by ATLeagle on Fri Sep 16, 2011 12:45 pm
hawaiirob {l Wrote}:I understand the flight back from UCF was very turbulent.
by bcfanbetweenthhedges on Fri Sep 16, 2011 12:45 pm
by eagle216 on Fri Sep 16, 2011 12:46 pm
ATLeagle {l Wrote}:eagle9903 {l Wrote}:I keep reading elsewhere (ATLs Blog and TOS): How could they fire Rogers after keeping Tranquill for 2 years.
I'd suggest the following: 1)Tranquill's tenure counts. His hiring is probably the most obvious, difficult to argue against, objective black mark on Spaz' head coaching resume. He was "retired" and had spent time banished in NFL Europe prior to his time at BC. He was almost universally disparaged by UNC and Virginia fans who remember his play calling as dated and unimaginitive in the early '00s. He was too old, and probably never all that great to begin with. His tenure was brutal to watch, predictable, boring and the outcome was rarely in doubt. In short it was 2 years of program damaging misery. Spaz doesn't get to disassociate from that terrible decision because he eventually fired the man. Rather those 2 years count. So 2 miserable games of Rogers playcalling following 2 miserable years of Tranq playcalling are a whole lot different than if Spaz had hired Rogers 1st. 2) It is likely that many football coaches would be turned off by the sheepfaced moaning of our head coach and its reflection in the way he does everything from setting the depth chart to clock management to game execution. I'm sure Tranquill put up with it because he had nowhere else to go and because he had a long history with the HC. Rogers will likely have a coaching job post BC if he is healthy enough. He may not have been willing to have his legacy, such that it is, tarnished by knees before every half time and the prospect of designed clock killing should we ever have a lead. He may have, in short, been difficult to work with for Spaz relative to his predecessor. Certainly stranger things have happened.
Spaz kept Tranq because Tranq was his guy. Rogers was not his guy. Now he got what he supposedly wanted all along: Dave Brock to succeed Tranq.
by Bumpers on Fri Sep 16, 2011 12:52 pm
ATLeagle {l Wrote}:hawaiirob {l Wrote}:I understand the flight back from UCF was very turbulent.
I heard that on the boards too, but I don't buy it. The charters under TOB were always deadly silent there and back. In general, the plane is cramped and the coaches sit up front. Add in the night game factor and I doubt there would have been much talking/fighting at all.
by bcfanbetweenthhedges on Fri Sep 16, 2011 1:03 pm
by Saveagle on Fri Sep 16, 2011 1:39 pm
b0mberMan {l Wrote}:JesuitIvy {l Wrote}:you hope the RD resigning rumor isn't true, for a few reasons
You're a fake punt afficianado, I take it?
by Reverend Mike on Fri Sep 16, 2011 1:46 pm
ATLeagle {l Wrote}:eagle9903 {l Wrote}:I keep reading elsewhere (ATLs Blog and TOS): How could they fire Rogers after keeping Tranquill for 2 years.
I'd suggest the following: 1)Tranquill's tenure counts. His hiring is probably the most obvious, difficult to argue against, objective black mark on Spaz' head coaching resume. He was "retired" and had spent time banished in NFL Europe prior to his time at BC. He was almost universally disparaged by UNC and Virginia fans who remember his play calling as dated and unimaginitive in the early '00s. He was too old, and probably never all that great to begin with. His tenure was brutal to watch, predictable, boring and the outcome was rarely in doubt. In short it was 2 years of program damaging misery. Spaz doesn't get to disassociate from that terrible decision because he eventually fired the man. Rather those 2 years count. So 2 miserable games of Rogers playcalling following 2 miserable years of Tranq playcalling are a whole lot different than if Spaz had hired Rogers 1st. 2) It is likely that many football coaches would be turned off by the sheepfaced moaning of our head coach and its reflection in the way he does everything from setting the depth chart to clock management to game execution. I'm sure Tranquill put up with it because he had nowhere else to go and because he had a long history with the HC. Rogers will likely have a coaching job post BC if he is healthy enough. He may not have been willing to have his legacy, such that it is, tarnished by knees before every half time and the prospect of designed clock killing should we ever have a lead. He may have, in short, been difficult to work with for Spaz relative to his predecessor. Certainly stranger things have happened.
