![[Image: 8CuMEhd.jpg]](https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/fan_shot_images/365248/8CuMEhd.jpg)
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
Looks like Peat will return
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
12-09-2014, 04:49 PM
So, Class of 75, what do you think about the sharp reporter who spotted the clue at the Utah game?
Redrum
Unregistered
Unregistered
12-09-2014, 05:59 PM
Example number 1,000,001 as to why Stanford athletes are so rewarding to root for! 8)
12-09-2014, 11:50 PM
(12-09-2014, 04:33 PM)82lsju link Wrote:
http://www.ruleoftree.com/2014/12/9/7362...-in-school
Before I get my hopes up, would be nice to see or hear some corroboration. I don't know how credible the source is.Â
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
(12-09-2014, 04:33 PM)82lsju link Wrote:
http://www.ruleoftree.com/2014/12/9/7362...-in-school
Before I get my hopes up, would be nice to see or hear some corroboration. I don't know how credible the source is.Â
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
12-10-2014, 07:44 AM
I agree -- didn't we see this same tweet last week? The phrase "looks like" doesn't sound too definitive, nor does the earlier question mark. Oh, and don't even get me started on the apostrophe.
Please clear the field! The game is not over!
12-10-2014, 07:48 AM
It's the same tweet as last week. Drukarev sez:
[tweet]542518978665402368[/tweet]
And, just to add an eye-roll here, this tweet is a social media pet peeve of mine (https://twitter.com/LombardiESPN/status/...6204213249)
[tweet]542518978665402368[/tweet]
And, just to add an eye-roll here, this tweet is a social media pet peeve of mine (https://twitter.com/LombardiESPN/status/...6204213249)
It's the same tweet as last week. Drukarev sez:
[tweet]542518978665402368[/tweet]
And, just to add an eye-roll here, this tweet is a social media pet peeve of mine (https://twitter.com/LombardiESPN/status/...6204213249)
[tweet]542518978665402368[/tweet]
And, just to add an eye-roll here, this tweet is a social media pet peeve of mine (https://twitter.com/LombardiESPN/status/...6204213249)
12-10-2014, 01:12 PM
(12-10-2014, 01:01 PM)terry link Wrote:Why is the Lombardi tweet a pet peeve? (I'm not a Twitter user.)
So, two versions of why it's annoying:
Short version: it's calling attention to itself and bogarting on Drukarev's work.
Here's the involved version:
Basically, on Twitter, you have various ways to amplify posts that aren't yours. There's the so-called "automatic retweet," which simply takes the tweet you're reposting and puts it on your feed, exactly as it was originally composed. Then there's the manual retweet. That's what Lombardi has done: it takes the material, but sticks Drukarev's handle there.
Because the automatic retweet plops your tweet exactly into your feed, it's more valuable. It means, briefly, you've gotten into other peoples' feed who wouldn't ordinarily have access to you. A manual RT, on the other hand, imposes additional content and instead emphasizes the guy who's retweeting. If you have something to add, it's fine. For example, if tweeter X went, "I've heard from sources close to Peat that there's no way this happens. RT @ruleoftree Andrus Peat is coming back," that'd be fine Twitter etiquette.Â
Otherwise it makes it look as if you're simply trying to bogart someone else's work and make yourself the story. In this case, Lombardi really isn't adding much and just reiterating what Drukarev heard. But an auto-RT would've conveyed that information just as well.
(12-10-2014, 01:01 PM)terry link Wrote:Why is the Lombardi tweet a pet peeve? (I'm not a Twitter user.)
So, two versions of why it's annoying:
Short version: it's calling attention to itself and bogarting on Drukarev's work.
Here's the involved version:
Basically, on Twitter, you have various ways to amplify posts that aren't yours. There's the so-called "automatic retweet," which simply takes the tweet you're reposting and puts it on your feed, exactly as it was originally composed. Then there's the manual retweet. That's what Lombardi has done: it takes the material, but sticks Drukarev's handle there.
Because the automatic retweet plops your tweet exactly into your feed, it's more valuable. It means, briefly, you've gotten into other peoples' feed who wouldn't ordinarily have access to you. A manual RT, on the other hand, imposes additional content and instead emphasizes the guy who's retweeting. If you have something to add, it's fine. For example, if tweeter X went, "I've heard from sources close to Peat that there's no way this happens. RT @ruleoftree Andrus Peat is coming back," that'd be fine Twitter etiquette.Â
Otherwise it makes it look as if you're simply trying to bogart someone else's work and make yourself the story. In this case, Lombardi really isn't adding much and just reiterating what Drukarev heard. But an auto-RT would've conveyed that information just as well.
