Coach Stitt Podcast - Skyline Sports

[AZGrizFan]

I just hope he earns his $300,000.

And when he does, and I am reasonably confident he will, I hope he gets a raise.

Me too. Otherwise he won't be here long.

 

[brewskis]

Although we only have Stitt's vague thoughts on the matter, it's clear you can't support Ty as having done nothing wrong and support what Stitt's saying here. He's very obviously taking not-so-subtle shots at Ty in this interview.

And that was inappropriate. Completely. Look to the future and don't be small-minded about the past.

At $300,000 a year, the Head Coach can more than afford to be generous with his comments about departing or departed players and staff. There is no salary reduction to do so.

What did he say that was inappropriate?

 

[UMGriz75]

What did he say that was inappropriate?

He's very obviously taking not-so-subtle shots at Ty in this interview.

 

[BadlandsGrizFan]

I also think it says a lot that guys like Selle who were on the team with Gregorak while they played, and also in the locker rooms this last year and saw what was going on, chose to stay with Stitt.

It doesn't actually say anything at all, although your purpose and innuendo is clear.

Because everyone loves working for people that are clearly assholes and constantly in the wrong? I think it does say something.

 

[UMGriz75]

I also think it says a lot that guys like Selle who were on the team with Gregorak while they played, and also in the locker rooms this last year and saw what was going on, chose to stay with Stitt.

It doesn't actually say anything at all, although your purpose and innuendo is clear.

Because everyone loves working for people that are clearly assholes and constantly in the wrong?

Selle wouldn't follow Gregorak to Bozeman because he was "clearly an asshole and constantly in the wrong?"

Without adding the "wow!" factor to that claim, I doubt that Selle would agree.

 

[BadlandsGrizFan]

I also think it says a lot that guys like Selle who were on the team with Gregorak while they played, and also in the locker rooms this last year and saw what was going on, chose to stay with Stitt.

It doesn't actually say anything at all, although your purpose and innuendo is clear.

Because everyone loves working for people that are clearly assholes and constantly in the wrong?

Selle wouldn't follow Gregorak to Bozeman because he was "clearly an asshole and constantly in the wrong?"

Without adding the "wow!" factor to that claim, I doubt that Selle would agree.

I was being sarcastic, as to say ya he would want to work with Stitt if Stitt really has all these qualities (get it sarcasm). I never even insinuated that Gregorak had those qualities. But nice attempt in finding your next argument.

 

[brewskis]

What did he say that was inappropriate?

He's very obviously taking not-so-subtle shots at Ty in this interview.

I was talking about STITT. I'm not interested in the opinionated response on egriz. What did Stitt say about Ty that was innapropriate?

 

[UMGriz75]

I was being sarcastic, as to say ya he would want to work with Stitt if Stitt really has all these qualities (get it sarcasm). I never even insinuated that Gregorak had those qualities. But nice attempt in finding your next argument.

Good grief, my "next argument?" You mean like interjecting pointless hyperbole after dragging down Gregorak, you actually meant Stitt? Who wants to work for an "asshole that is constantly wrong?" You don't get out much do you? It happens all the time if you were proposing a hypothetical.

 

[UMGriz75]

What did he say that was inappropriate?

He's very obviously taking not-so-subtle shots at Ty in this interview.

I was talking about STITT. I'm not interested in the opinionated response on egriz. What did Stitt say about Ty that was innapropriate?

1) It was Stitt's interview. 2) The poster was referring to Stitt's comments. 3) Stitt's comments were about Ty. 4) The comments were negative.

This was addressed in the opening posts of this thread.

Wow some tell tale talk about the challenges he and Gregorak faced and the separation of offense vs defense. Seems to confirm a lot of what folks speculated.

I don't really want to get in the middle of this, but so then do you both think Stitt is lying about the tension Gregorak allegedly caused? He's basically said as much here without flat out saying it.

I mean, the only way I can see you guys being correct about Ty is to also admit that Stitt is being dishonest.

Stitt was as blatant as blatant could be about the issue in this interview. He said:

- there was a separation of offense and defense
- I need a D coordinator who is on board with what we are doing on offense and if we go for it on 4th down and don't make it he needs to be okay with that instead of complaining
- we have worked hard to make this a Griz unit with no more divide between offense and defense

The link to the podcast is on that same first page of this thread. You might listen to it and see what you think.

