Joe never would have gotten Miles Sanders or Lamont Wade
- Thread starter nittany dave
- Start date
How do you view JVP's role in the football and academic rise in PSU's fortunes and stature since the nationwide attention brought on the football program beginning in the late 60's and for decades after?
JVP himself said that PSU was far more important than him or the football program. I grasp that, and have for many, many years. I heard the man tell us that any number of times at NLC events or in interviews or whenever the subject came up to him.
Could it be that you are mistaking the strong admiration and respect for JVP shown by me and my ilk for 'worship'? I can easily keep those lines clear and distinct. Most everyone I know of my ilk can.
My challenge to you is when you say things about nothing good coming from the dark years, which clearly implies an emphasis on on-filed success. It implies the off-field good via the men of The Grand Experiment were of lesser importance. That thought lends itself to a football-first culture, holding football in a higher place than the rest of PSU.
PSU is much bigger and more important than just football. I'm not convinced you grasp that.
I don't recall that and it sounds unlikely. I'm a Jainist to some degree (almost always fail miserably especially here) and non-absolutism is one of the main principles of Jainism and, for me, an easy one to adhere to. It's best that I leave it at that (though I have more to add).
Well, there are a bunch of exceptions that disprove what you're saying regarding getting highly-rated QBs and Skills to sign with PSU.
But other than that....
Were there not some products of the "grand experiment" that sat on the BOT? Seems like it wasn't without without its warts, but that aspect of it doesn't get brought up much.
I'm not following what you're saying here. Seems as though you're implying that The Grand Experiment wasn't all that, because of Suhey and Joyner putting personal interests ahead of PSU's interests (and turning their backs on JVP in the process) during a crisis? And that we should talk about its downside using that reference?
Probably just me, but I'm not following that line of logic. Thanks for any further clarity you can provide.
crm is a troll. That's probably all you need to know.
That's just dumb. His record during that final 15 years (after you think he should have been fired I guess) was 120-62, which included seasons where we finished 11-1, 11-2, 11-2, 10-3, 9-3, 9-3, 9-4, 9-4, 9-4 and won six bowl games. We were 8-1 (only having lost to #1 Alabama) when Joe was fired. Jay Paterno was hardly incompetent, he did a great job developing our TE's before doing an equally good job with our QB's for a decade and never "ran" the offense.
Some of you guys should think before you post.
Thanks. That could explain his reply.
But I thought I'd see if maybe I could learn something factual that I had not realized before, which is often the case on this board!
I have no problem with clowns... but he should stop "living in the past" so much... especially when he knows so little about it
Despite the bashing you are taking, they key point is that Joe was selfish and stayed on too long. He preached about doing what was right, taking a team first approach, and knowing when to go, but everything was always about him. He couldn't let go and held the program hostage.
I will always maintain that JoePa felt he was denied a national championship in 1994 (probably rightfully so), and then hung on trying to win another. My belief is it would have been perfect had Penn State won the natty in 94 and JoePa retired, going out on top and graciously stepping aside. Not sure that would have happened, but in my mind that would have been perfection.
I am, and will always be, a Penn State football fan first, not a Joe Paterno fan first. Some cannot separate the 2, which to me is a mistake. There was football at PSU before Joe and there is still football now that he is gone.
Obviously, Joe did much good for football and the university as a whole. I also think that Joe almost certainly had to have known something related to "It" and probably (as he himself admitted) should have done more to stop "It." So, to me, he was not a saint, nor the devil, but as is almost always the case, somewhere in between. Let's see what, if any, impact future legal proceedings have on the situation - good or bad.
You seem to be struggling letting go yourself. If you're gonna cry about people wishing a dead guy a happy birthday, maybe you should stop complaining about the same dead guy.
This is the mentality that pretty much anyone outside of State College is mystified by. If someone doesn't worship JoePa they need to crawl in a hole? Seriously? Do you honestly believe that he knew absolutely nothing about anything related to Sandusky? I wish I could live in that fantasyland.
Bear with me because I am unfamiliar with Jainism and don't mean to disparage anyone's religion but aren't principles of any belief system ... well, absolute? Or is it like the Easter/Christmas christians in church?
Anyway, I was just about to give you grief (all in fun) about these (consecutive) quotes:
If you don't want folks to tell you to crawl back into your hole....
With the benefit of hindsight, perhaps You should abstain from creating your own "facts":
"...and probably (as he himself admitted) should have done more to stop "It.")......"
just sayin'.
Now.....crawl back into your hole.
Ha! I see what you mean. Okay, he might've gotten one thing right.