Spaz kept Tranq because Tranq was his guy. Rogers was not his guy. Now he got what he supposedly wanted all along: Dave Brock to succeed Tranq.
by bignick33 on Fri Sep 16, 2011 1:53 pm
Saveagle {l Wrote}:b0mberMan {l Wrote}:JesuitIvy {l Wrote}:you hope the RD resigning rumor isn't true, for a few reasons
You're a fake punt afficianado, I take it?
Fake field goal. I've never seen BC try a fake punt. I've seen a few pulled against us, but we never had the balls to try it to my recollection.
by claver2010 on Fri Sep 16, 2011 1:58 pm
bignick33 {l Wrote}:Saveagle {l Wrote}:b0mberMan {l Wrote}:JesuitIvy {l Wrote}:you hope the RD resigning rumor isn't true, for a few reasons
You're a fake punt afficianado, I take it?
Fake field goal. I've never seen BC try a fake punt. I've seen a few pulled against us, but we never had the balls to try it to my recollection.
Didn't we try one with Toal as the guy receiving the ball at some point?
by bcnyceagle on Fri Sep 16, 2011 2:13 pm
by ATLeagle on Fri Sep 16, 2011 2:16 pm
Reverend Mike {l Wrote}:ATLeagle {l Wrote}:eagle9903 {l Wrote}:I keep reading elsewhere (ATLs Blog and TOS): How could they fire Rogers after keeping Tranquill for 2 years.
I'd suggest the following: 1)Tranquill's tenure counts. His hiring is probably the most obvious, difficult to argue against, objective black mark on Spaz' head coaching resume. He was "retired" and had spent time banished in NFL Europe prior to his time at BC. He was almost universally disparaged by UNC and Virginia fans who remember his play calling as dated and unimaginitive in the early '00s. He was too old, and probably never all that great to begin with. His tenure was brutal to watch, predictable, boring and the outcome was rarely in doubt. In short it was 2 years of program damaging misery. Spaz doesn't get to disassociate from that terrible decision because he eventually fired the man. Rather those 2 years count. So 2 miserable games of Rogers playcalling following 2 miserable years of Tranq playcalling are a whole lot different than if Spaz had hired Rogers 1st. 2) It is likely that many football coaches would be turned off by the sheepfaced moaning of our head coach and its reflection in the way he does everything from setting the depth chart to clock management to game execution. I'm sure Tranquill put up with it because he had nowhere else to go and because he had a long history with the HC. Rogers will likely have a coaching job post BC if he is healthy enough. He may not have been willing to have his legacy, such that it is, tarnished by knees before every half time and the prospect of designed clock killing should we ever have a lead. He may have, in short, been difficult to work with for Spaz relative to his predecessor. Certainly stranger things have happened.
Spaz kept Tranq because Tranq was his guy. Rogers was not his guy. Now he got what he supposedly wanted all along: Dave Brock to succeed Tranq.
Who wanted Rogers then?
ATL, I think you may be huffing HJS fumes here.
And speaking of HJS, where the hell is Talon?
by billyshelby on Fri Sep 16, 2011 2:27 pm
ATLeagle {l Wrote}:Reverend Mike {l Wrote}:ATLeagle {l Wrote}:eagle9903 {l Wrote}:I keep reading elsewhere (ATLs Blog and TOS): How could they fire Rogers after keeping Tranquill for 2 years.
I'd suggest the following: 1)Tranquill's tenure counts. His hiring is probably the most obvious, difficult to argue against, objective black mark on Spaz' head coaching resume. He was "retired" and had spent time banished in NFL Europe prior to his time at BC. He was almost universally disparaged by UNC and Virginia fans who remember his play calling as dated and unimaginitive in the early '00s. He was too old, and probably never all that great to begin with. His tenure was brutal to watch, predictable, boring and the outcome was rarely in doubt. In short it was 2 years of program damaging misery. Spaz doesn't get to disassociate from that terrible decision because he eventually fired the man. Rather those 2 years count. So 2 miserable games of Rogers playcalling following 2 miserable years of Tranq playcalling are a whole lot different than if Spaz had hired Rogers 1st. 2) It is likely that many football coaches would be turned off by the sheepfaced moaning of our head coach and its reflection in the way he does everything from setting the depth chart to clock management to game execution. I'm sure Tranquill put up with it because he had nowhere else to go and because he had a long history with the HC. Rogers will likely have a coaching job post BC if he is healthy enough. He may not have been willing to have his legacy, such that it is, tarnished by knees before every half time and the prospect of designed clock killing should we ever have a lead. He may have, in short, been difficult to work with for Spaz relative to his predecessor. Certainly stranger things have happened.
