Not a good look
- Thread starter Warlerski
- Start date
Not a fan of Lanning. This confirms it.
I’m with you.
He’s starting to gun for Lane Kiffin’s crown of D-Bag Supremacy among the coaching profession. Kiffin still has a firm lock in it, but Lanning’s got game for sure.
Great comparison.
He said some crap after winning at PSU last year. Douche forgot he got the call of a lifetime.
Yeah, the whole bit about the white out being a canvas on which they would work their art or whatever. Eff him.
Come on--we'd love Lanning if he was here--at least until he lost a game
Dudes the biggest tool in the Big 10, he makes Franklins arrogance seem tame.
Why do you fancy yourself such a skilled mind reader?
You “know” that in Joe’s own mind, the Great Experiment wasn’t genuine, but a strategy to lower expectations. Now you “know” we’d love to have Lanning as our coach?
Sorry, you can’t know these things because not everyone thinks like or values the same things as you do. I would not love it if Penn State brought in Lanning. Or Kiffen. Or Meyer. I care about more than a coach’s win/loss record.
It's not mind reading--ultimately college football is about winning--Lanning does that. Our base can pretend otherwise but we would have loved Urban if he came here as well--again, until he lost games
Joe was transparent--there's no mind reading.
Your love for Penn State is contingent on the coach--it's adorable that you want anyone to believe that.
@KingLando My love for Penn State became as strong as it did BECAUSE of the coach under whom I knew it for so long.
I still loved Penn State when BoB or JF was here, even though they weren’t Joe. I supported them and appreciated what they did or tried to do for and with our team.
But because of Joe, to me college football is about more than just enjoying the wins when they come. It’s about the human interest stories that come along with it. The Something for Joey moments.The Taliaferro inspirational rebounds. The Mauti attitudes of loyalty and sticking with each other when the chips are down. The Siale Taupaki rise above one’s troubles and love and support for family. And it’s about coaches who value and try to foster these things in the young men they take responsibility for molding.
There’s nothing “contingent” here, but I d@mn sure am happier when I see our coach emphasizing certain values. So far I’m seeing a whole lot of that from Campbell, and I love what I’m seeing. I know I’d see far less of it with the other coaches I named earlier.
You’re fully entitled to the cynical and shallow lens through which you apparently follow this sport. But that ain’t my lens, and you don’t get to imply that it is or it should be. Make sense?
I still loved Penn State when BoB or JF was here, even though they weren’t Joe. I supported them and appreciated what they did or tried to do for and with our team.
But because of Joe, to me college football is about more than just enjoying the wins when they come. It’s about the human interest stories that come along with it. The Something for Joey moments.The Taliaferro inspirational rebounds. The Mauti attitudes of loyalty and sticking with each other when the chips are down. The Siale Taupaki rise above one’s troubles and love and support for family. And it’s about coaches who value and try to foster these things in the young men they take responsibility for molding.
There’s nothing “contingent” here, but I d@mn sure am happier when I see our coach emphasizing certain values. So far I’m seeing a whole lot of that from Campbell, and I love what I’m seeing. I know I’d see far less of it with the other coaches I named earlier.
You’re fully entitled to the cynical and shallow lens through which you apparently follow this sport. But that ain’t my lens, and you don’t get to imply that it is or it should be. Make sense?
Not sure what you think this accomplished. That's all great.
If I'm entitled to my cynical and shallow view why did you bring it up when it had nothing to do with the topic? Clearly I'm not entitled to it based on your original reply.
This was simple...if we would have hired Lanning somehow after last season this board would have been thrilled. We all know this. You may have had concerns about how he'd run things but Joe couldn't run things today as he claimed in the past. Adapt. See Dabo.
Not sure why me saying we'd be thrilled if he was our coach was something you felt was worthy of the fight
If Portland State is mad at anyone it should be their AD. They took the money knowing it would be ugly.
You need a job or a hobby. Maybe you can get a golf invite from tornado golfer BKmtnittany1.
Did you just turn down another woman because she had large breasts?
Gee shifting the goal posts and claiming once again that you didn’t “actually” say what you posted. Call me “shocked”. The beat goes on.
@KingLando You’re entitled to what you choose to value in the sport.
What I was pointing out was your pattern of attributing certain frames of mind to others… like suggesting that Joe was not genuine about what he publicly stated about the Grand Experiment. Or that we’d all love it if Dan Lanning were here.
Two different things there.
What I was pointing out was your pattern of attributing certain frames of mind to others… like suggesting that Joe was not genuine about what he publicly stated about the Grand Experiment. Or that we’d all love it if Dan Lanning were here.
Two different things there.
Last edited:
Uh, no. Least of all with yourself, apparently.
Maybe you feel you’re giving your honest OPINION of what others do or should or would think about a specific situation. But you state these things as though they are irrefutable facts, and that’s where you lose me.
They are
Had we hired Lanning instead of Campbell the board's reaction would have been 100x more positive in general
Yes, we have a few people that still want it to be 1986 that are never happy
be real. this is a hypothetical. no facts are in this. there is not even a "scientific poll" that would support this.
it's like saying "had it not rained today, I would have been happier." that might make sense, except you don't know if you would have got a sun burn or injury doing something outside that you wouldn't do in the rain.
one could say that this board would be 100x happier if you never posted again, but it would not be a fact, unless.... well try it out.
Your argument is that had we hired Lanning the reaction would have been equal to or less positive than it was to hiring Campbell...
