“I think coaches are paranoid in general.”

I don’t know why it would be a startling revelation to disclose that people who are notorious control freaks would have concerns — okay, maybe undue concerns — about that control being undermined by lower-handed efforts by other notorious control freaks, but if we’re gonna talk about paranoia, consider a couple of things from this article on the subject.

It’s also not uncommon to face an opposing coach familiar with Alabama’s communication methods.

Kirby Smart qualifies there.

“Yeah, there are a lot of really paranoid coaches about that,” Smart said. “You’re not looking at one that’s overly paranoid but maybe I should be because everywhere I’ve ever coached, people are freaking out a week before the game, day before the game …

“We played Alabama this year and I had so much other stuff to worry about, I wasn’t worried about that. We didn’t change anything we did and I don’t know if they did or not. I had my hands full with other things. So, I think there is a paranoia out there for that and it’s probably overdone in my opinion.”

Add to that one more thing.

Not long after the College Football Playoff national championship game, a grainy security-camera snapshot made news in Atlanta. A mystery man wearing a hat and coat walked through the Marriott Marquis hotel lobby a few days earlier with a backpack that wasn’t his.

Alabama was finishing its game plan for Georgia when part of it walked right out the door. A playbook belonging to then-Crimson Tide defensive line coach Karl Dunbar was in the bag snatched from a meeting room in Alabama’s team hotel.

Given today’s heightened emphasis on cloak-and-dagger secrecy, the theft was not an insignificant breach. That other items from the backpack were recovered while the playbook remained at large only added to the story, though it didn’t go public until two days after Alabama’s overtime win over Georgia.

Still, it doesn’t do much to temper the tin-foil hat mentality of football coaches who place a premium on keeping even minute details private.

The playbook heist is perhaps the most straight-forward crack in the fortress, though the guilty party was never found, nor were there any connections made between the assailant and Georgia’s football program[Emphasis added.]

Now, let’s say Sanders hadn’t been deked, broke up the pass that wound up being the actual winning score and Georgia held on to win.  Can you being to imagine the outpouring of tin-hatted, bizarre theories used to explain how Kirby’s perfidy cheated the Tide out of a natty?  Call it Alex Jones meets PAWWWLLL!!!.

Okay, it would have been a kick to listen to, but you get my point.  This game makes a lot of people weird.

72 Comments

Filed under College Football, Strategery And Mechanics

72 responses to ““I think coaches are paranoid in general.”

  1. “This game makes a lot of people in the state of Alabama weird.”

    Fixed it for you.

    I hated that we lost … in particular the way we lost with two seniors who are DGDs blowing assignments and the worst 30 minutes of officiating I’ve ever seen.

    Like

    • ASEF

      Hey Pawwwl, knowing Saban, it was a fake playbook designed specifically to mislead his opponent. Saban got his own counter-intelligence ops. Met one of the dudes at a Cracker Barrel outside Crackerville.

      Like

    • Derek

      Yep. As compared to alabama fans what I’ve wanted to do to that side judge is totally rational and proportional…..

      “If my thought dreams could be seen, they’d probably put my head in a guillotine”

      Bob Dylan from “It’s alright ma, I’m only bleeding”

      Like

    • Atticus

      And lost on a play where tow very experienced DBs made epic, colossal mistakes in coverage that never should’ve EVER happened. It is basic coverage 101.

      Like

      • Derek

        We needed a time out there.

        The crazy thing, and I know it’s hard to watch, is what Baker does on the other side covering Ridley. He’s bailing immediately to ensure nothing’s getting deep.

        When we made the sack, 14 and 24 were mentally out of the game.

        We needed a TO to explain that we still had football to play and get everyone refocused on finishing. I don’t care what anybody says, that was not a great play by Tua. It was a gift by 2 guys who had temporarily lost focus.

        2nd and 26 was going to be the most dangerous in the series. That’s your best chance to get it all back. At the same time you can’t give them a cheap gain to position themselves.

        Gotta call a TO there.

        Like

        • ASEF

          Kirby isn’t going to let an offense regroup there. And he shouldn’t. Sure, we can look at the result and say, “In this instance, we should have called a time out because look what happened,” but that’s ignoring the moment. Freshmen QB and freshman LT, both little used back ups. blow 1st down in OT, looking a little panicked in the process. Let them self destruct. Odds were in Kirby’s favor. Sometimes people hit an ace on the river. Doesn’t change the fact the odds were heavily in your favor when you made the call.

          I’m not going to dump the L on two Georgia players who were key to reaching a title game and OT in that game. Sometimes the offense just wins a play. There’s a reason those guys were so highly recruited – they’re good. Tua got some intel from the booth on a prior play call from the same formation back in the 3rd and used it. I’m not sure why we’re so determined to deny some credit to an opposing player that we’ll dump everything on the heads of Smart and the two DBs.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Otto

            Agreed, Saban made the same call back 2012 that Smart made 5 years later. Don’t let the offense regroup and lean on your defense which has played well.

