[Hulk01]

(Usual caveat about the precision of recruiting rankings goes here.)

In the last several years, Oregon’s recruiting has shown a trend. Skill players flock there, but the big guys do not.  The Ducks have badly lagged in attracting linemen and linebackers.

This seems pertinent for the coming season, because the Ducks must replace two first team all-conference OLs (Jake Fisher and Hronis Grasu),  a first round draft DL (Arik Armstead), a second team All Con OL (Hrmani Stevens) and their best linebacker,  Tony Washington.

Who will replace those guys?  In the 2012, ‘13, and ‘14 classes, the Ducks signed only eight offensive line linemen, only two who ranked above 5.7.  Meanwhile, Stanford signed 13, eight of whom ranked above 5.7.

On paper, DL looks closer: Oregon signed three 5.8 defenders, Stanford signed two 6.0s and two 5.8s.

Linebacker is the stunner.  Oregon signed only three linebackers--a 5.8. 5.7, and 5.4.  Stanford signed seven: two 5.9s, two 5.8s, two 5.7s, and a 5.6.

This proves nothing, of course, but does seem worth watching

[Hulk01]

(Usual caveat about the precision of recruiting rankings goes here.)

In the last several years, Oregon’s recruiting has shown a trend. Skill players flock there, but the big guys do not.  The Ducks have badly lagged in attracting linemen and linebackers.

This seems pertinent for the coming season, because the Ducks must replace two first team all-conference OLs (Jake Fisher and Hronis Grasu),  a first round draft DL (Arik Armstead), a second team All Con OL (Hrmani Stevens) and their best linebacker,  Tony Washington.

Who will replace those guys?  In the 2012, ‘13, and ‘14 classes, the Ducks signed only eight offensive line linemen, only two who ranked above 5.7.  Meanwhile, Stanford signed 13, eight of whom ranked above 5.7.

On paper, DL looks closer: Oregon signed three 5.8 defenders, Stanford signed two 6.0s and two 5.8s.

Linebacker is the stunner.  Oregon signed only three linebackers--a 5.8. 5.7, and 5.4.  Stanford signed seven: two 5.9s, two 5.8s, two 5.7s, and a 5.6.

This proves nothing, of course, but does seem worth watching

[TrumpCard]

The Ducks signed 9 linemen in the 2015 class.  They may have trouble for a year, but they will be fine in the medium term.

[TrumpCard]

The Ducks signed 9 linemen in the 2015 class.  They may have trouble for a year, but they will be fine in the medium term.

[CTcard]

The Ducks signed 9 linemen in the 2015 class.  They may have trouble for a year, but they will be fine in the medium term.

Actually I count 11 from the Scout site - 6 on offense and 5 on defense.
Only 1 LB though.

[CTcard]

The Ducks signed 9 linemen in the 2015 class.  They may have trouble for a year, but they will be fine in the medium term.

Actually I count 11 from the Scout site - 6 on offense and 5 on defense.
Only 1 LB though.

[Rally]

(Usual caveat about the precision of recruiting rankings goes here.)

In the last several years, Oregon’s recruiting.has shown a trend. Skill players flock there, but the big guys do not.  But the Ducks have badly lagged in attracting linemen and linebackers.

This seems pertinent for the coming season, because the Ducks must replace two first team all-conference OLs (Jake Fisher and Hronis Grasu),  a first round draft DL (Arik Armstead), a second team All Con OL (Hrmani Stevens) and their best linebacker,, Tony Washington.

Who will replace these guys?  In the 2012, ‘13, and ‘14 classes, the Ducks signed only eight offensive line linemen, only two who ranked above 5.7.  Meanwhile, Stanford signed 13, eight of whom ranked above 5.7.

On paper, DL looks closer: Oregon signed three 5.8 defenders, Stanford signed two 6.0s and two 5.8s.

Linebacker is the stunner.  Oregon signed only three linebackers--a 5.8. 5.7, and 5.4.  Stanford signed seven: two 5.9s, two 5.8s, two 5.7s, and a 5.6.

This proves nothing, of course, but does seem worth watching

Lucky for Lombardi he didn't write this,

"In the last several years, Oregon’s recruiting.has shown a trend. Skill players flock there, but the big guys do not.  But the Ducks have badly lagged in attracting linemen and linebackers."

[Rally]

(Usual caveat about the precision of recruiting rankings goes here.)

In the last several years, Oregon’s recruiting.has shown a trend. Skill players flock there, but the big guys do not.  But the Ducks have badly lagged in attracting linemen and linebackers.

This seems pertinent for the coming season, because the Ducks must replace two first team all-conference OLs (Jake Fisher and Hronis Grasu),  a first round draft DL (Arik Armstead), a second team All Con OL (Hrmani Stevens) and their best linebacker,, Tony Washington.

Who will replace these guys?  In the 2012, ‘13, and ‘14 classes, the Ducks signed only eight offensive line linemen, only two who ranked above 5.7.  Meanwhile, Stanford signed 13, eight of whom ranked above 5.7.