 

[brewskis]

I did listen to the interview, and I can tell that you doctored those comments a bit to complement your argument. That's to be expected though.

Not a very strong case, if someone's getting their feelings hurt over those comments I would tell them to go buy some blue and gold.

 

[UMGriz75]

I did listen to the interview, and I can tell that you doctored those comments a bit to complement your argument. That's to be expected though.

Given your agenda, I know it can be tough for you, but no comments were "doctored" and none of the quoted observations were mine, but the observations of other posters who also listened to the remarks. If you disagree with their characterizations, perhaps you could have disagreed when they were first posted, or at least be honest about them now. Odd that until you, no one disagreed with the original posters. Were you napping?

Why do you think "Hookedongriz" characterized the remarks as "as blatant as blatant could be?" Or are you saying that is "to be expected" from him? What was his "argument?"

Let's be blunt: what was "doctored?"

 

[brewskis]

I did listen to the interview, and I can tell that you doctored those comments a bit to complement your argument. That's to be expected though.

Given your agenda, I know it can be tough for you, but no comments were "doctored" and none of the quoted observations were mine, but the observations of other posters who also listened to the remarks. If you disagree with their characterizations, perhaps you could have disagreed when they were first posted, or at least be honest about them now. Odd that until you, no one disagreed with the original posters. Were you napping?

Why do you think "Hookedongriz" characterized the remarks as "as blatant as blatant could be?" Or are you saying that is "to be expected" from him? What was his "argument?"

Let's be blunt: what was "doctored?"

Wasn't napping, just taking a dump at work and checked up on egriz and that was the first I saw it so that's when I hopped in and commented.

The comment on the "defensive coordinator" complaining about the offense going for it on 4th is incorrect. Listen and you will agree.

I'm not trying to argue, and I won't. Just pointing out a couple things. I'll say again, if any of that is seen as negative or hurts someone's feelings, then I'd recommend buying some blue and gold. They'll feel right at home.

 

[UMGriz75]

The comment on the "defensive coordinator" complaining about the offense going for it on 4th is incorrect. Listen and you will agree.

I didn't write the comment. Therefore, I did not "doctor" it. Are you accusing someone else of this?

 

[UMGriz75]

Just pointing out a couple things. I'll say again, if any of that is seen as negative or hurts someone's feelings, then I'd recommend buying some blue and gold. They'll feel right at home.

Well, be blunt about it: you are hypersensitive to discussions, pro and con, about a UM Football team and coach; you fear the normal banter of fans. You wish to banish honest conversations.

Are you sure you are strong enough to participate in a sports forum?

Maybe this is more your speed: http://www.thefloralsociety.com.au/

 

[brewskis]

Love the sensitivity around here.

 

[GrizLA]

I just hope he earns his $300,000.

That is peanuts...

 

[CDAGRIZ]

I just hope he earns his $300,000.

That is peanuts...

Well, there's our problem. We need to start paying in dollars, or we are never going to attract any coaching talent for the long haul.

 

[brewskis]

I just hope he earns his $300,000.

That is peanuts...

Well, there's our problem. We need to start paying in dollars, or we are never going to attract any coaching talent for the long haul.

Unless we find a coach who really loves nuts. Too bad blowsmen state already got one.

 

[Umista]

Man. All of U fans are in a semi argumentative state more or less about Stitt etc. Really nothing is/was new. 99 percent of this has been hashed out before on E-griz over & over many times. What this tells me is real Griz football has been on hold far too long and we need to get the season started.

I did not learn one "new" thing after 4 pages...

 

[PlayerRep]

It is evident Coach Stitt works very hard. He stated that he spent over 100 hours on the phone with kids last year and that he has done 40 different 45 minute to 1 hour interviews this year. He said he was doing one on that day even though he and his family are on vacation. I love that work ethic. Colter even pointed out it was a pretty new-age process the amount of time and interviews Stitt and coaches are doing to create a brotherhood and team chemistry. Wow some tell tale talk about the challenges he and Gregorak faced and the separation of offense vs defense. Seems to confirm a lot of what folks speculated.

I'm excited to see how all this plays out!

Hooked, what you said above about challenges between Stitt and TG is not accurate. He didn't mention TG or the prior DC in the entire interview, from what I heard. If someone wants to dispute what I said, feel free to provide the language. I sure didn't hear any such thing.