            I’m not going dump the L totally on 2 players, it should not have come down to that. Multiple other players could have made plays earlier in the game, and what about that off sides call?

            Like

            • Derek

              Saban wasn’t sitting on 2nd and 26 with a team that had never been on the doorstep of a natty. Total apples and oranges.

              It was 1st and goal vs. a team with no timeouts and your defense call is always the same in that scenario: 0 coverage.

              That would have been an interesting (stupid) defense to call for us but it would have taken a lot of thinking out of it.

              Like

              • Otto

                UGA blew a basic coverage in the national title game. The defense knew what to do and had been in big games before. It wasn’t like they had not played in an Over Time playoff game. Nobody calls timeout on 2nd and 26.

                Like

                • Derek

                  The proof is on the pudding. How can you argue with your premise? I mean other than every fucking thing we actually know, you’re right.

                  They knew what to do in that moment. Got it.

                  Like

                • Otto

                  We can always 2nd guess when a play goes wrong.

                  You make the point that UGA should have called a timeout to settle the kids so they would not make a basic coverage mistake (not execute an exotic call). But out of the other side of your mouth you say Bama did the right thing in not calling a TimeOut to settle the kids because they knew what to do.

                  SO I want to thank you for making my point and they are both Apples.

                  Like

                • Derek

                  I’m not “second guessing.” I was calling for the TO right after the sack.

                  I was calling for the spike in 2012. Even though everyone seems to think that was the right move, in hindsight, I’m never been sure and lean toward the idea that not spiking was the percentage play. In this situation I think my instinct to call for a TO remains correct.

                  Alabama plays zero coverage in that situation in 2012, every time. There is no need to go over responsibilities. That is unless you don’t have any idea what zero coverage is.

                  First and goal at the 6 with a clock under :15 and winding down is not the same as 2nd and 26 from the 41. It just isn’t.

                  Finally, cover two is not nearly as simple as cover 0. Its just not. It is complex. There are different types of cover 2. Are the corners jamming? Or are they playing with a cushion? If so, how much cushion?

                  One thing we know is that Baker played it totally different than Parrish. If they call a TO, that probably doesn’t happen.

                  If the kid throws a dime vs. double coverage, fine. If he eats it, fine. If he throws a pick, great. What we didn’t need to two guys playing lost. That’s what we got and it was avoidable.

                  Besides, he’s seen this play before: https://youtu.be/ghWTglY8JB4

                  Where’s the safety? #20 was a senior too btw.

                  Like

                • Otto

                  Exactly the safety should have known what to do, so need to call a time out. It was not the 1st big game this season. Calling a time out just to as you put it “explain that we still had football to play and get everyone refocused on finishing” should not have been required.

                  It was not a rushed play, an exotic play call or new personnel. You beat OU in the Rose in OT, and you beat ND in South Bend at night with a big defensive play, you trust your D to execute which execution was the problem. It was a play which in practice should have been executed with a very high degree of accuracy.

                  Looking back it was obvious a Time Out might have changed things but you don’t plan on your more experienced players to make that mistake.

                  You hold the timeout in case of a 3rd and managable to 3rd and short, in case of some procedure/sub error, or to ice the kicker who certainly needed to be reminded of the moment.

                  As for the spike, My gripe was not that ball was or wasn’t spiked. It was that the QB was calling for a spike and the staff was calling a play. A championship team should be on the same page but that is another debate which has been beaten to death.

                  Like

          • Sure, Bama made the play when it was presented. It doesn’t change the fact that Parrish wasn’t bailing to prevent the deep ball and Sanders committed the worst sin a free safety can … allowing the QB’s eyes to get him out of position and a result letting the deepest receiver to get past him.

            I don’t think Kirby or Tucker did anything wrong with the call … it was execution pure and simple.

            Like

            • Derek

              It was really the only call you can make there. Unfortunately both guys weren’t focused. That’s the import of the time out. To get them out of glassy eyed celebration mode.

              Like

              • Otto

                You don’t expect an experienced safety like Sanders to make that mistake, the time out is saved in case Bama lines up with something unexpected or possibly 3rd down.

                Like

          • Derek

            Well I was in stands with my hands in a T so it isn’t an after thought.

            As far as self destructing the easiest thing for that kid to do was to throw a 9 pattern there. It’s not like he was forced to make a tough decision. If the coverage was there, he’d have tucked it, gotten a few yards and they’d have called thier time out.

            Like

            • ASEF

              I’m not seeing it. And I think you’re flat wrong to say the DBs blew their assignments. If they did, then they also did so the same way earlier in the game, and no one on the coaching staff bothered to correct it.

              Alabama ran the exact same play at 10:19 in the 3rd. Tua scrambled for a first, but the coverage worked on that play. In OT, Sanders did the EXACT same thing he’d done in the 3rd – line up just inside the hash, flip his hips at the snap and retreat outside the hash to show, and then drift back inside the hash as the QBs vision focused on the other side of the field. His movement on both plays is virtually identical. That strongly suggests he’s playing it as coached.

