Sebastabear said:
Second, what? At what point did I say that everything that happened to Cal from 2007-2017 was based on the letdown loss from the OSU game? That's not even implied by what I wrote, much less stated. As a hint when I say "what happened in the back half of the season was an abomination" I mean "what happened in the BACK HALF OF THE SEASON was an abomination." Hopefully that was clearer.
But you seem to be arguing that Cal lost games in the back half of 2007 for the same reason it lost games in 2009 and 2012 and 2013, etc. I think those are all different lost seasons for dramatically different reasons and it's a fine argument to have I suppose if you want to talk about it, but that was never really the point I was making. Here I'm talking about 2007 alone and analogizing it to what could (hopefully) happen to Oregon in 2018.
Looks very inconsistent & unsteady. You are taking a quite admirable perhaps overly-nuanced approach in differentiating latter JT seasons, but then all that sophisticated nuance is discarded in somehow equating the supposed psych makeup of a JT team from over a decade ago to a team (put together by a diff staff in a diff program in a diff location in a diff student body in a diff decade) that hasn't shown any signs of emotional fickleness. So, as-of-yet warrantless speculation of OU is somehow derived from an incomplete analysis of the factors in '07; looks like trying to build a much desired conclusion on not one but actually two unsteady premises. Nuanced when it suits you (JT 07 vs 08-12), but throwing caution to the wind when it doesn't (ignoring other factors for 07, while also speculating with no evidence on a current team's heart). That lacks soundness in argumentation and persuasive force.
Did you forget about a most important depth chart decision thereafter? Had JT inexplicably gone the rest of the way with his injured QB, there would have still been several close losses even with a W over osu. Fans seem to forget that definitely not all was lost for the year after that loss; in the next week, Bears were ranked #9 and still in the long game; a top-10 ranking warrants a complete mental breakdown only in revisionist memories. The difference was a healthy QB. Throw a healthy QB in there motivated to redeem himself instead of a hobbled one, and the record is better than 2-5. Yet, thinking that winning the OSU game would lead to the RB ignores the change in QB, several other roster holes (even Syd & Tyson had their breakout season in '08; in '07 they were promising but not the Syd & Tyson they became), and new OC.Quote:
I guess you think if we had won the OSU game we still would have gone 2-5 for the remainder of the season (Ha!!!!)
I was definitely not calling a person (you) effete. An analogy/argument with initial force can become effete ("depleted of force or effectiveness") after analysis. The trouble with a connotation that is an insult is that it often swallows up other perfectly respectable definitions; language & communication suffers as a result.Quote:
And I would further debate the use of "effete" in this context to refer to an argument as opposed to an individual or system is incorrect but that seems somewhat . . . effete.