What if Bradley is named DC?

Enginerd said:
What we know is that Sandusky was JoPa's hand picked successor and Defensive Coordinator until 2000 when Sandusky is told he's out.

From 2000-2011 Bradley is the coach-in-waiting under JoPa, the no 2 guy in the football program.

In order for your second suggestion to be valid we would have to assume that Bradley asked no questions as to why is boss was fired. We also have to assume that the topic never came up when discussing the Sandusky firing with his assistants. We also have to assume that Bradley was never questioned by the police regarding the Sandusky accusations.

One can be left with two posible conclusions:
1) Bradley didn't have the charracter to address the issue (either he was too weak or didn't care about what had happened)
2) He is a complete tool and bought what JoPa told him about the firing

Either way he's a company yes man or a tool. Not the guy we want representing the program.
Click to expand...

Yup, those are the only two reasonable conclusions as to what happened. :rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
Just to clarify for some: it sounds like you are saying (1) Any morally average person--at minimum 90% of the population--would have said something upon learning about Sandusky, AND (2) all 20+ or so full-time football staff members at Penn State knew about Sandusky and didn't do anything, including Bradley.

All DuffMan is trying to get you to do is assess which is more likely: that both of your assertions are true, and EVERYBODY on Penn State's former staff is in the 10% of people who are morally subpar, OR that two people (JoePa and McQueary) out of that 20+ fell in that ten percent and kept the whole thing between themselves and Spanier.

Think about it, and then think about this: PSU has had to have had some position coaches come and go since JoePa and McQ knew about Sandusky. If the whole staff knows about it because of the 'Gerry DiNardo theory of coaching staff gossip,' then why did nobody say anything after they moved on to other schools. Are they ALL morally-bankrupt wastes of space? That's something you don't just forget about when you leave town.

I would say they probably never knew.
 
Enginerd said:
So will you admit that child rape did happen at the school and that the Penn State coaching staff knew about it?
Click to expand...

You are imputing a single 'collective knowledge' to the coaching staff. That, as a matter of science, is not true. If they all know the same things, it would not be due to ESP.

You guys realize they could have told Bradley in 2000 that he was being promoted to DC because Sandusky had 'legal problems,' and that probably would have sufficed to keep him from asking further questions. Or . . . they could have told him any one of 1,200 other things that probably would have satisfied his curiosity.

This is ridiculous.
 
Cover3 said:
Just to clarify for some: it sounds like you are saying (1) Any morally average person--at minimum 90% of the population--would have said something upon learning about Sandusky, AND (2) all 20+ or so full-time football staff members at Penn State knew about Sandusky and didn't do anything, including Bradley.

All DuffMan is trying to get you to do is assess which is more likely: that both of your assertions are true, and EVERYBODY on Penn State's former staff is in the 10% of people who are morally subpar, OR that two people (JoePa and McQueary) out of that 20+ fell in that ten percent and kept the whole thing between themselves and Spanier.

Think about it, and then think about this: PSU has had to have had some position coaches come and go since JoePa and McQ knew about Sandusky. If the whole staff knows about it because of the 'Gerry DiNardo theory of coaching staff gossip,' then why did nobody say anything after they moved on to other schools. Are they ALL morally-bankrupt wastes of space? That's something you don't just forget about when you leave town.

I would say they probably never knew.
Click to expand...

I would say that the staff heard about it and didn't want to press anyone to find out the truth. The institution of Penn State football become more important than the truth.

I'm left with:

All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing
 
Enginerd said:
What we know is that Sandusky was JoPa's hand picked successor and Defensive Coordinator until 2000 when Sandusky is told he's out.

From 2000-2011 Bradley is the coach-in-waiting under JoPa, the no 2 guy in the football program.

In order for your second suggestion to be valid we would have to assume that Bradley asked no questions as to why is boss was fired. We also have to assume that the topic never came up when discussing the Sandusky firing with his assistants. We also have to assume that Bradley was never questioned by the police regarding the Sandusky accusations.

One can be left with two posible conclusions:
1) Bradley didn't have the charracter to address the issue (either he was too weak or didn't care about what had happened)
2) He is a complete tool and bought what JoPa told him about the firing

Either way he's a company yes man or a tool. Not the guy we want representing the program.
Click to expand...

I love that you give two options but they are both slanted based on your biased unsubstantiated opinions. That is one bad argument you tried and failed to make, but it makes for one hilarious post.
 
Cover3 said:
You are imputing a single 'collective knowledge' to the coaching staff. That, as a matter of science, is not true. If they all know the same things, it would not be due to ESP.

You guys realize they could have told Bradley in 2000 that he was being promoted to DC because Sandusky had 'legal problems,' and that probably would have sufficed to keep him from asking further questions. Or . . . they could have told him any one of 1,200 other things that probably would have satisfied his curiosity.

This is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't you ask "What legal problems"
 
Enginerd said:
So will you admit that child rape did happen at the school and that the Penn State coaching staff knew about it?
Click to expand...

If that child rape was known by Bradley then yes you can say whatever you want. But for you to assume that he knew is ridiculous. To say that the whole staff knew would be wrong, IMO. They covered it up well. I think that much is pretty obvious in this whole thing.
 