              In the 3rd, Baker took a shallower position inside and played the receiver with his back to the ball – but he didn’t jam him or reroute him. In OT, he took a deeper position outside instead of inside, which seems reasonable given a 2nd and 26 rather than a 3rd and 7. We can argue whether he took some false steps in coverage, took his eyes off the WR a split second at the worst possible moment, or whatever. However, we can’t argue that he’s blowing a coverage.

              There’s just too much similarity to the way Baker and Sanders handled that play in the 3rd to argue they did something aberrant on the OT play because it was 2nd and 26 and the moment overwhelmed them.

              The coverage makes complete sense against most college QBs. Most college QBs lock in on half the field after the snap. Most college QBs have difficulty picking up a receiver mid-route and accurately placing a ball based on that split-second of target acquisition. Most college QBs have to float a 40 yard pass a little more than that, giving a DB more time to recover.

              Which is why i think you’re off-base saying Baker and Sanders blew it. I think Tua beat the defense as designed on that play, and he beat it by moving the defense with his eyes and then tossing an extremely accurate, low trajectory ball 40 yards downfield that hit his guy in full stride right in the hands.

              Hurts would never have even attempted that pass, and if he had, it would have been underthrown or overthrown. Maybe Smart calls a TO to tell his defense, “This guy can and will make that throw, so let’s adjust to that reality.” But I think the DBs covered that play the way they practiced it. The new guy just had the skills to beat it.

              If you want to fuss at Kirby, fine. But please stop banging on Sanders and Baker.

              Like

              • Derek

                Damn don’t make me rewatch that.

                It’s been awhile but I don’t remember sanders moving his hips outside before the ball was thrown. I also don’t think there was enough time to do much looking off. My recollection is his hips and shoulders stayed square until the ball is thrown.

                If that was the plan, they needed a different plan. You’re certainly upping my blame on the coaches by a lot of you’re right. It’s one thing to “cheat” during regulation to try to force a mistake or get a pick. It’s quite another to be defenseless in that spot.

                Even if you’re right on Sanders wtf is Parrish doing? His assignment can’t be “let him run free because you may not have help deep” can it?

                Maybe you’ve got Parrish and baker confused. Baker was on the other side of the field and was definitely playing not to get beat deep. Parrish got burnt and looked like he was expecting help.

                Maybe Sanders forgot Baker was flipping to play Ridley and didnt think he needed to help? TO woulda helped.

                Like

                • ASEF

                  Too many names :). Corner to that side. So you don’t have to watch:

                  Same formation, same play call, same receiver to that side (fun fact – he’d caught 6 balls on the year to that point).

                  3rd Q: line of scrimmage Bama 47, ball spotted between hashes. Sanders lines up at 40, 13 yards off line, let’s call it 3 steps inside left hash. At snap turns his hips to the receiver and visor to the QB, retreats, ends up two steps outside of left hash on the 35 2 seconds into play, squares to ball, backpedals to 30, at 4 seconds into play as Tua starts scrambling Sanders turns to receiver and sprints towards the boundary.

                  OT: line of scrimmage Georgia 41, ball spotted left hash. Sanders lines up at 25, left hash, 16 yards off the line (3 yards deeper). At snap turns his hips all the way to the boundary with visor on QB, retreats to 20 about 3 steps outside of hash, at which point Tua has been looking right since the snap. Sanders squares his hips to the QB, and Tua immediately steps into throwing motion. At Tua’s release, Sanders is on the left hash at the 15 and turning his hips back to the boundary. Tua’s pass released at left hash, 47 yard line, caught on the goal line in between the numbers and sideline – let’s call it 49 yards in the air. The ball covers that 49 yards in the same amount of time it takes Sanders to cover a distance from the 15, left hash, to the 2 yard line near the numbers: let’s call it an 18 yard sprint.

                  As far as comparing the two plays, Sanders moves outside, in, and then back out in exactly the same way. He just starts deeper by 3 yards. He retreats about the same distance (40 to 30 in 3rd, 25 to 15 in OT). As Tua looks right and stays right, he squares. The play by that point has the TE sprinting across his face with a trailing cover. He’s processing a lot, and the last time Sanders covered the play that way, Tua had to scramble because he couldn’t find an open receiver.

                  I can’t watch those two plays and see any real difference in Sanders’s approach other than backing up his start point – which suggests some situational awareness and consistent execution after that adjustment.

                  Like

                • Derek

                  Maybe you’re seeing more than me.

                  It looked to me like sanders was in concrete with his shoulders and hips square the whole time.

                  You still have to account for Parrish and you have to account for whether our FS should be doing anything but protecting the end zone there.

                  In the middle of the third I might take some chances thinking they’re gonna make things easy on the new qb. In that situation you have to protect against letting anyone get deep.

