has been National Coach of the Year twice -
scriptcomesfirst,
2016-12-11, 03:26
- We will agree to disagree -
Rob (Rakes of Mallow),
2016-12-11, 05:33
- You're slowly walking it back -
Eric M,
2016-12-11, 06:29
- Something like that - Rob (Rakes of Mallow), 2016-12-11, 08:01
- You're slowly walking it back -
Eric M,
2016-12-11, 06:29
- There's also glossing over the Connelly numbers - NDTerp, 2016-12-11, 05:06
- We will agree to disagree -
Rob (Rakes of Mallow),
2016-12-11, 05:33
- Brian Kelly has been National Coach of the Year twice -
scriptcomesfirst,
2016-12-11, 03:26
- yeah, I agree with that - Jay, 2016-12-10, 21:16
- Eric's analysis showed that it was one of -
Rob (Rakes of Mallow),
2016-12-10, 21:50
- I was actually trying to post in good faith. -
Pat (Moco),
2016-12-10, 21:03
- are we going to work our way out of this death spiral? -
Jay,
2016-12-10, 19:41
- Good burn, bro -
Rob (Rakes of Mallow),
2016-12-10, 19:16
- You do know that two different people made those comments? -
Pat (Moco),
2016-12-10, 18:31
- So let me get this straight -
Rob (Rakes of Mallow),
2016-12-10, 15:53
- Sorry -
Eric M,
2016-12-10, 15:34
- Come on -
Rob (Rakes of Mallow),
2016-12-10, 14:02
- Nothing is "unsalvageable" - Jack, 2016-12-10, 10:06
- Jack has thin skin? - Bill, 2016-12-10, 07:31
- good post, well-stated - Jay, 2016-12-10, 07:27
- I love this board's passion, but you're confusing 3 things. -
MHB (Rakes of Mallow),
2016-12-10, 00:20
- Spot on. - River, 2016-12-10, 14:31
- It's the all or nothing approach that gets me. - Pat (Moco), 2016-12-10, 08:40
- cosign - Jay, 2016-12-10, 07:24
- Good, rational post -
Rob (Rakes of Mallow),
2016-12-10, 06:42
- I agree and disagree. - MHB (Rakes of Mallow), 2016-12-10, 08:42
- Well stated, MHB. - Joe I, 2016-12-10, 06:04
- Your quote: -
Eric M,
2016-12-10, 13:42
- This really was not intended to be a drive-by. -
Savage,
2016-12-09, 21:29
- Yup and nor should he. - River, 2016-12-09, 19:55
- In fairness there are also earnest manners of response that -
Mike (bart),
2016-12-10, 05:18
- I hope this is satire -
JD in Portland,
2016-12-09, 23:06
- Funny quip. -
Savage,
2016-12-09, 19:03