On paper, DL looks closer: Oregon signed three 5.8 defenders, Stanford signed two 6.0s and two 5.8s.

Linebacker is the stunner.  Oregon signed only three linebackers--a 5.8. 5.7, and 5.4.  Stanford signed seven: two 5.9s, two 5.8s, two 5.7s, and a 5.6.

This proves nothing, of course, but does seem worth watching

Lucky for Lombardi he didn't write this,

"In the last several years, Oregon’s recruiting.has shown a trend. Skill players flock there, but the big guys do not.  But the Ducks have badly lagged in attracting linemen and linebackers."

[CornFed]

I suspect, ferrari, that you ARE Lombardi.  Are you writing his material under a pen name?  You seem somewhat defensive.  Even if it were you that was being critiqued, I'd counsel taking the input, keep what's useful, and leave the rest.

[CornFed]

I suspect, ferrari, that you ARE Lombardi.  Are you writing his material under a pen name?  You seem somewhat defensive.  Even if it were you that was being critiqued, I'd counsel taking the input, keep what's useful, and leave the rest.

[BostonCard]

We (and this includes Lombardi) regularly criticize coaches, even though I am sure that if we were coaching, we would make the most elemental of errors.  We criticize players, even though most of us would almost certainly stare down our receivers, have virtually no pocket sense and make horrible mistakes at QB or would shank virtually every field goal try.  And the players don't even get paid.  Criticism comes part and parcel with doing anything in the public sphere, whether it is calling plays, throwing a football, or writing about it.  Cornfed's advice is salient; you take the useful criticism, leave the rest.

Yeah, what Hulk wrote was a bastard of a sentence.  I'm sure he'd acknowledge that.  Maybe he'll proofread his posts as a result of being called out on it.  But probably he'll pay attention to his posts commensurate with the literary status of this board... which is to say not that much.

On the other hand, I get the sense that Mr. Lombardi is an ambitious young man.  If he wants to get ahead in the sports-journalistic world, I would think he would want his writing to come across well.  But then again, what do I know; I can't write worth a damn either.

BC

[BostonCard]

We (and this includes Lombardi) regularly criticize coaches, even though I am sure that if we were coaching, we would make the most elemental of errors.  We criticize players, even though most of us would almost certainly stare down our receivers, have virtually no pocket sense and make horrible mistakes at QB or would shank virtually every field goal try.  And the players don't even get paid.  Criticism comes part and parcel with doing anything in the public sphere, whether it is calling plays, throwing a football, or writing about it.  Cornfed's advice is salient; you take the useful criticism, leave the rest.

Yeah, what Hulk wrote was a bastard of a sentence.  I'm sure he'd acknowledge that.  Maybe he'll proofread his posts as a result of being called out on it.  But probably he'll pay attention to his posts commensurate with the literary status of this board... which is to say not that much.

On the other hand, I get the sense that Mr. Lombardi is an ambitious young man.  If he wants to get ahead in the sports-journalistic world, I would think he would want his writing to come across well.  But then again, what do I know; I can't write worth a damn either.

BC

[Hulk01]

Maxwell Perkins is dead. 

20 years ago, David would have an editor scrutinizing his work, sometimes ruthlessly.  Sports Illustrated was beautifully written in the 60's and 70's.  But other than at a few publications like the New Yorker, editing today is left to the writer.  An editor--whoever he or she might be at Hachette--hasn't touched a line of mine since 1996.  Obviously, hasn't been because nothing needed fixing.

No one is doing David a favor by ignoring his weaknesses, which are apparent to many of you. 

And David's primary issues aren't with grammar or proofreading.  He takes far too long to make a point, and hasn't learned that good writers dislike adjectives and hate adverbs.  I'd love to see him do much better and become the star he wants to be.  If the truth of what some of us have said here hurts him, that will pass. 

As for my sentence, no kidding.  Alas, nothing I can do unless I reread the stuff a dozen times.  As some of you know and others have figured out, I have dyslexia and ADHD.  It makes proofreading almost impossible; almost every post I've written has some odd word added or missing that I didn't see until a week later. 

[Hulk01]

Maxwell Perkins is dead. 

20 years ago, David would have an editor scrutinizing his work, sometimes ruthlessly.  Sports Illustrated was beautifully written in the 60's and 70's.  But other than at a few publications like the New Yorker, editing today is left to the writer.  An editor--whoever he or she might be at Hachette--hasn't touched a line of mine since 1996.  Obviously, hasn't been because nothing needed fixing.

No one is doing David a favor by ignoring his weaknesses, which are apparent to many of you. 

And David's primary issues aren't with grammar or proofreading.  He takes far too long to make a point, and hasn't learned that good writers dislike adjectives and hate adverbs.  I'd love to see him do much better and become the star he wants to be.  If the truth of what some of us have said here hurts him, that will pass. 