Spaz kept Tranq because Tranq was his guy. Rogers was not his guy. Now he got what he supposedly wanted all along: Dave Brock to succeed Tranq.
Who wanted Rogers then?
ATL, I think you may be huffing HJS fumes here.
And speaking of HJS, where the hell is Talon?
Gene wanted Rogers.
by DavidGordonsFoot on Fri Sep 16, 2011 2:30 pm
billyshelby {l Wrote}:ATLeagle {l Wrote}:Reverend Mike {l Wrote}:ATLeagle {l Wrote}:eagle9903 {l Wrote}:I keep reading elsewhere (ATLs Blog and TOS): How could they fire Rogers after keeping Tranquill for 2 years.
I'd suggest the following: 1)Tranquill's tenure counts. His hiring is probably the most obvious, difficult to argue against, objective black mark on Spaz' head coaching resume. He was "retired" and had spent time banished in NFL Europe prior to his time at BC. He was almost universally disparaged by UNC and Virginia fans who remember his play calling as dated and unimaginitive in the early '00s. He was too old, and probably never all that great to begin with. His tenure was brutal to watch, predictable, boring and the outcome was rarely in doubt. In short it was 2 years of program damaging misery. Spaz doesn't get to disassociate from that terrible decision because he eventually fired the man. Rather those 2 years count. So 2 miserable games of Rogers playcalling following 2 miserable years of Tranq playcalling are a whole lot different than if Spaz had hired Rogers 1st. 2) It is likely that many football coaches would be turned off by the sheepfaced moaning of our head coach and its reflection in the way he does everything from setting the depth chart to clock management to game execution. I'm sure Tranquill put up with it because he had nowhere else to go and because he had a long history with the HC. Rogers will likely have a coaching job post BC if he is healthy enough. He may not have been willing to have his legacy, such that it is, tarnished by knees before every half time and the prospect of designed clock killing should we ever have a lead. He may have, in short, been difficult to work with for Spaz relative to his predecessor. Certainly stranger things have happened.
Spaz kept Tranq because Tranq was his guy. Rogers was not his guy. Now he got what he supposedly wanted all along: Dave Brock to succeed Tranq.
Who wanted Rogers then?
ATL, I think you may be huffing HJS fumes here.
And speaking of HJS, where the hell is Talon?
Gene wanted Rogers.
So why would Gene fire his own guy?
by Bryn Mawr Eagle on Fri Sep 16, 2011 2:32 pm
by bcnyceagle on Fri Sep 16, 2011 2:38 pm
by RegalBCeagle on Fri Sep 16, 2011 2:46 pm
bcnyceagle {l Wrote}:Or, the rest of the staff, recognizing that there was only upside for them if Rogers left (excuses/internal promotion) united in declaring the Rogers situation as unworkable.
by Harry Seaward on Fri Sep 16, 2011 4:22 pm
by BCFAN94 on Fri Sep 16, 2011 6:12 pm
by ATLeagle on Fri Sep 16, 2011 6:23 pm
by MilitantEagle on Fri Sep 16, 2011 6:29 pm
by BCFAN94 on Fri Sep 16, 2011 6:32 pm
ATLeagle {l Wrote}:It is pretty well known who I am. I used to cover the team as a student. Since I have worked freelance for various sites. I've said from the beginning on this that I cannot prove it beyond saying it is what happened.
by bcnyceagle on Fri Sep 16, 2011 6:53 pm
BCFAN94 {l Wrote}:ATLeagle {l Wrote}:It is pretty well known who I am. I used to cover the team as a student. Since I have worked freelance for various sites. I've said from the beginning on this that I cannot prove it beyond saying it is what happened.