I'm a casual observer of Jainism. Don't quote me on this but for a Jainist I think non-absolutism means keeping an open mind and believing there is no absolute truth. Gandhi was influenced by Jainism. There's a poster here that writes in absolutes frequently. We don't get along. Some time ago I met a young man, a sales guy/student, who worked at Best Buy. We got to talking and he said he was Indian and a Jainist. I'm a curious guy so I looked it up and liked it.
The number one tenet of Jainism is non-violence. I'm all for that. I loathe violence though I'm guilty of it in a verbal sense from time to time and almost exclusively here, on this board, directed to the person who writes in absolutes. Shame on me, I suppose, but then, I'm not a Jainist monk.
I'm trying to do better.Couple of problems here. Who can prove anything absolutely? And then your leap into fantasy land. I don't think you've paid nearly enough attention to the entire Sandusky situation to write a worthy post, or to come to a conclusion of any value. So maybe you should just shut up once in awhile.
Did not Joe say "This is a tragedy. It is one of the great sorrows of my life. With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more," in a statement released in Nov2011?If you don't want folks to tell you to crawl back into your hole....
With the benefit of hindsight, perhaps You should abstain from creating your own "facts":
"...and probably (as he himself admitted) should have done more to stop "It.")......"
just sayin'.
Now.....crawl back into your hole.
So, not just sayin' That statement is fact.
I think he did say those things. What's the problem? He was honest. Name another person in all of this that admitted any accountability or at all. There are none. What you quoted Joe saying doesn't mean he knew or covered up. His words mean exactly what they mean. Joe saying those words should tell you the type of man he was, yet you mistakenly use them to indict him.
I think there is enough evidence out there already to at least raise the possibility that JVP may have known something, as opposed to absolutely nothing. To not even entertain the notion that he could have known something is, in my opinion, akin to living in fantasyland.
Unless you have concrete evidence one way or the other, I see no reason to not engage in conversation about the topic. There may never be a conclusion that has true value - I am inclined to let the legal proceedings play out and see what transpires.
I have no response to your first paragraph. I don't believe it deserves one.
We've engaged in conversation about this for five years. Personally, I'm not interested, beyond this, in engaging you in conversation. You don't know enough.
Ok Jackwagon.....this is the last time I'm gonna' respond to you (because I can smell the "Circle-Jerk Troll" scent on you from way over here):
If you truly cannot see the fundamental and critical differences between this:
"This is a tragedy. It is one of the great sorrows of my life. With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more,"
and what you wrote....which was this:
"...I also think that Joe almost certainly had to have known something related to "It" and probably (as he himself admitted) should have done more to stop "It." ...."
Then you are dumber than a bag of hair....hair shaved from the asses of retarded chimps.
Now....I don't think you actually wrote what you did BECAUSE you are as dumb as a bag of hair (shaved from the asses of retarded chimps).....I actually have a "hunch"
that you may have been otherwise motivated. Just a hunch Now....don't get me wrong....that does NOT mean that I don't think you may very well BE as dumb as a bag of hair (shaved from the asses of retarded chimps)......I'm just saying that I don't think that was the primary inspiration for your "commentary".
Now....go jerk your circle
Never said he wasn't honest.
I am not indicting him. However, I am also not going to absolve him until all the facts are known.
I agree with you that his quote doesn't mean he knew or covered up. However, it also might mean that he knew something, correct? Again, I'll reserve passing my opinion on the man once all facts are known.
When Curley emails Schultz and Spanier the following, "After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday--I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps; I am having trouble in going to everyone but the person involved," is it POSSIBLE that Joe MAYBE suggested that Curley only speak to Sandusky, rather than going to DPW and the Second Mile? If that is possible, then there really is not a huge difference between my two statements.Ok Jackwagon.....this is the last time I'm gonna' respond to you (because I can smell the "Circle-Jerk Troll" scent on you from way over here):
If you truly cannot see the fundamental and critical differences between this:
"This is a tragedy. It is one of the great sorrows of my life. With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more,"
and what you wrote....which was this:
"...I also think that Joe almost certainly had to have known something related to "It" and probably (as he himself admitted) should have done more to stop "It." ...."
Then you are dumber than a bag of hair....hair shaved from the asses of retarded chimps.
Now....I don't think you actually wrote what you did BECAUSE you are as dumb as a bag of hair (shaved from the asses of retarded chimps).....I actually have a "hunch"
Now....don't get me wrong....that does NOT mean that I don't think you may very well BE as dumb as a bag of hair (shaved from the asses of retarded chimps)......I'm just saying that I don't think that was the primary inspiration for your "commentary".
Now....go jerk your circle
The degree of anger in your post makes me think that no matter what might come to light in the prosecution of the three university officials you will maintain that Joe knew nothing and if any of them say anything against Joe they are lying.
