WhoRUSF

32 minutes ago, George_Bullnard_Shaw said:

This is what happens when a fair to above average but emotional coach that can motivate well but has known anger issues peter principles when he reaches the Big East, hits a student athlete and rather than admit it, apologize, go to anger management counseling instead chooses to die on that hill.

You know you have an extreme bias when you refer to Leavitt's coaching at USF as 'fair'

Just now, NewEnglandBull said:

So what exactly do you want us to do? Join your boycott? Agree with you? What is your end game relative to us on this board?

You certainly have every right not to watch the game. I get that. I just want be joining you. 

Agree with me is fine! I like to agree. I also dislike stupid. 

23 minutes ago, CousinRicky said:

Welp, I come back to the 'pen after a few days off, see this thread, read the first 3 or 4 posts and skipped to the end.  Don't know what was said after those first few but don't think this belongs on the main board. 

15 minutes ago, NewEnglandBull said:

This! Further, why come on the board and continue to argue about it? What is your goal? Getting attention? Trying to change people’s minds? None of that is happening. If you don’t like it contact USF Athletics. Instead, these people are pissing on our game day...one in which we waited months for. 

You guys had an entire pow wow about how you hate politics this off season, but when USF does it and someone points it out, you're upset at the person pointing it out? 

If you two actually took the time to read anything I've said, I'm not taking sides on anything and have made ZERO political arguements. 

What is my goal? To help some old heads be consistent in what they preach. When things piss you off, it's a big deal. Politics piss people off. It's why I dont enjoy bringing it here. Unfortunately USF brought it here, and none of you have the balls to call it out simply because its behind a sensitive race curtain. 

Enjoy the game. 

1 hour ago, Triple B said:

 If you think USF put those stickers on there as a political statement rather than a societal one, knock yourself out.

The only thing Frisco has gotten right on this thread is that it's gameday and enough of the politics. I'll just leave the thread with an earlier Quote that sums up perfectly my thoughts on this:

 

I think it's pretty basic that if you directly label a known political organization on your uniform, that means you are supporting all it comes with. I've spelled it out for you in so many different ways how it isnt neutral at all, but you only dont care because you fully agree with them. Frisco was right about you. Completely hypocritical. 

8 minutes ago, Triple B said:

 

If you'll go back and check, the "they're" I'm referring to there is USF, not BLM ...

 

Isnt there going to be BLM stickers on USF helmets? This is why we are discussing BLM being political. I'm fully supportive of this right here. If they put this on the helmets I'm happy. Put BLM on and I'm no longer a fan because its politics I disagree with. 

8 hours ago, Triple B said:

I think a debate could be had, a very heated debated I'd think, as to whether what they're doing is more societal than political ....

Well I've brought many points to the table that shows just how political BLM is and you haven't made one counter point as to how it isnt. They call for changes to social POLICIES, economic POLICIES, and what government should and shouldn't do. 

Fire away. 

24 minutes ago, Friscobull said:

Trips will only moderate if he disagrees with the political position, if he agrees he becomes the biggest cheerleader, some may refer to him as a hypocrite.

I have no problems with trip and never have. This whole thing is unique and I can totally understand where a lot of us are coming from. The best thing we can do right now is call balls and strikes. BLM is blatantly political. I'm supposed to just sit there and enjoy pro socialist tags? 

Just now, Triple B said:

A debate on gun rights is integral in the discussion of those two quotes so we'll just have to agree to disagree about them ...

I'll take that as you prefer gun control measures and that's fine. Seems reasonable even if I disagree. 

I think the overall point is that BLM talks about politics throughout its site. They cheer on Democratic wins in 2018 Senate races. This. Is. Not. A. Neutral. Organization. 

I just find it to be overtly shunning to people who feel differently about things nothing to do with race. DeldaBull even said the other day that they Trojan Horse beliefs into movements like BLM and dilute the message with political opinions. 

I would find it in good taste for a moderator who says that we are against having politics on the board to also be against the school showing their politics. 

Just now, Triple B said:

Gun laws are already in place. The difference between "taking gun rights" and "Commonsense Gun Laws" is in the eye of the beholder.

Let's remember that the constitution says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So naturally, any gun law is impeding on gun rights. A right that we naturally all had is being restricted. 

I won't try to debate gun rights with you since this is TBP, but can we agree that these two quotes essentially mean the same thing? 

6 minutes ago, WhaddaBunchaBull said:

The Black Lives Matter movement is so much more than "not harassing black communities". 

This is the primary focus of the movement, but feel free to educate me on why I'm wrong. 

2 minutes ago, Triple B said:

Did check the website because those two things piqued my interest. Maybe I didn't dig deep enough but all I saw about gun rights was Commonsense Gun Laws and nothing about riots ..... maybe I had the wrong website.

Care to explain the difference between putting gun laws in place and taking away gun rights? It's objectively just the inverse of each other. 

I said I haven't mentioned the riots, meaning I dont like pinning that on BLM. Massive protests are bound to have some degenerates. 

13 minutes ago, WhaddaBunchaBull said:

It's unfortunate that the two use the same tag line. How would you suggest they convey the message that they support the BLM movement? 

I didnt know that we needed to say the phrase "Black lives matter" verbatim to show that we believe in not harassing black communities. 

I believe Iraqis deserve freedom, but didnt support operation Iraqi freedom. 

I dont support the patriot act, but I support Patriots who act. 

You know this man, I shouldn't have to explain this to you. This is all intentional. 

2 minutes ago, WhaddaBunchaBull said:

Keep in mind that the Black Lives Matter movement and the Black Lives Matter organization are two separate things. It is possible to support the movement without supporting the organization.

