Thursday, October 07, 2010

Shinskie to start

The Herald is reporting Shinskie will start Saturday. With the way things are going I expect multiple QBs to play. More on Shinskie's return on Friday.

34 comments:

Mario Rigatoni said...

Uncle Dave is going to surprise some people out there (in a good way) on Saturday.

I base that on absolutely nothing but gut feeling. Oh and the fact that he's referring to himself in the 3rd person now. Bad ass? I think so.

Chase will be hopefully be out there against FSU, but I'm putting $10 on Dave helping us cover the spread this week, and I'm expecting the $9.09 in winnings.

CT said...

I hope Dave Shinskie thinks Dave Shinskie is going to throw for 300 w/o a Dave Shinskie-like INT. Dave Shinskie wants to help his team win, but Dave Shinskie needs to throw it to the guys with the same jerseys on. Dave Shinskie would create more drama if Dave Shinskie played well before that Freshman's return.

Walter said...

I mean, this is all highly entertaining, but the wheel of fortune close-your-eyes-and-pick-a-quarterback cannot be good for the team.

I've always sided with Shinskie, but is it fair to Marscovetra that his only starting time ever comes about in terrible situations?

Maybe if he were given a clean slate he wouldn't force things or panic.

Ideally, Shinskie will play phenomenally, they can redshirt Rettig (is this even possible now?) and we'll win the Orange Bowl.

Yup.

blist said...

What a mess. Isn't this the same guy Spaz threw under the bus two weeks ago?

Michael said...

We really might not win a game the rest if the year. I hope to eat my words but let's see how Dave does this week. I've gone on record that he should not play another down the rest of his career.

NC State is going to have a field day against our offense.

BCMike said...

Hate to say it, but I agree with you, Michael.

I said after the VT game the good news was that we would never have to watch Uncle Dave take another snap from under center.

Looks like I was wrong, sadly.

BCNorCal07 said...

Blegh. My lack of excitement for this team continues.

Erik said...

I love Blaudschun. It only took to the 2nd sentence to make a mistake. Identifying the opponent should have been easy enough to do....

"The mission is clear — for both teams. For North Carolina, it’s finding a way to stop Montel Harris."

Erik said...

People, even if you don't believe in Shinskie, Traq, or Spaz.... always believe in BC.

Go Eagles. Get a 'W'.

Bob B. said...

Looks like my source was spot on...

AlbanyEagle said...

I've never been a big Shinskie fan, but you gotta give the guy a little credit for keeping a positive approach. He still sounds confident in his abilities even though none of us is.

Might as well get behind the guy and hope for the best.

Go Eagles!

cwm2005 said...

Perhaps it's wishful thinking or just blissful ignorance, but I am excited for this game.

It's TOB Bowl 2010. TOB has yet to beat BC. QB be damned, if the O-line and defense come to play then this game is winnable.

That being said, if shinskie lines up under right guard after a delay of game then i quit BC football

mod34b said...

Shinskie's benching and re-emergence might be exactly the kind of thing that gets him highly motivated and focused.

If Shinskie can throw for around 200 yards, complete about 60% of his throws and throw 1 or 0 interceptions, BC will be doing well. (last year v NCSU, Shinskie was 13/25 for 187 yds, 2 TDs, 0 Int)


Shinskie does not need to be the star. He just needs to be ok.

And, really, Shinskie is not that bad. In fact, while R Wilson throws a lot more than Shinskie, his QBr, percent compelted and yards per reception are similar to Shinskie.

Shinskie: QBr 123.1; 54.2% completion percent; 13.5 yard/reception

Wilson: QBr 140.3 55.5% completion percent; 13.9 yards/reception

BC knew how to run on NCSU last year and how to defend againt the Wilson pass game. Let's hope for the same this year. A decent Dave is all we need.

Last, let's hope Spaz does not decide he needs to be "fair" to Marsco and give him some reps. Geez. Marsco had plenty of chances, and did nothing with those chances.

Doornekamp! said...

This is the right decision. Shinskie should have played once Rettig went down against ND. And I couldn't agree more with mod34b. Unless Shinskie gets injured or proves wildly ineffective, we should not be seeing Marscovetra at any point in the game.

ObserverCollege said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Doornekamp! said...

I am so glad and thankful that you posted that, ObserverCollege. That post really had a point. I for one can't believe a college student would drink beer. Doing so surely would have an effect on not only his own performance, but would also serve to deter other players from even trying to be good at football. Your logic is flawless, and is only exceeded by your non-judgmental internet rumor-mongering and biting sense of humor.

EL MIZ said...

First road game of the year. TOB seeking to finally get revenge. Shinskie is starting. Tranquill is still the OC. I mean, why would things turn out any differently?

NC State -- 38
BC -- 13

BC punts on 4th and 2 from the 38 with 8 seconds left in the first half, with the score at 13-3.

AlbanyEagle said...

EL MIZerable...

EL MIZ said...

hey I hope I'm wrong, I just haven't seen any progress at all this year. we shall see. i hope shinskie is looking off receivers and the line is controlling the line of scrimmage and we can get montel in space. it would also be nice to see some balls from the coaching staff. we have yet to see any of that. against the only 2 real opponents we were absolutely creamed. NC state is a good squad, and its the team's first home game. seems to me like a recipe for disaster. as i said, i hope that is not the case and BC wins.

Legal Observer said...

ObserverCollege -- Pretty ugly comments you make about Dave Shinskie.

You might note that if your comments about public drunkenesss are false, you may have libeled Shinskie. Check this LINK

Also note, dear Observer College, that that you can take little solace in your blogger's cloak of anonymity.
See this Model was victorious this week in her efforts to get Google to turn over the IP address and email address of an anonymous blogger who allegedly defamed her

mmason said...