                  Like

                • ASEF

                  No, he clearly turns to the boundary and retreats towards the boundary. It looks like a disguise to me – showing that boundary coverage at the snap and then either sticking with it if Tua looks left or squaring if Tua looks and stays right. Which Tua did.

                  Between the snap and release, Sanders has retreated 10 yards in an arc that takes him from the left hash to about 3 steps outside the hash and then back to the hash. Exact same thing he did on 3rd and 7 on same play call from the same formation – he’s just a little deeper, and his arc is further left since the spot was on the hash rather than between.

                  Again, Tua gets a pass to cover 49 yards accurately in less time than it takes Sanders to cover 19 yards. And I’m guessing Kirby was entirely comfortable with that bet against Hurts and a true freshman QB. I’d be interested to go back and watch how Sanders handled Oklahoma’s “everyone go long” plays. But no time for that right now.

                  Like

          • Macallanlover

            Bull crap, no one in the building knew 5 seconds earlier that Bama would be in 2nd and 26, our coaches should have repositioned our thinking. They did the only logical thing, instantaneously they knew to go after the guys they had beaten ALL NIGHT long. We should have made sure he was not left alone. The more time Tua and a panicked group had to think about their position, the better it would have been for us. Instead, they quickly threw deep against Parrish, and the hesitation from Sanders allowed it to happen. That isn’t dumping on those two, the coaches didn’t insure there was zero chance for a simple throw. When the Bama WR came off the line, we were beaten. We gave a raw freshman a play a HS QB could have made, he had no time to think about pressure.

            Major mistake by UGA coaches, they were in a bind but we did the unthinkable and handed the game. Never should have been in the position, but the officiating blew three flop calls that were undisputable, and we let them off the hook on 2nd and 26. A game our guys deserved to win, we found a way to let them off. If we had been in a 2nd and 10, or 3rd and 8 situation, I would understand not giving them a TO to plan, but nothing had prepared us for 2nd and 26, and a guy struggling in the worst game of his career. The Bama staff know exactly where to go, we didn’t get prepared.

            Like

            • ASEF

              Name me a high school QB who can look off a safety right, locate a 4.4 receiver left, and then hit him in the hands 49 yards downfield before a starting safety on a top 5 defense can cover 18 yards.

              I guess Kirby’s too stupid to understand how easy that throw is?

              Like

              • Macallanlover

                You assume he “looked off the safety”, may have just looked that way first given the number, and quality of the receivers on that side. And throwing a football 50 yards to a wide damn open receiver hardly requires the winner of the Elite 11. Perhaps you should vote Tua as an All SEC QB based on that play. Had Kirby (or Tucker) been thinking, we wouldn’t have ever known if Tua could make that throw into coverage.

                Like

        • Stoopnagle

          A Georgia coach shoulda called a timeout at the bitter end of a championship game vs Bama? You don’t say?

          Liked by 1 person

          • Russ

            🙂
            I think it was the right call back then, and the right call in January. Eventually, we’re going to win one of these to prove me right.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Derek

            We didn’t have a time out to give in 2012.

            The issue was should we spike it? I didn’t have a problem with not doing it conceptually but it did take us too long to line up. A somewhat foreseeable issue under the circumstances.

            I disagree with the idea that their offense would have been given time to regroup. It’s 2nd and 26. All of their choices are hard vs. a defense that is focused and understands the situation. We give up nothing and gain everything calling a time out there. They are calling their own timeout on 3rd down if that play doesn’t go so what are we gaining when they get to “regroup” on the next play anyway?

            The money down was 2nd and our guys were lost and that was predictable given the circumstances.

            People do stupid shit under pressure. I give you JR Smith as an example. That was the classic brain fart set up and we played the part.

            Like

        • PTC DAWG

          I disagree, had Bama not had of made the play, a mystery flag would have been thrown on UGA…it didn’t matter.

          Like

    • Mayor

      The officiating was no accident, bro. Bought and paid for.

      Like

  2. Chris

    “Can you being to imagine the outpouring of tin-hatted, bizarre theories used to explain how Kirby’s perfidy cheated the Tide out of a natty? Call it Alex Jones meets PAWWWLLL!!!”

    Last time a heavy favorite like that went down to the good guys they blamed it on Muh Russia not Alex Jones. But It’s Her Turn, er, It’s the Tides Turn (again). Resist!

    Very tin-hatted and bizarre theories/excuses/coverups indeed.

    Like

    • I have no idea what point you’re trying to make here, but I’m sure it’s deep.

      Like

    • Derek

      Fucking entire US intelligence apparatus. What do they know?

      If there’s one thing we know its trust Mein Furhgrabber!!!

      He never lies:

      taxes released
      wall paid for by mexico
      no icbms fired by NK
      tariffs save american jobs
      no associations with scumbags who have plead to felonies or await charges/trial

      Plus as a bonus we get baby internment camps!!!!