12-10-2014, 01:16 PM
Here's the tweet, in case you didn't want to click on the link (you don't need twitter to follow the link, FYI):
[tweet]542519826204213249[/tweet]
Well, first he says "yup, it's not [a done deal]". It should be either, "Yup. This is not [a done deal]." or "No, it is not [a done deal]."
But my suspicion is that WIM's peeve is not with the grammar, but with the retweet that seemingly adds a confirmatory endorsement. Lombardi makes it look like he has confirmatory information on the subject, without actually adding to the conversation. I grant that it is twitter, and thus a tough medium to add information. Still, if he had additional information he should have said, "My source is telling me the same thing.". If it was a personal opinion, he should have added that, "I think @StanfordRivals is right; I believe that Peat is giving strong consideration to going to the NFL". Absent that, if he just wanted to pass along the information, a simple retweet would have been appropriate. He's really just piggybacking on Drukarev's tweet, and by adding "Yup, it's not" to it, making it seem like he has independent information or is adding to the conversation, when he most likely does not. That's lazy reporting from a guy with a national platform.
BC
[tweet]542519826204213249[/tweet]
Well, first he says "yup, it's not [a done deal]". It should be either, "Yup. This is not [a done deal]." or "No, it is not [a done deal]."
But my suspicion is that WIM's peeve is not with the grammar, but with the retweet that seemingly adds a confirmatory endorsement. Lombardi makes it look like he has confirmatory information on the subject, without actually adding to the conversation. I grant that it is twitter, and thus a tough medium to add information. Still, if he had additional information he should have said, "My source is telling me the same thing.". If it was a personal opinion, he should have added that, "I think @StanfordRivals is right; I believe that Peat is giving strong consideration to going to the NFL". Absent that, if he just wanted to pass along the information, a simple retweet would have been appropriate. He's really just piggybacking on Drukarev's tweet, and by adding "Yup, it's not" to it, making it seem like he has independent information or is adding to the conversation, when he most likely does not. That's lazy reporting from a guy with a national platform.
BC
Here's the tweet, in case you didn't want to click on the link (you don't need twitter to follow the link, FYI):
[tweet]542519826204213249[/tweet]
Well, first he says "yup, it's not [a done deal]". It should be either, "Yup. This is not [a done deal]." or "No, it is not [a done deal]."
But my suspicion is that WIM's peeve is not with the grammar, but with the retweet that seemingly adds a confirmatory endorsement. Lombardi makes it look like he has confirmatory information on the subject, without actually adding to the conversation. I grant that it is twitter, and thus a tough medium to add information. Still, if he had additional information he should have said, "My source is telling me the same thing.". If it was a personal opinion, he should have added that, "I think @StanfordRivals is right; I believe that Peat is giving strong consideration to going to the NFL". Absent that, if he just wanted to pass along the information, a simple retweet would have been appropriate. He's really just piggybacking on Drukarev's tweet, and by adding "Yup, it's not" to it, making it seem like he has independent information or is adding to the conversation, when he most likely does not. That's lazy reporting from a guy with a national platform.
BC
[tweet]542519826204213249[/tweet]
Well, first he says "yup, it's not [a done deal]". It should be either, "Yup. This is not [a done deal]." or "No, it is not [a done deal]."
But my suspicion is that WIM's peeve is not with the grammar, but with the retweet that seemingly adds a confirmatory endorsement. Lombardi makes it look like he has confirmatory information on the subject, without actually adding to the conversation. I grant that it is twitter, and thus a tough medium to add information. Still, if he had additional information he should have said, "My source is telling me the same thing.". If it was a personal opinion, he should have added that, "I think @StanfordRivals is right; I believe that Peat is giving strong consideration to going to the NFL". Absent that, if he just wanted to pass along the information, a simple retweet would have been appropriate. He's really just piggybacking on Drukarev's tweet, and by adding "Yup, it's not" to it, making it seem like he has independent information or is adding to the conversation, when he most likely does not. That's lazy reporting from a guy with a national platform.
BC
12-10-2014, 01:39 PM
(12-10-2014, 01:12 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:.... fine Twitter etiquette.Â
LOL! That's a good one.
(12-10-2014, 01:12 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:.... fine Twitter etiquette.Â
LOL! That's a good one.
