Though it isn't highest on the list, his name has been mentioned for the Ole Miss job.
I am not sure if that comment was supposed to be sarcastic or not since he played very sparingly against Alabama due to injury and only recorded one catch. However, when he was in the game he did make a valuable contribution despite the paucity of targets. When he was in the game, his presence drew enough attention to open up other receivers as well as allow Jordan Wilkins to be the only player to rush for over 100 yards against Alabama in 2016 or 2017 so far. Had he been able to play more, it is likely that Ole Miss would have been able to cross the goal line, although not nearly enough to make the game competitive.
"the Rebels will wear blue helmets, white jerseys and white pants, as you can see in the video below:"The video shows grey pants.
He needs to research his opponents better or work on his math skills or both. UMass has lost by (in order) 3, 10, 10, 8, 4 and 8. That means that they have lost by more than 5 on three occasions and their total difference in losses is 43.
in other words it was wishful thinking.
Is your brain that "says the hogs" the same brain that said "Vanderbilt 28, Ole Miss 27"? I hope so.
nothing disrupts an offense like having to change centers. Ole Miss will also likely be playing without their starting center. Although his injury does not look like it is season ending, he is questionable for this game.
"Mullen has proven he can win at the SEC level..." You are aware that he is 31-37 in the SEC aren't you?
Although he has shown slight improvement, Fitzgerald is still one of the worst passers in the league. He is ninth in completion percentage and 12th in QBR in the conference. He is a good runner, which helps his ranking some in my mind, but not enough to overcome his obvious deficiency in the passing department. He is not a "dual-threat". He is a running QB that sometimes connects on a pass, though much less often than most.
"Finebaum now stars as maybe the most beloved radio host in the nation"? seriously? Everyone that I've ever conversed with hates him as much as I do.
Summarizing to make it perfectly clear:1) There was no "disparagement clause" in Nutt's contract.2) Nutt's lawsuit is not a contractual dispute. His contract at Ole Miss is not mentioned in the lawsuit. His claim is that Ole Miss lied in order to deny him the opportunity to pursue his career. So of course it has to be established that Ole Miss lied and of course the intent has to be established, as does the result. That is what the lawsuit is all about.
Just in case anyone is following along and cares... Since Nutt was a public employee, his contract is available to the public through FOIA. However, certain employment details are considered private and therefore the publicly available employment contract has portions redacted. If Stategrad or anyone else after reading the publicly available contract and finding that there is no wording similar to what He claims wants to allege that the "disparagement clause" that he alleges is in the redacted part, I will add a few comments. It is doubtful that such wording would be considered privileged and therefore, if it existed it would likely be in the in-redacted portion. It is not there. If it somehow got classified as privileged and therefore was redacted in the public version, then look at Nutt's lawsuit. Nutt doesn't claim anywhere that there was such a clause. The lawsuit is not for breach of any Imagined "disparagement clause". In fact, the lawsuit doesn't allege any breach of the contract and in no way relates to his contract while at Ole Miss.
You have already proven that you know very little about this lawsuit, Stategrad. You just want to latch onto anything negative about Ole Miss that you can.
Perhaps if it is available to read, you should read it Stategrad. There is no such clause. You are listening to an inaccurate source.
With Ed Orgeron as head coach, history suggests a loss.
When Orgeron was at Ole Miss, he would play close (but lose) in the games where they should have been blown out, and then also lose in the games that they should have won. Although I would expect this game to be a blowout, it would be very Orgeron-like for his team to keep it close. Then he'd talk about how improved they look and go out with a baffling loss the next week.
He will get neither.
Proving a lie is never easy, and in this case it is far from obvious that a lie was told. Ole Miss said either that the most serious offense occurred before the Freeze staff was hired or that most of the serious offenses occurred before the Freeze staff was hired or both. There is no obvious lie in those statements. Seriousness of an offense is certainly an opinion. I think that the stance that the most serious alleged offenses in that particular NOA was the academic fraud that allegedly occurred before the Freeze hire is a very defendable stance. The only other level one violations alleged in that NOA were related to the Tunsil mess. Ole Miss could very successfully argue that the seriousness of those violations was diminished since the punishment for them had already take place. As far as a disparagement clause, Nutt would most certainly have to prove that disparagement took place before such a clause could be considered violated so I don't understand your argument there. That discussion is moot anyway as there was no disparagement clause in Nutt's contract.