      Like

      • Anonymous

        The “Fucking entire US intelligence apparatus” also said that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. They were spectacularly wrong. The entire “Trump is conspiring with Putin to hack our democracy” meme started as a distraction in an attempt to get people not to pay attention to the content of the emails in the DNC email leak. It has been two years now and there is no evidence beyond a couple of dozen Russians with a $2M budget and no evidence of them working with any American citizen.

        Trump may be a blowhard that says dumb things, but let’s stick to facts.

        Like

        • ASEF

          No, the entire intelligence apparatus did not. In fact, Scooter Libby went to jail for going after some people who took their concerns public. They weren’t the only ones with concerns, just the ones who talked to the press in terms of, “Dick’s telling lies, and he knows it.”

          Trump is somewhere knee to neck deep in Russian oligarch money. No one denies the amount of Russian money moving through his businesses or the amount of contact people in his campaign had with Russian spies during the campaign. Trump’s key foreign policy efforts are (a) attack NATO at every opportunity, (b) make America’s allies and key trading partners look nervously over their shoulder at the US, and (c) talk up dictators. Pretty much Russia’s 3 main foreign policy objectives. Gee, coincidence?

          I’m done with people trying to spin this. I’m not saying Trump wants to turn the US into Nazi Germany – I’ll leave that hysteria to the Usual Suspects – but I’m not so blinded by my aversion to some policies on the Left that I will rubber-stamp anyone and anything coming from the Right.

          And by the way, smearing lifelong Republicans who authorized and directed Mueller’s investigation, and Mueller himself, a lifelong Republican who served his country honorably in the Marines, is reprehensible.

          This isn’t even party over country anymore. It’s the EXACT cult of personality in support of Trump that Republicans claimed to abhor in Obama and his followers.

          If I am “triggered” over this, it’s not because I have anything against Trump. The man is doing what he knows, and we all know what he does. It’s the audience of people enabling him. People who claim to hold themselves to a higher standard than others in their religious and civic values. Well, after hearing all about those values during Obama’s 8 years, and then watching these same people turn a blind eye to some of Trump’s practices, all I can say is this: a lot of people owe me an apology for wasting my time during those 8 years, because they apparently meant none of it.

          Again, for the record for everyone who wants to assume I’m a Pelosi Apparatchik, I grew up in a town dedicated to church twice a week, guidance systems, and propulsion. I tithe. I work with youth, including adopting one of my children. None of that makes me better than anyone else, but spare me the standard “typical liberal” nonsense.

          Like

          • Anonymous

            I will preface this with the fact that I am a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party. Even then, I come from the Classical Liberal side of that grouping. I only voted for 1 Republican in 2016, our County Tax Commissioner who is someone I know personally. When it comes to political view, the person on this board with views that most closely resemble mine is probably Senator Blutarsky.

            The beliefs within the Intel Community (IC) were enough to convince Colin Powell that SH had WMDs. Like Meuller, I think he is someone we can both agree is not a partisan hack. There are dissenters within the IC that doubt the Russia / Trump collusion narrative as well. I will note that “Plamegate” happened months after the Iraq invasion.

            You will note that I did not slur anyone. I was using Derek’s exact wording to point out that the IC is quite often wrong when there is a narrative but not substantiated evidence. Also, the collusion “evidence” you list is also unsubstantiated and has not been reported by actual news outlets like Reuters or the AP. What has been substantiated is that Paul Manafort lied about some personal business with Russian Oligarchs and that Carter Page, a man that makes a living by trading Russian and Central Asian Oil commodities, has done the types of things someone who makes a living trading those securities does on a regular basis. None of that was connected to Trump. At some point, the Mueller investigation will be done and any evidence found will be released. Until then, I will only base my opinion on facts that have been corroborated by Reuters / the AP.

            You can also look at Trumps key foreign policy efforts as follows. After WW2, we offered to use our Navy to protect global trade, pay for large parts of the military defense of other countries, and allowed them to have export friendly trade policies that disadvantaged American businesses. We did this in order to win over friends during the Cold War. We defeated International Socialism 25+ years ago, yet we have continued those same policies. Most NATO members won’t even pay the required 2% of GDP toward defense because they have become accustomed to the American taxpayer footing the bill. We currently pay to protect shipments of Chinese steel headed to Germany so they can turn it into cars they sell to France. I don’t like his tone any more than you do, but I suspect his goals are more in line with rectifying the issues I listed and getting other countries to reduce their protectionist tariffs and to pay their share for defense and securing global trade. It makes no sense for us to fund all of this when the UK, Germany, France and Italy all have higher GDPs than Russia. Now, the same facts fit both narratives here. Which one is more correct should be judged on which one more accurately predicts future events. I will leave that as an exercise for everyone to work out.