Finally, I have no idea what you mean by the motivation and/or inspiration of my post.
You need to get your facts straight since you don't have any to support your opinion.
Fact
Joe Paterno did not say he should have done more. What he did say was qualified: “With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more” Hindsight: wisdom or knowledge gained only after something (usually bad) has happened as was the case in 2011 after Joe Paterno found out the seriousness of the charges against Jerry Sandusky.
Fact
Joe admitted he is not omnificent “You realize that the people out there think you knew about this? They think you had to know because you know about everything.” “That’s their opinion!” Paterno shouted. “I’m not omniscient!”
Fact
There are no facts that point to Paterno knowing anything in 1970’s. Joe Paterno had been questioned in his Grand jury testimony if he had any prior to 2001 knowledge of Jerry Sandusky inappropriate sexual conduct.
Q: Other than the incident that Mike McQueary reported to you, do you know in any way, through rumor, direct knowledge or any other fashion, of any other inappropriate sexual conduct by Jerry Sandusky with young boys?
Mr. Paterno: I do not know of anything else that Jerry would be involved in of that nature, no. I do not know of it.
Fact
Joe and Sue Paterno allowed their own kids to play with Jerry Sandusky. "Do you think we'd let our kids play with someone who might be a pedophile?" she asked. "Obviously we were all totally unaware."
Fact
Joe Paterno's FBI file included zero mentions of Jerry Sandusky. The file’s accessible 868 pages don’t mention Jerry Sandusky or the former Penn State assistant coach’s child sexual abuse scandal.
Seems like there should be plenty of room for middle ground about Joe.
He was, in his prime, a really good leader and coach. He was the rare coach who really believed in playing football with a team made up of actual COLLEGE STUDENTS when so many in the NCAA then and now think the college part should be optional. He was a great influence on college athletics and his program became a model for anybody in college athletics who wanted to do things the right way.
But Joe was never really an Xs and Os guy -- the only real innovation to come out of the program in 50 years was Radakovich's defense using highly mobile linebackers, and the precursor of the zone blitz.
I was generally supportive of Joe continuing to coach in his old age but now it is easy to see it was a mistake; Joe should have stepped down 15 years before he was fired. The whole program became so ingrown, there was a critical need for fresh air. Joe was insulated and surrounded by sycophants, and he was obviously too powerful or he couldn't have told Spanier and Curley to go away when they came to ask him to step down.
Too many of Joe's last 15 years he had pretty talented teams and produced mediocrity. And far too many highly recruited players came to State College, mesmerized by the prospect of playing for a legend, and then did not get the position coaching they should have received (LB under Vandy and DL under Johnson as the exception). We PSU fans didn't know that because we didn't have a point of reference, but we do now - we see what modern position coaching looks like.
In hindsight, when they put up an ugly bronze statue of Joe at Beaver Stadium while he was still the coach, that was a sign something was amiss, it was a sign of a personality cult. And Joe unfortunately supported the personality cult -- I don't think he realized how harmful his whole celebrity status was. He didn't realize how much he was holding back the development of the program -- he was arrogant enough to believe he was still better at it than anybody else would be.
He was, in his prime, a really good leader and coach. He was the rare coach who really believed in playing football with a team made up of actual COLLEGE STUDENTS when so many in the NCAA then and now think the college part should be optional. He was a great influence on college athletics and his program became a model for anybody in college athletics who wanted to do things the right way.
But Joe was never really an Xs and Os guy -- the only real innovation to come out of the program in 50 years was Radakovich's defense using highly mobile linebackers, and the precursor of the zone blitz.
I was generally supportive of Joe continuing to coach in his old age but now it is easy to see it was a mistake; Joe should have stepped down 15 years before he was fired. The whole program became so ingrown, there was a critical need for fresh air. Joe was insulated and surrounded by sycophants, and he was obviously too powerful or he couldn't have told Spanier and Curley to go away when they came to ask him to step down.
Too many of Joe's last 15 years he had pretty talented teams and produced mediocrity. And far too many highly recruited players came to State College, mesmerized by the prospect of playing for a legend, and then did not get the position coaching they should have received (LB under Vandy and DL under Johnson as the exception). We PSU fans didn't know that because we didn't have a point of reference, but we do now - we see what modern position coaching looks like.
In hindsight, when they put up an ugly bronze statue of Joe at Beaver Stadium while he was still the coach, that was a sign something was amiss, it was a sign of a personality cult. And Joe unfortunately supported the personality cult -- I don't think he realized how harmful his whole celebrity status was. He didn't realize how much he was holding back the development of the program -- he was arrogant enough to believe he was still better at it than anybody else would be.
Thanks very much. I thought I made it clear that I meant no disrespect to JoePa, but many chose to ignore that.