This is trash, they very well knew this and decided to support the organization. If you mean something different, then say something different. 

I did say that if USF mentioned BLM as an organization that they support, I'd be done with the team. Now BLM is on USF's helmets? 

Unity was already a great message. But how can we have unity when the decal on your helmet supports government run medicine, schools (run on a more federal level), taking gun rights, much more political stuff, and I haven't even mentioned the riots. Anybody who thinks I'm making this up, feel free to check out their website. 

I love this website but USF messed up big time. I no longer feel welcome as a fan, so I won't be anymore. 

27 minutes ago, jg233 said:

A few things...

Our Groza watch list kicker isn't even a starter...he is the backup to a guy who made 44% of his kicks last year.

Nick Roberts must be the best practice player ever.  He is one of the worst DB's I've ever seen play for USF.

I'm not sure any teams will even have to throw the ball against us.  I'll be shocked if we don't have the worst run defense in the AAC and maybe the country.

Four Freshman backups on the OL 

I REALLY dont understand the hate Roberts gets around here. For sure, hes not great. But look at our entire Dline and LBs. Hes better than most of them, and better than Mekhi Lapointe obviously. Way better than Sanders. 

Maybe I'm missing something that everybody else is seeing. It's something I'll look for when the season begins

3 hours ago, Jonesy Bull said:

Your basing your first statement on what exactly?

Isnt it fair to analyze the first game before determining "the quick 3 and outs" are automatic?

Let it play out bro!

 

I think hes basing it on how inefficient last year's offense was. Typically if your offense sucks, you're not trying to do a hurry up offense. You drag out the play clock so that you score on your gimmicky plays and let your defense get wins. That's how I'd assume USF wins this year. 

2 minutes ago, lotsofbull99 said:

Mcloud is modern day Julmiste.

Us younger fans dont know what this means (06 bandwagon) 

If McCloud starts, I'm upset. I dont think we finished the season anywhere well enough to warrant respect for last years starters. Across the board, I want changes. 

McCloud starting is a terrible sign for USF. I'm not saying McCloud will be bad, but if he really is our guy, he needs to fill a game manager role that focuses on not making mistakes. I dont see how he could possibly make enough progression in one offseason to offset his bad play last year. 

It's looking like a run first team this year. 

McCloud starting is a terrible sign for USF. I'm not saying McCloud will be bad, but if he really is our guy, he needs to fill a game manager role that focuses on not making mistakes. I dont see how he could possibly make enough progression in one offseason to offset his bad play last year. 

It's looking like a run first team this year. 

1 hour ago, Dave_Glaser said:

To me, safeties have to be able to be good in run support (especially when you're only using two linebackers like we have much of the time they've been here). Neither Roberts nor Sanders have been. I don't think they're afraid to be physical. I just don't think they're big enough to make a difference. I like those big safeties who can bring the wood when they have to. Our defense - in general - has gotten smaller over the years. We used to have bigger linebackers, safeties, even linemen during the formative years and those guys could still run.

I can agree with all of this. There are plays where he seems afraid to come up and make hits. But hes who we got, and unfortunately, hes still probably better than our alternatives. And we have much worse starters than him, such as our Dline. 

My favorite post cJL safety was Jamie Byrd, he cracked heads like you're talking about. 

18 hours ago, Dave_Glaser said:

I agree about the safeties. Sanders and Roberts are experienced, but I wouldn’t call them good. They’re both too small at this level.

My comment at safety isnt a knock on Roberts. I think hes actually one of our better players, certainly better than our Dline or LBs outside of Boyles. I can agree with Sanders being small though, he just cant tackle. 

My point about the safeties is that it isn't certain who will start there. We have guys like Burnett, Davis, Sanders, Roberts, and Lapointe. I'm probably missing a few names here but those positions are up for grabs, as is most of the defense. 

The only locked positions on defense to me are Sails, Hampton and Boyles. 

2 hours ago, usfgrad84 said:

I would go with this with the exception of Johnson gets the start at QB with Fortin and McCloud getting plenty of reps.  

I would not be surprised to see them run a lot of 2 TE sets.

I hope Scott's experience working with WRs will benefit St. Felix and a couple of other guys.  There is talent there if he can figure out how to actually catch more than 50% of the balls thrown to him.  

I also hoping that our offense doesn't rely on so many 50/50 throws outside the numbers.  Get the ball into the hands of the fast guys and let them do their thing.

On defense, I am hoping that Spencer knows the word blitz.  The former DC seemed afraid to blitz.  Especially on 3rd and long.  We have the best defensive secondary in the league.  Put them on an island and put some pressure on the QB this year.

Completely agree with needing to blitz this year. Our front 7 looks pretty bad outside of Boyles who at LB has a fast burst to the backfield. Make Hampton and Sails win us games. I dont think we know who's playing at Safety so I wouldn't call USF the best secondary. Maybe the best corners. 

Might as well have been McTrash since hes been here

8 hours ago, bowman1 said:

More accurately, Coach Speak about practice performance doesn't always lead to in game performance

Case in point

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.tampabay.com/sports/usf-bulls/2019/07/31/four-reasons-to-feel-good-about-usf-in-2019/%3foutputType=amp

 

Woof. They mentioned our 4 weakest positions 

7 hours ago, Jonesy Bull said:

He was **** intense.  Best times of USF football.  I get the feeling that JS is built in the same mode but in more of a Christian way.  But dont let that fool ya.  He's tough and will bring it just as hard!

Gotta be honest, I haven't seen anything from Scott to think hes even capable of getting as hyped as Leavitt. Scott seems like he can yell and bring intensity. There is just no way though. Those players ran through walls for Leavitt.