Nothing personal, I know you don't hide your identity but why don't you have to substantiate these statements you make? Gene DeFillipo and Frank Spaziani are real people with families, responsibilities and reputations. How can you or I come along and make statements about them that may not be true with out any proof? This is the whole problem with the media. Someone makes a statement about someone that may not be accurate and the burden of proof is on the accused instead of the accuser.
by hawaiirob on Fri Sep 16, 2011 6:57 pm
BCFAN94 {l Wrote}:Who is this ATL guy? I just don't get the whole "blog" thing. BC comes out with an official release that a guy leaves for health reasons. Some blogger says he was fired, with no supporting sources listed and you get a seven page thread with 200 posts speculating on why he was fired. Look, I know BC football sucks at the moment and the current coach and AD are not liked by the majority for good reason (sucking on the field) but why do fans/alums take any credence in this guys posts/tweets/blogs? We're talking about people and their careers here. Can't we just stick to their performance and facts to try destroy their lives rather than rumor and inuendo?
Can't one of you ambulance chasers sue the ATL guy for posting/blogging this stuff without some back up? When are these bloggers/tweeters going to be held to some standard? Seroiusly, we're talking about real people and real consequences, shouldn't there be some level of substantiation required?
by hansen on Fri Sep 16, 2011 6:59 pm
hawaiirob {l Wrote}:BCFAN94 {l Wrote}:Who is this ATL guy? I just don't get the whole "blog" thing. BC comes out with an official release that a guy leaves for health reasons. Some blogger says he was fired, with no supporting sources listed and you get a seven page thread with 200 posts speculating on why he was fired. Look, I know BC football sucks at the moment and the current coach and AD are not liked by the majority for good reason (sucking on the field) but why do fans/alums take any credence in this guys posts/tweets/blogs? We're talking about people and their careers here. Can't we just stick to their performance and facts to try destroy their lives rather than rumor and inuendo?
Can't one of you ambulance chasers sue the ATL guy for posting/blogging this stuff without some back up? When are these bloggers/tweeters going to be held to some standard? Seroiusly, we're talking about real people and real consequences, shouldn't there be some level of substantiation required?
There are some very important people at BC who are none too thrilled with the "official" release of which you speak.
by BCFAN94 on Fri Sep 16, 2011 7:06 pm
bcnyceagle {l Wrote}:BCFAN94 {l Wrote}:ATLeagle {l Wrote}:It is pretty well known who I am. I used to cover the team as a student. Since I have worked freelance for various sites. I've said from the beginning on this that I cannot prove it beyond saying it is what happened.
Nothing personal, I know you don't hide your identity but why don't you have to substantiate these statements you make? Gene DeFillipo and Frank Spaziani are real people with families, responsibilities and reputations. How can you or I come along and make statements about them that may not be true with out any proof? This is the whole problem with the media. Someone makes a statement about someone that may not be accurate and the burden of proof is on the accused instead of the accuser.
Because he can't publicize his sources... this isn't rocket science.
by HJS on Fri Sep 16, 2011 7:18 pm
BCFAN94 {l Wrote}:bcnyceagle {l Wrote}:BCFAN94 {l Wrote}:ATLeagle {l Wrote}:It is pretty well known who I am. I used to cover the team as a student. Since I have worked freelance for various sites. I've said from the beginning on this that I cannot prove it beyond saying it is what happened.
Nothing personal, I know you don't hide your identity but why don't you have to substantiate these statements you make? Gene DeFillipo and Frank Spaziani are real people with families, responsibilities and reputations. How can you or I come along and make statements about them that may not be true with out any proof? This is the whole problem with the media. Someone makes a statement about someone that may not be accurate and the burden of proof is on the accused instead of the accuser.
Because he can't publicize his sources... this isn't rocket science.
No, it's not rocket science, it's unsubstantiated irresponsible character assassination of employees of Boston College that reflects poorly on the institution as a whole. It's the old "when did you stop beating your wife?" question. ATL definitly has something to gain by riding this wave. I am sure he gets more eyes on his blog, name and advances his career dreams of being the next Mike Farrell by publicizing these "facts". Put up or shut up!
by bcnyceagle on Fri Sep 16, 2011 7:18 pm
BCFAN94 {l Wrote}:bcnyceagle {l Wrote}:BCFAN94 {l Wrote}:ATLeagle {l Wrote}:It is pretty well known who I am. I used to cover the team as a student. Since I have worked freelance for various sites. I've said from the beginning on this that I cannot prove it beyond saying it is what happened.