            As for “talking up dictators”, I will note that 65+ years of what we have done with North Korea has been a miserable failure. Trying the exact opposite is probably a good approach. Just like with Obama trying to normalize relations with Cuba, this really should not be a partisan issue for anyone especially if your goal is to achieve peace, prosperity, and freedom for the North Korean people.

            Like

            • ASEF

              If you want to consider Russia a beaten opponent, and NATO an obsolete conglomeration of free-loading Euro-wussies, then Putin thanks you. Meanwhile, he continues to move strategic ballistic assets and tactical offensive resources closer to those borders of nations that stepped out of the Iron Curtain and into the embrace of the Western Cold War alliance. He continues to step up influence campaigns in those countries.

              You forgot to mention that Manafort and Carter were Trump’s campaign manager and one of five named foreign policy advisors. They went from “running the campaign!” to “who were those guys again?” the moment the “spurious” investigation identified the Russian connections.

              Weight of circumstantial evidence at this point strongly suggests Trump was/is deeply involved in Russian money laundering.

              And no one can argue the basic point that Trump’s foreign policy objectives, big picture, line up neatly with Putin’s. We can debate whether it stems from different motivations all we want. The alignment is there, and so is the money, and so are the communication links. Occam’s razor until Trump provides something other than a constant retreat from one line of lies to the next, growing ever-more virulent along the way.

              Against all that, you remain more concerned with the contents of an email server of a washed up politician. Hmmm.

              Like

              • Anonymous

                I was not giving you my opinion. I was proposing an alternate filter to use while looking at the situation. We could be living in a dystopian hellscape where the President is a (not so crypto) crypto-Fascist working with our old adversary to destroy the concept of Western Liberal Democracy or we could be living in a world where the President believes the things I laid about above. Both scenarios explain the president having a foreign policy that looks to you like it aligns with Russia’s goals. The question is which is more likely and which is a better predictor of his future actions.

                Again, the issues with Manafort and Page were shown to be personal issues. As far as has been reported, there was nothing linking it to Trump. I am also not aware of Carter Page being charged with a crime or even being accused of committing a crime (you know, other than the shady shit you have to do when trading Central Asian oil securities). You are making the assumption that your fears are the truth. I will wait for the Meuller investigation to finish and deal with the evidence presented. I don’t have a dog in this fight.

                Also, please do not put words in my mouth. I said nothing of Hillary Clinton or her emails. I already told you that I am not a Republican, and I am not a Trump supporter. Not everyone that doesn’t believe we are on the precipice of becoming the 4th Reich is blind Trump supporter that is obsessed Infowars tier conspiracy garbage involving the Democrats.

                Like

        • Spur 21

          Thank You anon.

          Like

        • Derek

          That’s a lot of bullshit. The head of the cia said that they’d probably find some WMDs to justify the effort. Which was all they really wanted. An excuse and to not look like fools. The intelligence apparatus never ever said we were under a threat from saddams non-existent wmd’s.

          To suggest that the intelligence agencies were as solid on “saddam has WMDs” as they are on “Russia helped trump” is bullshit.

          There’s no evidence if you aren’t looking for any. 13 Russians face a grand jury indictment. And you have this:

          Rob Goldstone wrote:
          Good morning
          The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.
          This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump – helped along by Aras and Emin.
          What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly?
          I can also send this info to your father via Rhona, but it is ultra sensitive so wanted to send to you first.
          Best
          Rob Goldstone
          On Jun 3, 2016, at 10:53, Donald Trump Jr. wrote:
          Thanks Rob I appreciate that. I am on the road at the moment but perhaps I just speak to Emin first. Seems we have some time and if it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer. Could we do a call first thing next week when I am back?
          Best,
          Don

          If it were this:
          Rob Goldstone wrote:
          Good morning
          The Crown prosecutor of Iran met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Clinton campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Trump and his dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your mother.
          This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Iran and its government’s support for Mrs. Clinton helped along by Aras and Emin.
          What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly?
          I can also send this info to your mother via Rhona, but it is ultra sensitive so wanted to send to you first.
          Best
          Rob Goldstone
          On Jun 3, 2016, at 10:53, Chelsea Clinton wrote:
          Thanks Rob I appreciate that. I am on the road at the moment but perhaps I just speak to Emin first. Seems we have some time and if it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer. Could we do a call first thing next week when I am back?
          Best,
          Chelsea

          You wipe your ass with the real email and you’d have foxnews “the Ocho” by now with all 8 running the story 24/7 if it were the latter.

          The best thing I can say about Mein Furgrabber is that he’s probably too stupid to be as effective as Stalin but he’d very much like to be.

          Like

          • Anonymous

            Before proceeding, please read at least the beginning of my reply to ASEF. I am not a Republican, and I am not a Trump supporter.

            The email is evidence of a a Russian offering “evidence” he obviously did not have in an attempt to gain an audience. When you are in deep collusion with someone you don’t have to dangle a carrot in order to get their attention. I would have no problem with the Iran / Chelsea email scenario you listed especially if they can through with proof.