It won't be awkward simply because Les Miles is a class act and won't let it be awkward.
Vandy has been good at defending the pass. This is very much a strength-vs-strength game. Vandy is not very good anywhere except their pass defense. Ole Miss is not very good anywhere except their pass offense. If either team can muster a little bit of a rushing game, that team will win. Both teams are currently averaging 2.88 yards per carry.
I hear that Houston Nutt is available.
He is going to have trouble winning no matter where it is tried. In order to win a case like this, he will have to prove:1) that Ole Miss knowingly lied, 2) that the intent of that lie was to harm Houston Nutt and 3) that harm actually came as a result of that intentional lie.Regardless of whether you believe that Ole Miss lied, it is extremely difficult to prove that someone knowingly lied in court. Even if Ole Miss lied and it can be proven, in all likelihood that lie was told to cover their rear and not with the intent to cause harm to Nutt. Even if you make it to number 3, it will be difficult to prove that any harm was done. Houston Nutt was not sought after as a coach before Ole Miss said a single word about the first NOA.
He noticed when they came in. Perhaps you didn't notice that Ole Miss's first two touchdowns came against the Auburn starters. Yes, Ole Miss was beaten badly, but yes as Luke says in this article Ole Miss did do some good that they can learn from and build on. It doesn't diminish the accomplishments of your team to admit that the other team showed some life in the second half.
Until they play Georgia, they aren't going to see better competition. Other than Alabama, Auburn and Georgia, the SEC is pretty weak this year.
Coaching is indeed a major factor. Although much of what Manziel did was improvisational, there were aspects of the game that he struggled with. The coaches just made sure to minimize the opportunities for him to find himself in a situation that he couldn't handle, thus allowing his prodigious improvisational skills to shine. Shea is Shea and has his own strengths and weaknesses, as do all humans. There are things that he does better than Manziel and certainly things that he doesn't do as well. Longo just doesn't understand complex defense enough to put together a game plan that keeps Shea out of the situations that he has trouble with. For instance, one of Shea's greatest strengths is his quick release, which even at this early stage of development is NFL quality. That should be enough to help overcome defensive pressure. However, Longo is so stuck on his RPO philosophies that Shea had to be thinking through progressions (which include run and pass options on almost every play) that he doesn't really have a quick dump off opportunity to take advantage of his quick release capability. Longo can't read FBS defenses to know where and when pressure is coming and therefore he can't teach his QB how to do so. The play is blown up well before any improvisational skills can be employed.
My rankings:1- Alabama 2- Georgia 3- Auburn 4- (Tie) Everyone elseNobody has shown me anything to really distinguish them as better than the others outside of the top three.
Oh, and Stidham, even though I hate Auburn and Gus Malzahn, should be higher as should Fromm.
First, we need to all realize that these ratings are just one person's opinions. It is natural and not a bad thing that we all have our own personal opinions.Shea did not "drop back". Connor rated him in the same spot as where he has rated him for the past few weeks. As far as what it wrong with Shea, that would seem obvious. Shea is an incredible talent. However, he does not have much experience and the coaching is not there to overcome that inexperience. Longo was a good FCS offensive coordinator, but he just doesn't understand the schemes employed by FBS defenses, particularly one as sophisticated as Alabama's. Unfortunately, they play another very advanced defense this week.As far as Fitzgerald, I have a hard time understanding why someone would rate the QB with the 14th best (that's right, last place) QBR and the 13th best completion percentage as the third best QB. While I would agree that we shouldn't rate them strictly by QBR (certainly Shea should not be number 1 at this point despite having the highest QBR), efficiency is a very important element and the least efficient QB in the conference could not be considered the third best QB regardless of what else he brings to the table. I am also puzzled when articles refer to Fitz as a "dual threat" QB. He is a great runner, but what is the second threat?
How did your team do?
Carolina is projected so high because the SEC has a set number of bowl tie-ins and only three good teams this year.