jyamada;842232413 said:
How do you know that nobody got better? Even the punter? Are you basing your assessment on 1-11 or have you been to all the football practices to actually see a lack of improvement with any of the players?
j - I like you. You are a supremely nice guy. But this response has me incredulous. As the exact same points had me incredulous 12 years ago.
1. I didn't say nobody got better. I said give me a positive, not an excuse. You still haven't. The point is, you can look at this as giving reasons to fire him, or you can think of this as giving reasons to keep him. Dykes' defenders give lots of reasons why he can't be blamed for negative. But no one gives any argument that he has done something good. (as for the punter, a guy who has always been good just got benched by your coach a couple weeks ago for his lousy performance, so I think i can say "even the punter")
2. C'mon man. You are better than to think that I have to attend every football practice to judge a team that I have watched play 12 games. Your response to my asking people to demonstrate anything positive (an easy proposition if anything positive has happened) is to tell me I have to prove nothing positive has happened. I have to somehow prove I watched every second of practice and nothing positive happened. The classic proving a negative which is impossible. The point of practice is to be prepared for games. I saw all the games. We just had the worst season of our bad history. What happened in practice in that context is virtually irrelevant.
3. Am I basing my assessment on 1-11? You are damned right I am. Now I could go deeper and give you a lot of stats. I can describe what I saw at games. But I'm going to say what I said under Holmoe. I don't need to demonstrate that every phase of every unit is shyte. 1-11 is enough. If a coach goes 11-1, and you want to say he is an idiot, you need to bring some really good arguments that overcome 11-1. On the flip side, 1-11 is objective abject failure. I don't need to demonstrate that it is awful or why it is awful. You need to demonstrate that it isn't.
In law there is the concept of res ipsa loquitur. Meaning the thing speaks for itself. Dykes is coach and he went 1-11. That is failure. It speaks for itself. If you want to demonstrate that he shouldn't be held responsible for it, you need to make a good argument. This concept that I'm ONLY basing it on 1-11 is hilarious. It is like saying "you are only basing that murder charge on the fact that he was standing over the body with a smoking gun in his hand with blood spatters all over him screaming 'eat lead loser!' What else you got?"
I can make plenty of arguments that Dykes sucks beyond going 1-11, but I can rest my case on 1-11 if I want to. No one has come up with anything to rebut that.
And seriously. You were with Holmoe to the end, weren't you?
ykes,