Let's be real
Your last statement is factual. Most would be happier. I wouldn't argue that but I'm here to discuss football not placate to people that don't want to have real discussions
It's not my argument, but it is one that someone could make. I do not think I would have been more excited. There is no way that it is factual one way or another. Lanning being hired never happened, so to say the reaction would have been "x" is an opinion, not a fact.
Even if everyone in the world argeed that "x" is the most likely outcome does not make it a fact that it would have been the outcome.
The opposite opinion does not make anyone "right" or "wrong". Two or more (even everyone) agreeing on an opinion does not make it a fact.
Also, my last statement was not factual. It was an opinion. How would one measure happiness anyway?
Loado hedges as usual, ducks about his job.
Well, here's his happiness and his job......
,,
Well, here's his happiness and his job......
,,
You're right--it's an opinion that someone that is widely considered a top 5-10 coach wouldn't have received a better reception from this board and the fan base had he been hired. That's the equivalent of saying our fan base wouldn't be happy if we honored Joe by honoring Joe. Pure speculation--no logic
It is a fact--would you like a definition of happiness?
This is nonsense that exists on this board. You want to pretend the obvious the merely an opinion.
@KingLando: dude, you said “Had we hired Lanning instead of Campbell the board's reaction would have been 100x more positive in general”
To which @SleepyLion simply said “be real. this is a hypothetical. no facts are in this”
And from that, you somehow get “Your argument is that had we hired Lanning the reaction would have been equal to or less positive than it was to hiring Campbell” when no one asserted that.
You say you want to have “real discussions” so please let’s have one. This isn’t that. So far, this has been you twisting things into something they’re not, and taking the stance that something is “obvious” and “a fact” because YOU believe it and are saying it as if it’s a hard fact.
I get it — this sort of approach is all the rage these days, and you’re just following suit. That doesn’t make it anything but completely bonkers.
To which @SleepyLion simply said “be real. this is a hypothetical. no facts are in this”
And from that, you somehow get “Your argument is that had we hired Lanning the reaction would have been equal to or less positive than it was to hiring Campbell” when no one asserted that.
You say you want to have “real discussions” so please let’s have one. This isn’t that. So far, this has been you twisting things into something they’re not, and taking the stance that something is “obvious” and “a fact” because YOU believe it and are saying it as if it’s a hard fact.
I get it — this sort of approach is all the rage these days, and you’re just following suit. That doesn’t make it anything but completely bonkers.
There isn't a soul here, except for his fellow trolls, that doesn't know what a dreadful fraud and fake that Loado is.
Correct--my first statement is factual. It's a hypothetical scenario but it's not an opinion the reaction would have been far more positive. By stating the first "hypothetical" isn't factual you are disputing the statement that I made which is indisputable. Lanning would have had a more positive reaction. This is like saying our board would have had a more positive reaction to Grunk staying than us bringing in Rocco--we know this.
I'm not following anything. People that have been other boards with me know I've been this way for more than 2 decades.
For the record, this "fight" began because you were mad I stated "Come on--we'd love Lanning if he was here--at least until he lost a game".
Dan Lanning is 40 years old. He has a 50-9 record, 17-1 in the Big Ten and has made the playoff the past 2 years (beating us in the Big Ten CCG)
Matt Campbell is 46 years old. At Iowa State he went 72-55, 50-40 in the Big XII and never made the playoff (including losing 45-19 in the Big XII title game with a spot on the line)
Yet it's "an opinion" that Penn State (or any program) hiring Lanning would have had a more positive reaction than hiring MC.
Yeah, you have any other nonsense you'd like to pitch today or you want to be serious.
Matt Campbell is 46 years old. At Iowa State he went 72-55, 50-40 in the Big XII and never made the playoff (including losing 45-19 in the Big XII title game with a spot on the line)
Yet it's "an opinion" that Penn State (or any program) hiring Lanning would have had a more positive reaction than hiring MC.
Yeah, you have any other nonsense you'd like to pitch today or you want to be serious.
It is pure speculation. You seem to not understand what a fact is.
A fact is something that actually happened. Any prediction of what is going to happen or could have happened is an opinion.
If you think the definition of happiness will help you measure it... good luck.
I never called this a fight, nor did I get mad. I’ve not felt mad at one moment throughout this exchange. But I did call into question your practice of mind-reading and attributing your personal thoughts to others, because it’s flat wrong.
Thanks for the stats on Lanning and Campbell. Nowhere did I suggest that Campbell had a comparable W/L record to Lanning. I explained that I have additional criteria in how I view a particular coach that go beyond those raw stats. I asserted my own opinion that I’d wouldn’t have felt happy about a Lanning, Kiffin, or Meyer coming here, and I left open the possibility that others might feel a similar way. And yes I correctly stated that your very specific statement that the board reaction to Lanning would have been “100x more positive” than Campbell’s hiring was also an opinion — and I drew a parallel to your statements about Joe and the Grand Experiment. There’s a definite theme there of mind-reading and projecting your own opinions onto others.
And no, I don’t care to send any further thoughts your way today as it is a waste of time.
Loado comes here swinging his a$$ around pretending he knows what he's babbling about. Realistically, he's just twisting others words, spinning and plain making up bullsh-it.
Latest
-
01
BWI Football
How Penn State's Offense Adjusts if Koby Howard Can't Play vs. Wisconsin
-
02
BWI Recruiting
Top 10 PA prospect among notable additions to Penn State-Wisconsin recruiting list
-
03
BWI Football
Matt Campbell notebook: What Penn State has learned - and what comes next
-
04
BWI Football
Intel: Who can step up for Penn State if Koby Howard is unable to play against Wisconsin?
-
05
BWI Football
Koby Howard injury update: What's the status of the top Penn State receiver?