As for my sentence, no kidding.  Alas, nothing I can do unless I reread the stuff a dozen times.  As some of you know and others have figured out, I have dyslexia and ADHD.  It makes proofreading almost impossible; almost every post I've written has some odd word added or missing that I didn't see until a week later. 

[CrazedZooChimp]

[quote author=CornFed link=topic=11828.msg114208#msg114208 date=1425600617]
I suspect, ferrari, that you ARE Lombardi.  Are you writing his material under a pen name?  You seem somewhat defensive.  Even if it were you that was being critiqued, I'd counsel taking the input, keep what's useful, and leave the rest.

I have distant ties to Lamboghini but not Lombardi.  Still, I find it comical when a critic lambasts one for grammatical and stylistic errors and commits the same in the same critique.  But I repeat myself.  But I am saying the same thing again.  But then no one will pay me for writing this so I can repeat myself with out fear of criticism.
[/quote]

If Lombardi were posting on a message board his poor writing and jumping to conclusions wouldn't bother me nearly as much.  The part that bothers me is that he has a real job as a reporter but still writes like he's posting on a message board.  If we were all being paid to write and research Stanford football as our full time jobs, maybe we could hold ourselves to a higher standard. 

Actually, the standard for posts on this board are pretty damn high already, especially compared to most forums or blogs  ;D

[CrazedZooChimp]

[quote author=CornFed link=topic=11828.msg114208#msg114208 date=1425600617]
I suspect, ferrari, that you ARE Lombardi.  Are you writing his material under a pen name?  You seem somewhat defensive.  Even if it were you that was being critiqued, I'd counsel taking the input, keep what's useful, and leave the rest.

I have distant ties to Lamboghini but not Lombardi.  Still, I find it comical when a critic lambasts one for grammatical and stylistic errors and commits the same in the same critique.  But I repeat myself.  But I am saying the same thing again.  But then no one will pay me for writing this so I can repeat myself with out fear of criticism.
[/quote]

If Lombardi were posting on a message board his poor writing and jumping to conclusions wouldn't bother me nearly as much.  The part that bothers me is that he has a real job as a reporter but still writes like he's posting on a message board.  If we were all being paid to write and research Stanford football as our full time jobs, maybe we could hold ourselves to a higher standard. 

Actually, the standard for posts on this board are pretty damn high already, especially compared to most forums or blogs  ;D

[CTcard]

Still, I find it comical when a critic lambasts one for grammatical and stylistic errors and commits the same in the same critique.

I see what you are doing here - very subtle and clever.

You are alluding to and agreeing with the main thrust of the complaints that were Lombardi's articles read too much like a post on a fan message board.
;)

[CTcard]

Still, I find it comical when a critic lambasts one for grammatical and stylistic errors and commits the same in the same critique.

I see what you are doing here - very subtle and clever.

You are alluding to and agreeing with the main thrust of the complaints that were Lombardi's articles read too much like a post on a fan message board.
;)

[BostonCard]

The main trust WAS, not were.  Oh, wait, isn't this the Grammer thread?  I'd ask my Grammer but she's not here.

As per the grammar thread, I think there are two ways to parse the sentence:

You are alluding to and agreeing with the main thrust of [the complaints that were Lombardi's articles] read too much like a post on a fan message board.

or

You are alluding to and agreeing with the [main thrust of the complaints] that werewas Lombardi's articles read too much like a post on a fan message board.

Of course, if thrust is referring to Lumbardi's articles, then you have a second problem and it should really read:

You are alluding to and agreeing with the main thrusts of the complaints that were Lombardi's articles read too much like a post on a fan message board.

Any way you cut it, though I think the error is more fundamental.  The "were" is probably superfluous.  Given the context, I think CTCard meant to say:

You are alluding to and agreeing with the main thrust of the complaints that were Lombardi's articles read too much like a post on a fan message board.

(In other words, people here are complaining that Lombardi's articles read too much like a post on a fan message board, or, at least, that is the main thrust of the complaint and you are agreeing with them.)

BC

[BostonCard]

The main trust WAS, not were.  Oh, wait, isn't this the Grammer thread?  I'd ask my Grammer but she's not here.

As per the grammar thread, I think there are two ways to parse the sentence:

You are alluding to and agreeing with the main thrust of [the complaints that were Lombardi's articles] read too much like a post on a fan message board.

or

You are alluding to and agreeing with the [main thrust of the complaints] that werewas Lombardi's articles read too much like a post on a fan message board.

Of course, if thrust is referring to Lumbardi's articles, then you have a second problem and it should really read:

You are alluding to and agreeing with the main thrusts of the complaints that were Lombardi's articles read too much like a post on a fan message board.

Any way you cut it, though I think the error is more fundamental.  The "were" is probably superfluous.  Given the context, I think CTCard meant to say:

You are alluding to and agreeing with the main thrust of the complaints that were Lombardi's articles read too much like a post on a fan message board.

(In other words, people here are complaining that Lombardi's articles read too much like a post on a fan message board, or, at least, that is the main thrust of the complaint and you are agreeing with them.)

BC