Enginerd said:
DuffMan said:
So again I ask you what's more likely. That the entire staff knew about what was going on but lacked the massive stones (that grown on trees around here) to do the right thing... or.... Knowledge of the situation was limited to one early 20's GA, an out of touch octogenarian HC, and a few people at the top of PSU's athletic department.
Click to expand...
What we know is that Sandusky was JoPa's hand picked successor and Defensive Coordinator until 2000 when Sandusky is told he's out. From 2000-2011 Bradley is the coach-in-waiting under JoPa, the no 2 guy in the football program. In order for your second suggestion to be valid we would have to assume that Bradley asked no questions as to why is boss was fired. We also have to assume that the topic never came up when discussing the Sandusky firing with his assistants. We also have to assume that Bradley was never questioned by the police regarding the Sandusky accusations. One can be left with two posible conclusions:1) Bradley didn't have the charracter to address the issue (either he was too weak or didn't care about what had happened)2) He is a complete tool and bought what JoPa told him about the firing Either way he's a company yes man or a tool. Not the guy we want representing the program.
Click to expand...

OK seriously?

Let's look at it this way... You work for a company and your direct supervisor get fired and the rumor is he got fired because he likes small boys. You, who had nothing to do with and have no direct knowledge of any if it get hired as his replacement.

You want me to somehow believe that the guy in this position is under some moral obligation to make sure Sandusky goes down? That's ******* insane. What exactly is he going to do? He doesn't have anything other than watercooler knowledge at best, and its not like there aren't real life consequences if you report the rumors and they end up being wrong.

The only people with an ounce of culpability in this whole thing are Mcquerry, Joe Pa, and the administration that were in that meeting.
 
It is so obvious that Bradley knew what was going on that there has been tons of news articles discussing this and it was also in the grand jury report..... oh wait, nevermind. There has been no evidence to come out to suggest Bradley knew anything and the university had enough faith that he didn't do anything wrong that they appointed him interim coach and even interviewed him for the permanent position.
 
Enginerd said:
Cover3 said:
You are imputing a single 'collective knowledge' to the coaching staff. That, as a matter of science, is not true. If they all know the same things, it would not be due to ESP. You guys realize they could have told Bradley in 2000 that he was being promoted to DC because Sandusky had 'legal problems,' and that probably would have sufficed to keep him from asking further questions. Or . . . they could have told him any one of 1,200 other things that probably would have satisfied his curiosity. This is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't you ask "What legal problems"
Click to expand...

Are you ******* serious? Of course not. Do you realize how ******* stupid you would have to be to ask "what legal problems"?
 
DuffMan said:
What legal problems... are you serious... I can't get over how idiotic that is.
Click to expand...


I agree, legal problems wouldn't be correct.

However if your mentor of 20 years out of the blue retires even though every single person around PSU knew he was hand picked to replace JoePa when he stepped down wouldn't you ask what the hell happened?

Ask Paterno, Ask Sandusky, ask other coaches? Or when they were told that Sandusky was no longer allowed in the football building that wouldn't rasie any questions?


Look as I said Bradley very well could know absolutely nothing when it came to the topic of Jerry raping boys in the locker room but ask yourself this-

Would you trust anybody (or better yet can any school afford to trust someone) from there at their word??????
 
DuffMan said:
OK seriously?

Let's look at it this way... You work for a company and your direct supervisor get fired and the rumor is he got fired because he likes small boys. You, who had nothing to do with and have no direct knowledge of any if it get hired as his replacement.

You want me to somehow believe that the guy in this position is under some moral obligation to make sure Sandusky goes down? That's ******* insane. What exactly is he going to do? He doesn't have anything other than watercooler knowledge at best, and its not like there aren't real life consequences if you report the rumors and they end up being wrong.

The only people with an ounce of culpability in this whole thing are Mcquerry, Joe Pa, and the administration that were in that meeting.
Click to expand...

OK, let's use your analogy where My supervisor steps down because he's accused of diddling boys... If I never saw him again I might let it go. But if that guy showed up to my company christmas party with a small child I'm going to ask WTF? If I see the guy in my office building I'm going to ask questions.
 
hoffahawk said:
I agree, legal problems wouldn't be correct.

However if your mentor of 20 years out of the blue retires even though every single person around PSU knew he was hand picked to replace JoePa when he stepped down wouldn't you ask what the hell happened?

Ask Paterno, Ask Sandusky, ask other coaches? Or when they were told that Sandusky was no longer allowed in the football building that wouldn't rasie any questions?


Look as I said Bradley very well could know absolutely nothing when it came to the topic of Jerry raping boys in the locker room but ask yourself this-

Would you trust anybody (or better yet can any school afford to trust someone) from there at their word??????
Click to expand...

That's what the whole "what legal problems" thing was about. Even if Bradley or other assistants asked why, I doubt they were told anything.
 
Seriously though, put yourself in Bradley’s shoes. You are hired for a position you are completely qualified for, and one you’ve been working for your whole life. You’ve heard rumblings that Sandusky did some nasty stuff, but you have zero knowledge of either the things he’s done or what law enforcement is doing regarding the investigation and or punishment.

Is anyone seriously trying to get me to believe that in Bradley’s situation he was under some moral or legal obligation to make sure Sandusky got his?

I got news for you. If my boss got canned for some alleged illegal activities, and I was hired to be his replacement, and I wasn’t involved in his activities, I would stay as far away from that **** as possible. I’d keep my head and nose down and do my job, nothing more and nothing less.
 
I'm sorry but to think that everyone in the football organization knew about the sexual abuse allegations is just stupid. I think you have to be almost a deranged lunatic to believe something like that. The coaches would have talked about it amongst themselves, they would have told other people about the allegations and so on and so forth and it would have come out a lot sooner. Additionally, Reporters and media people close to the football program would have gotten wind of it and they would not have kept it hidden.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top