            I don’t watch Fox News or any of the other cable “news” networks as they are all propaganda that will make you stupid. I get my news from the Reuters RSS feeds. I like to read the analysis from Reason Magazine, The Economist, and The Atlantic. I avoid opinion pieces as well. The world is a lot less frightening this way.

            Like

          • Derek

            So if you hear a foreign government wants to help in an election by offering info its ok in your book to say “I love it” and attend a meeting to discuss?

            I don’t care what your background, tastes and preferences are. That’s just plain stupid/wrong.

            If I say to you “I’ve got 5,000 bucks for you if you kill my wife” and you reply “I love it, let’s talk” and set a meeting, then you’re guilty of conspiracy to commit murder. Done and done.

            Like

            • Chris

              LOL

              If Oppo Research is wrong, I wonder what you think about paying for a Russian dossier that was eventually used in a corrupt FISA process to spy on an opposing candidate.

              They go low rabble rabble not a smidgen of scandal rabble rabble

              Sad!

              Like

              • ASEF

                The FISA warrants had nothing to do with Trump, just the people he was hanging around. The dossier was all about Trump. But do go on conflating the two.

                Like

              • Derek

                Because there is TONS of evidence of that! Evidence matters. They tapped my wires!!!

                If a FISA Court is considering authorizing scoping your ass, then you’re up to something.

                I really didn’t know that the guy who put together the dossier (none of which has been proved inaccurate by the way) was himself a foreign government.

                I just thought he was asking people questions and writing shit down. Who knew? I guess the watergate break in was the equivalent of an office tour, just after hours.

                Like

            • Anonymous

              Yes, I am not concerned about the source of Oppo Research. The Clinton campaign got paid Oppo Research from a former MI6 agent (that was born in Yemen!) that included the silly story about hookers pissing on Trump (a known germaphobe) in a Russian hotel (a story that originated as a 4Chan prank BTW). The only problem I had with that was when the FBI presented to a FISA court as evidence for a FISA warrant without stating that it was paid political Oppo Research.

              Getting Oppo Research from a foreign entity is not a crime. Murder for hire is. There is a very big difference.

              Like

              • Derek

                Where is the equilancy between a former spy now private actor and what Goldstone tells Jr. about the GOVERNMENT OF RUSSIA?

                A fucking toddler can tell there’s a difference but you’re incapable?

                When you’re told the Russian government is helping your dad as official policy and has dirt it wants to share and you say”I love it” it’s not the same as asking a private citizen to do some snooping. Unless of course you’re in lobotomy post-op.

                Btw: nobody said HE was pissed on by Russian hookers. We know he like whores and paid one handsomely.

                Btw: who hired this guy as the head of the NSA? https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/03/30/trumps-national-security-adviser-john-bolton-called-russian-meddling-act-war/471079002/

                Bolton says Russia interfered and we should do something about it. What a moron right?

                Like

                • Anonymous

                  I will again say that getting Oppo Research from a foreign entity, whether they are retired from or currently employed by a foreign government, is not a crime no matter how much you want it to be.

                  What we know about Russian “interference” with the campaign is, as I mentioned, the couple of dozen disinfo agents with the $2M budget that spread propaganda on social media. That interference was no where near as effective as some autistic kids on 4-Chan that thought memeing Trump was funny. Also, do not confuse “interference” with “collusion”. You are trying to mix the two. They are distinct and “proof” one one is not proof of the other. From my end, the entire conversation has been about collusion (and seeking oppo research isn’t collusion).

                  I have been really surprised at the number of people that think it is an act of war for a foreign government to have a preference for the outcome of our elections but totally brush off US instigated coops and the arming of islamic terrorists when their party gets in office. It is an odd feeling to have people think you are shill for the other party when you think that one’s party affiliation has nothing to do with whether or not their action was bad / a crime.

                  Like

                • Derek

                  A federal candidate accepting a thing of value from a foreign government is a crime.

                  Oppo research has been determined to be a “thing of value.”

                  You’re wrong.

                  Like

                • Anonymous

                  So you are assuming that the Trump campaign wouldn’t do like the Clinton campaign and pay the guy for the oppo research? What the Trump campaign and what the Clinton Campaign did are morally equivalent. I don’t have a problem with either action. You apparently think being on the other team makes your actions a crime. I guess you are kind of like the ACLU lawyer (an organization with which I usually agree btw) that said that Trump’s Travel Ban was unconstitutional but would have been constitutional if Clinton has passed it. The commonality of that type of “thought”, across the entire political spectrum, is why our government is incompetent and we can’t even discuss our problems in a reasonable manner.

                  https://ntknetwork.com/aclu-lawyer-says-travel-ban-could-be-constitutional-if-enacted-by-hillary-clinton/

                  note: I know nothing about the website. I chose it from the search results because it had the C-SPAN video on it.

                  Like

                • Derek

                  Stop being an idiot and talking about what I’m assuming.