Nothing personal, I know you don't hide your identity but why don't you have to substantiate these statements you make? Gene DeFillipo and Frank Spaziani are real people with families, responsibilities and reputations. How can you or I come along and make statements about them that may not be true with out any proof? This is the whole problem with the media. Someone makes a statement about someone that may not be accurate and the burden of proof is on the accused instead of the accuser.
Because he can't publicize his sources... this isn't rocket science.
No, it's not rocket science, it's unsubstantiated irresponsible character assassination of employees of Boston College that reflects poorly on the institution as a whole. It's the old "when did you stop beating your wife?" question. ATL definitly has something to gain by riding this wave. I am sure he gets more eyes on his blog, name and advances his career dreams of being the next Mike Farrell by publicizing these "facts". Put up or shut up!
by 2001Eagle on Fri Sep 16, 2011 7:18 pm
BCFAN94 {l Wrote}:bcnyceagle {l Wrote}:BCFAN94 {l Wrote}:ATLeagle {l Wrote}:It is pretty well known who I am. I used to cover the team as a student. Since I have worked freelance for various sites. I've said from the beginning on this that I cannot prove it beyond saying it is what happened.
Nothing personal, I know you don't hide your identity but why don't you have to substantiate these statements you make? Gene DeFillipo and Frank Spaziani are real people with families, responsibilities and reputations. How can you or I come along and make statements about them that may not be true with out any proof? This is the whole problem with the media. Someone makes a statement about someone that may not be accurate and the burden of proof is on the accused instead of the accuser.
Because he can't publicize his sources... this isn't rocket science.
No, it's not rocket science, it's unsubstantiated irresponsible character assassination of employees of Boston College that reflects poorly on the institution as a whole. It's the old "when did you stop beating your wife?" question. ATL definitly has something to gain by riding this wave. I am sure he gets more eyes on his blog, name and advances his career dreams of being the next Mike Farrell by publicizing these "facts". Put up or shut up!
by BCFAN94 on Fri Sep 16, 2011 7:24 pm
bcnyceagle {l Wrote}:BCFAN94 {l Wrote}:bcnyceagle {l Wrote}:BCFAN94 {l Wrote}:ATLeagle {l Wrote}:It is pretty well known who I am. I used to cover the team as a student. Since I have worked freelance for various sites. I've said from the beginning on this that I cannot prove it beyond saying it is what happened.
Nothing personal, I know you don't hide your identity but why don't you have to substantiate these statements you make? Gene DeFillipo and Frank Spaziani are real people with families, responsibilities and reputations. How can you or I come along and make statements about them that may not be true with out any proof? This is the whole problem with the media. Someone makes a statement about someone that may not be accurate and the burden of proof is on the accused instead of the accuser.
Because he can't publicize his sources... this isn't rocket science.
No, it's not rocket science, it's unsubstantiated irresponsible character assassination of employees of Boston College that reflects poorly on the institution as a whole. It's the old "when did you stop beating your wife?" question. ATL definitly has something to gain by riding this wave. I am sure he gets more eyes on his blog, name and advances his career dreams of being the next Mike Farrell by publicizing these "facts". Put up or shut up!
LOL, talk about hypocrisy. You whine about ATL's post, and then respond with, SURPRISE, unsubstantiated conspiracy theories and an attempt at character assassination against a guy about with a solid community rep. You're not gonna win anyone over with your theory of how ATL is conspiring to drive hits to a blog he's run for years for fun/hobby, sorry. Difference here is that he has credibility and you don't.
by h2o on Fri Sep 16, 2011 7:50 pm
eagle216 {l Wrote}:I thought Gene went out of his way to say that he played no role in the Rogers hire. If so, than Rogers is not his guy. So if Rogers is also not Spaz' guy, than whose guy was he? If this is true that Gene is even more or a dick than I thought.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 125 guests