As the great comic, Oliver Hardy, would say:
"What a revoltin' development this is."

ObserverCollege said...

SERIOUS COMMENT. You know, the Shinskie rumors are on the EO message boards -- as hearsay of course. I was relating them as such. Every single comment I made was of the "If-Then" and "would be" variety. Something like the "some people say" thing. So no, there was no assertion of fact in what I wrote.

Nevertheless, ATL, please go ahead and take down my comment. I would hate for there to be any confusion, as I do not assert any sort of factual claim.

Thanks L.O. for your feedback. I appreciate it very much.

Best,
OC

blist said...

Can saying someone engages in legal behavior ever rise to the level of libel? What exactly, is the damage to him anyway? It's not like Shinskie gets paid. Also, the truth is a defense for libel in the U.S. of A, so all someone would have to say is Yes, I saw him have a few drinks once and it's moot

Don't know why I'm defending OC. better than working I guess.

Doornekamp! said...

Yes, it can still be libel even if what you're accusing someone of doing is totally legal behavior like drinking. I believe the only requirement for proving libel is that the statement is false, that it was made in public, and when it involves a public figure like this does, that the person who said it knew or should have known it was false (and if you can show those things, to recover you would also have to prove you were damaged - there's no real damage done here from what I can tell, but imagine if he was a really good player like Ryan and this became a national story and affected his draft status and endorsements...)

So basically, OC doesn't have anything to worry about. If it's true he read it on a message board, then he probably had reason to believe it was true (however ridiculous that may sound). Plus, I don't think he wasn't asserting one way or another that the story was true, because as he said, he prefaced it by saying "If it's true." So I would say his defense here is about as good as Virginia Tech's was a couple weeks ago against Shinskie.

Whether his post was in good taste or not is a different question altogether, but he couldn't be sued for it, at least not succesfully.

Deacon Drake said...

Isn't Uncle Dave like 30, so legal for him to drink as long as he isn't driving?

I honestly don't think there is much difference in the talent levels of Shinskie and Chris Crane, other than Crane had more mobility and conviction with his throws. The biggest difference has been the coaching.

If there is one guy in the ACC Spaz stands a chance in matching X's and O's, it's TOB.

If Shinskie starts the rest of the season, BC staggers in at 7-5, maybe 6-6 at worst... if they choose Rettig, the ceiling may still only be 7-5, but there could be some growing pains that drop BC below .500. Marsco just doesn't look down the field enough to keep defenses honest, and could be the bridge to 3-9 (playing out the string winless is impossible... Duke, MD, UVA, Wake...).

They should run with Shinskie unless he proves that he is a liability this week (he has looked shaky, but apparently VT may be better than assumed following the JUM loss) cut to Rettig for the rest of the season... if he gets through this one, may as well ride out the shitstorm and keep the redshirt on Rettig.

BCMike said...

While I'm far from Observer College's #1 fan...two things:

1) Usually his pieces aren't funny, just dragging on and on and taking idiots who don't know any better with him, however--this was funny. I mean, really funny! It was good stuff and should be appreciated. Who knows when the next time will be when he actually cracks another funny.

2) Attempting to police the blogs and message boards is like attempting to herd cats, except it's not 500 cats, but more like 500 million cats. There's no point to it, and you look like a fool for trying.

Legal Observer said...

BCMike. As to #2, don't kid yourself. A blog or Twitter or anything else on the Net does not provide a licence to defame and there is no such thing as true anonymity. The only fool is the netizen who thinks the law does not apply to him

As to #1, it wasn't funny.

matthew2 said...

OC -- care to put that comment back up? I didn't get a chance to read. I guess it was about Shinskie being drunk in public? Wouldn't be the first time...

And Mod... motivation and focus were never the issue with Dave. He just isnt very good at reading defenses, etc. You can put up whatever stats you want that make it look like there isn't a huge difference in Shinskie and Wilson. But no one believes that. Not even you, I hope.

mod34b said...

Where is my fly swatter ???

Bravesbill said...

You're way out of your element Legal. It's almost impossible for any public figure to win a defamation suit. There is no damages to Shinskie so no one really cares.

Legal Observer said...

Brave - I assume you must be a law student or among the newbies at the bar.

Do a Google search of "limited public figure" and "college athlete."

Read what you find, then save yourself further embarrassment by deleting your comment.

blist said...

This is kind of getting silly, but re. Shinskie taking a drink (skie) or two, it would be very hard to win any sort of judgment against claims someone was drunk. How defamatory is that? It's not like there is direct causation between someone claiming that and Shinskie losing say, his job piloting a massive oil cargo ship or his gig as head of the American Temperance Foundation.

I think Observer College is also Legal Observer, and is showing his true genius this time. Bravo OC, you have outdone yourself!

EL MIZ said...

Wow, Legal Observer you are such a smarty!!! Tell us more law-related facts, and thanks for not charging.

In all seriousness, how was Shinskie harmed? Duty-Breach-Causation-Harm right? I am failing to see how Shinskie, a 3rd string QB on a team that is far, far from the national spotlight, was caused any harm by the Jonathan Swift of the college football blog message boards alluding to him stumbling out of a bar.

Getting beyond the absurdity of discussing libel on a college football blog msg board, Deacon Drake, 6-6 is the absolute worst case scenario with Shinskie QBing the rest of the way? Seriously? I can easily see 5-7 or 4-8 happening. Shinskie gives me zero confidence.

blist said...

Especially when he's drunk - wait, should I not say that?