                  The email exchange and meeting is evidence of a federal crime. It’s all there. Trying to deny it and dissemble and conflate and point somewhere else and distract won’t take away from the fact that:

                  Jr. received an email saying the Russian government supported his dad

                  The email said that the Russian government had something they wanted to give over to further it’s support.

                  Jr. said I love it.

                  We know a meeting happened.

                  You said there’s no evidence. If this were me or you, we’d already be convicted.

                  If it’s so harmless why is douche selling us some bullshit that all these people did this completely without his knowledge?

                  Like

                • Anonymous

                  I am very serious when I ask you this. What would you think if the following situation had played out? Justin Trudeau had sent Chelsea Clinton a message saying that he and his fellow Canadians supported Hillary in her campaign, that he had evidence that Trump was colluding with Russia, and that he wanted to give it Hillary. Chelsea then replied “I love it”. Then the former middle-school substitute drama teacher and part time ski instructor met with Hillary.
                  That is the exact same scenario except Trudeau is a much higher ranking official and is from Canada instead of Russia. I’m consistent in that I think that would be a big nothing-burger as well. What about you?

                  Like

                • Derek

                  I’d expect her to say: “call the fbi.”

                  By the way, why in your scenario is the fucking meddling the same as disclosure of the meddling?

                  The Australians contacted US government authorities when the trump official, whose since a convicted felon, was bragging in public about receiving Russian assistance in the summer of 2016. They didn’t email Chelsea dummy.

                  Like

                • Anonymous

                  Considering that she had no issue with the Chinese donating to Bill’s campaign in 1996, the Lincoln Bedroom scandal, or any of that other foreign money nonsense from his presidency (note IMO, the best presidency of my 37 years), I would be highly surprised if she called the FBI.
                  http://articles.latimes.com/1999/may/12/news/mn-36489/2
                  https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/07/chinese-illegally-donated-bill-clinton-reelection-campaign-media-downplayed/
                  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4252946/Clintons-befriended-Chinese-cook-got-illegal-donations.html

                  By the way, why in your scenario is the fucking meddling the same as disclosure of the meddling?

                  I’m not even sure what that means.

                  I asked you to comment on a similar hypothetical. Your response was to say that I am dumb because my hypothetical didn’t happen. Think about that.

                  Look, I understand. Trump drives you and a large portion of America nuts. I have no idea what will come out of the Mueller Investigation, but, for the sake of your mental health, you need to prepare for the possible scenario that he announces that they found no evidence of collusion. I worry about how people will react. The whole “Pizzagate” nonsense was born out of the second Comey investigation into Clinton’s emails with the whole Anthony Weiner’s computer subplot and Comey announcing he didn’t find anything.

                  Like

                • Derek

                  If Clinton took money from the Chinese as a candidate then he should go to prison.

                  If there’s evidence of that and the Bush AG didn’t appoint a Special Counsel to investigate, that would be a dereliction of duty.

                  If the gop house in the Clinton years didn’t include in the articles of impeachment such an allegation, if the evidence supported it, that would be a) surprising and b) a dereliction.

                  “So what I rape children, you rape children I read it in the paper” is a lousy defense.

                  Creeping mutual permissiveness is not an agenda that I’m willing to get behind.

                  Like

  3. W Cobb Dawg

    If I’m going to be paranoid it’s gonna be about the crooked refs. They simply were not going to allow us to win that game.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I have no strong convictions about any second guessing, but one aspect in support of (maybe) using a TO there was that Alabama had the shakiest of field goal kickers. Conventional wisdom would say the team in 2nd and 26 would use 2 downs to claw back into FG range and kick the game into another OT, but the Bama kicker was so frazzled and terrible that they weren’t looking for anything underneath.

    Like

  5. Go Dawgs!

    Tyler Simmons was onside.

    Like

  6. ASEF

    Unrelated: The Revenge of Ian McCaw. In which he completely reverses course, throws Baylor in front of the onrushing bus, nails them to the road, and then sits in a lounger chair on the side of the road sipping an iced tea and holding a sign declaring, “See? Always someone else’s fault. Definitely not mine.”

    http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/23928653/former-ad-alleges-baylor-regents-scapegoated-black-football-players-sexual-assault-scandal

    Like

    • Dolly Llama

      It may be unrelated, but it’s fascinating. I’m inclined to believe McCaw’s account. Even if he did land on his feet at Liberty. I mean, Liberty, wow.

      I doubt anyone’s hands are clean there. But I’d like to see every hypocritical bastard with dirty hands get their due.

      Like

      • ASEF

        I think we’ve officially entered the “circular machine gun nest” phase of the scandal, which means you are likely to get your wish.

        Like

  7. Mayor

    What made me weird was the officiating.

    Like

    • MDDawg

      I’m still a little sore over the uncalled facemask on Swift. I’ll never understand how refs on the field couldn’t see it but it was obvious to all of us in the nosebleed seats.

      Like