Redrum
Unregistered
Unregistered
12-10-2014, 02:15 PM
Some members of this board have a serious hard on for Lombardi. OK, but violating twitter conventions? Isn't that normally left for a grand jury to decide?
Some members of this board have a serious hard on for Lombardi. OK, but violating twitter conventions? Isn't that normally left for a grand jury to decide?
12-10-2014, 02:32 PM
(12-10-2014, 02:15 PM)Redrum link Wrote:Some members of this board have a serious hard on for Lombardi. OK, but violating twitter conventions? Isn't that normally left for a grand jury to decide?
It's a pet peeve, hardly a felony.
(12-10-2014, 02:15 PM)Redrum link Wrote:Some members of this board have a serious hard on for Lombardi. OK, but violating twitter conventions? Isn't that normally left for a grand jury to decide?
It's a pet peeve, hardly a felony.
12-10-2014, 02:34 PM
I will admit I don't particularly care for Lombardi. It didn't really bother me, though, while he was doing his thing at Scout. But when he joined ESPN, he instantly got a national audience, and I don't think his reporting matches his position. Compared to Kevin Gemmell and Ted Miller (and even the other newcomer, Kyle Bonagura), Lombardi is simply not as good of a writer, his analysis is weak, and mostly he uses his position to bloviate. The twitter thing didn't bother me; I was just posting what I thought WiM had issues with, but his writing certainly does.
BC
BC
I will admit I don't particularly care for Lombardi. It didn't really bother me, though, while he was doing his thing at Scout. But when he joined ESPN, he instantly got a national audience, and I don't think his reporting matches his position. Compared to Kevin Gemmell and Ted Miller (and even the other newcomer, Kyle Bonagura), Lombardi is simply not as good of a writer, his analysis is weak, and mostly he uses his position to bloviate. The twitter thing didn't bother me; I was just posting what I thought WiM had issues with, but his writing certainly does.
BC
BC
12-10-2014, 02:37 PM
(12-10-2014, 02:15 PM)Redrum link Wrote:Some members of this board have a serious hard on for Lombardi.
I not only plead not guilty, I can demonstrate innocence.
What does that expression even mean in this context? Do they like him [happy to see him] or dislike him [have a gun in their pocket]?
(12-10-2014, 02:15 PM)Redrum link Wrote:Some members of this board have a serious hard on for Lombardi.
I not only plead not guilty, I can demonstrate innocence.
What does that expression even mean in this context? Do they like him [happy to see him] or dislike him [have a gun in their pocket]?
12-10-2014, 03:01 PM
Speaking of the Pac-12 blog, they did a piece this morning that had this to say about Peat:
There's also a bit in there about Cajuste, whose draft position is mostly determined by his 40 time.
Quote:I hope he does come back. He was one of my favorite prospects coming into this year. He has a chance to be a really good right tackle in the NFL for a long time. But I just haven't seen the development this year. He was a top 20 kind of guy coming into this season. The biggest concern for me is his balance: He's lunging a lot and is occasionally off-balance. Guys will take advantage of that at the next level. For me, I think it's in his best interest to work on staying back on his heels more. For a guy who's so dominant with his physical ability, I'd also like to see more aggressiveness from him.
There's also a bit in there about Cajuste, whose draft position is mostly determined by his 40 time.
Speaking of the Pac-12 blog, they did a piece this morning that had this to say about Peat:
There's also a bit in there about Cajuste, whose draft position is mostly determined by his 40 time.
Quote:I hope he does come back. He was one of my favorite prospects coming into this year. He has a chance to be a really good right tackle in the NFL for a long time. But I just haven't seen the development this year. He was a top 20 kind of guy coming into this season. The biggest concern for me is his balance: He's lunging a lot and is occasionally off-balance. Guys will take advantage of that at the next level. For me, I think it's in his best interest to work on staying back on his heels more. For a guy who's so dominant with his physical ability, I'd also like to see more aggressiveness from him.
There's also a bit in there about Cajuste, whose draft position is mostly determined by his 40 time.
12-10-2014, 03:11 PM
If 40 time is the main determinant for Cajuste, he should probably enter the draft (purely on football criteria).
If 40 time is the main determinant for Cajuste, he should probably enter the draft (purely on football criteria).
12-10-2014, 03:22 PM
(12-10-2014, 03:11 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:If 40 time is the main determinant for Cajuste, he should probably enter the draft (purely on football criteria).
That's taking this one scout's word for it, though it makes sense to me.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »