alternate headline: man does job
1. Allen was out of bounds! The refs made the right call. The video evidence was conclusive. Even your own local news station agreed. Here is a picture of the very first replay they showed.
After seeing that, would you even bother looking at a second replay? NO, cause he's out.
2. The holding call on Rudolph's big gainer was a good call. Jimmy knew it. That's why he was standing back at the 10 yard line holding his peepee.
But even if you think Ginger boy's play wasn't holding, there was still another holding on that same play!
3. The refs were not paid off. This is just beyond stupid. They were not biased for the big ten team. This is also freaking stupid. If the refs were so biased, how do you explain this?
Late in the 3rd, Michigan had MORE penalty yardage. But don't let the facts get in your way.
Not to mention your line got away with holding all day long. None of these were called.
4. Time ran out. No, there should not have been one more second on the clock. Maybe if your coach was better or your player smarter, tate would have gone down immediately and called a timeout. But instead he wasted 4 seconds by running to the sideline. And then the clock stops when the ref signals it to. Here is the exact moment when the ref signaled to stop the clock. (nevermind the response delay of the clock operator)
5. Allen's taunting was a weak call. But it was the right call. And here's another one that didn't get called.
6. Mouton should have been flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct. But the REF DIDN'T SEE IT that way. Which isn't surprising considering that on that same play, not only did Mouton get dived on, but there were 4 (FOUR!) other holdings that the refs didn't see.
You lost. Deal with it. Cause you've got sparty coming, and you're not very good against them for some strange reason.
I'm not saying you're a bunch of fricken crybabies. I'm not saying you're fricken hypocrites. But your coach is. That's just a fact. I'm not saying he's a fat, lying, whiny, crybaby. But you can't argue with the facts.
Playing against a WAC defense must be every OC's wet dream. Nevada's DB's were small, and slow, and timid. ND seemed concerned about Nevada's DE's who managed to make a few plays, and so they ran a lot of screens and draws and even some QB zone read from the wildcat. Nearly every deep pass was off of playaction. The running game looked better than it had in recent memory, but against a pretty soft defense. Most of the runs were off tackle or outside.
QB: Clausen did look pretty sharp. But he's still not very mobile and was taken down by the shoelaces on several occasions. He was making good decisions and was very accurate on the deep balls. Has a good playfake. His confidence seemed pretty high (as it should be vs. last year's 119th ranked pass defense) and was putting the ball on guys even when they were covered. Against our more athletic DB's this should result in more tipped balls and hopefully an interception or two. He was continually throwing high to his taller wideouts and TE's. Lucky for him that his receivers are tall and strong. Cryst looked like a real QB (not some gay balding emu) but very inexperienced. If Clausen goes down, there is a big drop off.
RB: Armando Allen was the featured back, and he has good speed. Likes to cut to the outside. Not a real strong runner and doesn't break very many tackles. Was used in a wildcat formation several times. Jonas Gray (who we remember as the guy that Carr and staff passed over for Mike Cox) has pretty thick legs and good speed. He's more of a straight line runner who can run through arm tackles but doesn't have much wiggle. Their third back Riddick or something showed off some good hurdling ability but not much else.
TE: Rudolph (i think) looks like a good pass catcher who is pretty nimble for being so tall, but he's a bit skinny to be an effective run blocker.
WR: Floyd and Tate are the real deal. Floyd is a bit taller and stronger at 6'4". His two long catches came on a jump ball where he out muscled the defender and kept his feet and the second was on a simple buble screen where tate got a great block and Floyd used his speed around the outside.
OL: This unit was not very exceptional in speed, size, or strength, but they seemed much more technically sound than in the past two years when they couldn't block anyone. They executed pretty well on screens and did a fairly good job of giving clausen time.
Can you say blitz? Can you say blitz 47 times? (estimate). ND's front seven was pretty unexceptional in every way. The only time they looked good was when they brought 6 guys and someone came through unblocked. But that was frequent enough to kill drives after Nevada had marched into ND territory.
This was one of the least impressive shutouts I've ever seen. Nevada missed a FG, had an unforced fumble in the redzone, and pretty much marched up and down the field on ND until something flukey happened to keep the from scoring. It was 28-0 at the half but could have easily been 28-17. ND got some help from its crowd which caused a couple false starts and delays of game once nevada got to the closed ends of the field. The only play that really made you stand up and say "Now that's good D!" was when they got penetration on 4th and inches to stop another scoring threat.
Dline: Nothing to really note here. They didn't fight through blocks very well and were not much of a factor in the game. Nevada's Oline was opening up running seams left and right to the tune of 150+ yards and over a 5 yard per carry average.
LB: Showed good speed on the blitz, and the blitzes came from all over. But they didn't seem very strong or smart. Nevada's QB (who is a pretty good runner, and kind of looks like a cross between vince young and Gumar, but sadly Whitecastle is not in Korea) managed to get away from them several times. Their best player is a true frosh from Hawaii who doesn't start. He has good instincts and brings the hammer, but can probably be tricked into a bad play or two.
DB's: Hard to evaluate here. They seemed to tackle well, but they weren't pushed very hard as Nevada was missing their best receivers from last year and the Nevada QB had a problem with slippery balls (No giggling!) This probably means that the DB's have gotten better since the days of Manningham getting "OH, WIDE OPEN!". Not being mentioned much is a vast improvement over the toastings they used to get with regularity. But, with so much blitzing it was strange to see the DB's playing so far back at the snap.
ND definitely looks better, but they're vulnerable on both sides of the ball. I like the way we match up with them. We seem to have faster and stronger athletes along both lines. And with home field advantage and barring any major injuries we should be able to answer anything they throw at us.
When we have the ball:
Our RB's against their front seven looks like a definite advantage for us. We should be able to control the pace of the game with our rushing attack and put together lots of long drives. The key in the passing game will be all about our ability to pick up the blitz. We need a big day from the TE's are RB's and good communication along the line. But I expect our QB's to run for over 100 yards and our RB's to combine for 150. So here's to hoping that Koger, Webb, Brown, Minor, and Grady (24) have a great week of practice.
When they have the ball:
If we can get pressure with our Dline, we should be able to shut down their offense pretty well. Graham and Roh should be able to get around their tackles, and Martin shouldn't have much problem with their centers and guards. Donovan should be glued to Floyd all day and Bouboucar on Tate if he's healthy. Stevie can take their TE. That just leaves our other LB's vs. their RB's on screens and zone options. This looks like a push or a slight ND advantage. The one thing we cannot do is fall for their excellent playaction. We need a big game from our safeties.
I expect we'll be able to move the ball with ease. I'm just not sure how our 3rd, 4th, and 5th DB's will hold up. I expect ND will gain decent yardage on screens and a few runs, but we might give up a huge play every now and then. I think the game will be shortened due to long drives and we'll pull out a squaker in the 34-30 range as we control the clock and their D gets tired.
Or if we can knock out Clausen it'll be 38-0.
We've seen QB completion percentages rise and rise. Thirty years ago, 45% might have won you the heisman, now it means you're third string. The point is, that just catching balls is not really enough if you're catching all of them behind the line of scrimmage. It's pretty amazing if you pull down a one handed stab ala Koger, but in the modern offense, we need better measuring sticks.
So I'm going to track my new stat categories for this season and beyond, and maybe some smart reporter (is that an oxymoron?) or someone else will pick up on how useful these stats are.
After only one game, they won't be very telling. But as the weeks go by, we'll be able to see which WR are performing relatively better from week to week. We also need some historical context. I said I would go back and review tapes from previous years, but I haven't had the time YET. I still plan on doing it, but it might not happen till after the season. Feel free to do this on your own if you've got lots of time on your hands.
Anyway let's get to it. First up is the raw data, the notes I made while watching the video. Then I'll give the stats, and finally I'll toss in some comments about the week for good measure.
Passing Down Notes:
- 5 yards to hemingway no yac on 1st down
Swing to odoms behind the line gain of 7 but penalty odoms in motion early
2nd 11 pass to carlos for 5 plus 8 yac
2nd and 10 on 28 yardline TD to Hemmingway 17 plus 11 yac
2nd and 12 incomplete to grady on a screen
3rd and 12 incomplete to webb
2nd and 5 4 yards to grady plus 4 yac
1st and 10 incomplete to Hemmingway didn’t look
- 2nd and 5 koger 4 plus 1 yac
2nd and goal from the 8, TD koger redzone
1st and 10 incomplete to matthews broke off route or wrong route
2nd and 10 (robinson) to savoy behind the line for -1 plus 12 yac
2nd and 15 (tate) to shaw for 6 on a comeback, no ruled incomplete
(matthews shaken up)
3rd and 9 screen hemingway for -2 plus 17 yac
1st and 10 incomplete to stonum broke off deep route
3rd and 7 TD hemingway same route as stonum, 36 plus 8 yac
- 2nd and 7 odoms -4 plus 9 yac
1st and 10 hemmingway 8 plus 4 yac limps off the field
2nd and 4 mathews for 0 plus 9 yac
2nd and 3 incomplete to savoy, pressure1st and 20 incomplete to matthews, broke off route Mathews looks really frustrated
- 3rd and 16 INTerception,
mathews was jogging on the goal line, DB undercut Sheridan is chewing out savoy who was wide
1st and 10 grady for -3 plus 9 yac
3rd and 2 incomplete to grady
- 3rd and 15 nearly intercepted
incomplete to matthews
2nd and 9 scramble should have passed
1st and 10 KOGER great 1 handed catch for 20
3rd and goal from the 10 redzone busted play incomplete flag
4th and goal from the 10 redzone incomplete to cox
As always, small sample sizes screw around with efficiency stats. But as the numbers accumulate, these will be more telling. So please have patience.
1st Stat Category: Yards per thrown at
This stat is better than yards per catch because it includes a penalty for players who drop the ball or loaf it on a play and don't get open. Yes they are penalized for having a bad QB but that would affect all the numbers across the board.
C. Brown 13
Stonum, Webb, Cox, Shaw, 0
2nd Stat Category: TD's per Redzone thrown at
This is a stat built for the big men, the goto guys who can get in the endzone. Amazingly, we only attempted 3 redzone passes all day. 1 was a TD to koger, 1 was a busted play, and 1 was the final offensive play from coner
3rd Stat Category: Conversion Efficiency (receiving yards minus (half the yards to go)) multiplied by the down number per thrown at
This is the most complicated stat. This one tells how good a receiver is at continuing a drive. Possesion receivers score high on this metric. Guys that only run fly routes and catch the ball one out of 5 times get killed by this measure.
C. Brown 15
Grady (19) -0.75
(Hmmm.... no one likes negative numbers so I might tweek the formula and make it 1/4 of the yards to go. what do you guys think?)
4th Stat Category: Snag and Go (Total receiving yards/(yards BEFORE the catch)) multiplied by (receptions per thrown at)
I just realized the possibility of having an infinite score here if you have all your catches at the line of scrimmage. The point here was to measure YAC in a meaningful way for guys who catch the ball short, but then have to turn and make something out of it. So I'm going to rethink this category and come up with something better to make the negatives and infinities make sense.
For right now I'll just calculate YAC per thrown at
C. Brown 8
Grady (19) 3.25
Cox, Shaw, Webb 0.0
So what's it all mean? Well obviously Hemingway had an awesome day. Not only did he get the big catches for touchdowns, but his other touches went for conversions, and he even showed a lot of YAC ability. Koger was also excellent, although he has almost no YAC which is what you expect from a larger player, but has a shiny 1.00 for Redzone TD's efficiency.
Most of the other players didn't get enough looks for their numbers to be meaningful. But there was one notable exception. Mathews had a pretty rough day. He only gained positive yardage on two plays and often looked as if he wasn't fully engaged in the play. He did an excellent job on punt returns by simply HOLDING ON TO THE GODDAMN BALL. But he had the demeanor of a guy who is very frustrated. He didn't look happy or excited on the sidelines. Maybe I'm just reading too much into it. On the two catches he made, he got good YAC and converted, but the number of incompletes in his direction brought that stat into negative territory. This is somewhat disappointing as he's our most experienced WR and seemed to have a talent for crossing patterns and deep in's or deep outs. I hope things get turned around for him quickly.
- Will someone tell Mike Patrick to use the term "SOLD OUT" crowd. Not "sell-out" crowd. I feel like he's insulting the stadium.
- That Cheesney song fr(*&)(*^& sucks! I like a lot of different kinds of music, but if it weren't for the mute button I'd probably have to shoot myself before the end of the season.
- After Tate threw the long TD, it looked like Sheridan was unhappy, and explaining something to him, and Tate was like "wut?"
- Boise should be ranked above BYU. BYU beat a team on the road, but minus their best player. Boise absolutely stomped oregon. But they kept bogging down in the redzone
- USC will kill tOSU
- Watching Floyd and Woolfolk bite on the play action was pretty sickening on an otherwise awesome day
- TP is not a smart fellow. If we had him last year we might have gotten 6 or 7 wins and made a bowl but I kind of feel like we dodged a bullet and I'm quite happy with the 2 Frosh we got and Devin Gardner coming in.
- Nice to see the crowd in support of RR
- The Big 10 went 10-1 and is well on its way to having 8 bowl eligible teams but ohio state is still making the conference look bad.
- Florida didn't beat the spread. Wow, that Urban Meyer is a terrible coach. (joking)
- USC's barkley stealing the spotlight from forcier reminds me of adrian peterson doing the same to mike hart.
- The next game is the biggest game of the season! (so far) ND looks like a decent team this year. If we win we could be looking at 8+ wins. If we lose, we're going to struggle to get 6. I hope we win by a small enough amount that Weis doesn't get fired.
- Actually I take that back. I hope we win by 38-0 AGAIN.
As Michigan fans get ready for year two of this new fangled offense, it strikes me that the old measures of success are no longer applicable.
In days of old when the ball was rarely in the air, just making receptions was a thing of beauty. But now with every other play being a swing pass or a slip screen, simply catching the ball is not enough.
Case in point, Marvelous Matavious Odoms. He, being the record holder of receptions, has yet to actually impress me. At least not on a consistent basis. Yes, he had 49 receptions. But what did he do with them? He averaged 9 yards per reception. He scored 1 touchdown. I yawned.
Because what you're not seeing in those stats is the number of drops he had. You're not seeing the number of times he gained 3 yards when we needed 4 on third down. And you're not seeing his pathetic work on returns.
Cumulative stats mean less and less these days. Back around the time I was born, teams played 10 games and maybe a bowl. Now some teams play 14 per year.
Texas Tech seems to set new passing records every year. But their quarterback went undrafted. For a while, John Navarre held most of the passing records at Michigan. John Navarre was probably the 5th or 6th best QB I've personally seen suit up for the maize and blue. (Brady, Griese, Harbaugh, Grbac, Collins, Henne, argue amongst yourselves)
The problem with these stats is that they only keep track of the good, without penalty of the bad. What would be much more telling are stats that include efficiencies.
"Aha, but what about the one hit wonders?!" I can hear you say. "What about the LB who catches 1 yard passes on the goal line for TD's? Should he be considered the best receiver?" No you fool. But he should be given props.
No. Stop thinking so one-dimensionally. This is a college full of engineers. So find one, buy him some beers, and get him to explain how one point does not a histogram make, my young padawan.
There is some consciousness of the need for better stats. Increasingly, commentators rely on things such as yards per carry or yards per attempt. These are better. It's two pieces of information combined into one. It's like Ernest Rutherford looking at the plum pudding model and saying, "Wait, we can do better!" But they're far from perfect.
This is why QB's have more complicated efficiency ratings. This is why Brian complains about redzone scoring efficiency. People know that flats stats are useless. (BTW redzone scoring efficiency should be points scored in the redzone per redzone trip. Yeah, it's not out of 100 %, but it's an easy number to understand. A team with a score of 3.5 is not as good as a team with a 6.8. Or if you don't have a kicker and go for two every time you could get a score of 8.0)
So let me be your Neil's Bohr and suggest some stats that can take us to a deeper understanding of a receiver's value in football. If you happen to work for ABC or ESPN, please send me proper compensation for when you utilize these in your graphics.
Some of these are not of my original creation. Like Newton with the Principia, I simply gather these ideas and put my own concise twist on them to go along with my own inventions.
a) Yards per thrown at. This has three pieces of information in it. I want to know how many times he catches it, but give him a penalty for drops, and find out what he does with it after catching it.
b) TD's per redzone thrown at. This tells you if the WR is a big target who can get open in close space or box out effectively.
c) Conversion Efficiency = (receiving yards minus (half the yards to go)) multiplied by the down number per thrown at. Gaining 12 yards on 4th and 10 is a 28, Gaining 6 yards on 1st down is a 1. 6 yards on 3rd and 5 is a 14. Gaining 3 yards on 3rd and 8 is a -3
d)Snag and Go = (Total receiving yards/(yards BEFORE the catch)) multiplied by (receptions per thrown at). This tells you if the kid is dependable, if he's got any shake and bake. The first ratio is high for a guy like Steve Breaston, but close to one for a guy like Jason Avant. But Avant would score higher on the second ratio, just not enough to overcome his lack of YAC.
So there it is, your new measures of receiver excellence. And if you think this is over the top, wait till you see what I've got in mind for QB's. Gametracker stats will have lots more colorful graphs.
And if I get bored enough this summer, I'll even prove that these stats work by going to mgovideo and getting numbers for Braylon, Mario, and Martavious, and show you just how much work the kid needs to do.
*warning, mild profanity* (won't someone think of the children??)
I'm having flashbacks. I seem to remember just before last year when everyone and their brother was predicting a BCS bowl run for Louisville. And why not??? They had a heisman trophy candidate at QB. Lots of starters returning. Talented recruits were coming in. Oh sure, they lost their coach, but Louisville was a rock of consistency among the mid majors, so there wouldn't be much drop off. RIGHT?
check out CFN's preview for their 2007 season.
The key passage:
"The season will be a
... Louisville goes back to the BCS. 11-1 is also a good goal to shoot
for with an upset to prevent a 9-0 start before dealing with West
Virginia, South Florida and Rutgers. As long as Brohm is healthy and
winging, the offense will be among the best in America. The defense
won’t miss a beat under Kragthorpe and should be among the best in the
Big East. It’s all there for another Big East title, and maybe more."
I mean, they play in the big east, against a bunch of weak teams. They should be favored in most of those games. Right?? How much can losing a coach REALLY matter?
Okay, so most of you know that it mattered a lot. The defense was one of the worst ever, and the team stumbled to 6-6. So why bring this up now? Is it because this year the pundits are making more realistic 7-5ish predictions? Not really. No, this is about West Virginia.
West M'Fing Vahjinya!
So you might have heard that WVU lost its head coach. You might also be aware that it lost 6 other assistant coaches and the entire Strength and Conditioning staff. Now, I'm sure that the people hired to replace them are all fine men and great football coaches, considering I don't know who the fuck any of them are. But I think the mere fact that most of them have never worked together before would make the pundits pause a bit before... are you ready for this... RANKING THEM #6! Which is exactly what the NYtimes did. That's right, the same "rock of journalistic integrity" that said Michigan was #48 this year put WVU a full 2 spots ahead of the rest of the LOLMSM and the coaches who don't bother (for lack of time) to watch film on anyone they're not playing.
The Gray Lady, the self styled 'paper of record' thinks WVU is 42 spots ahead of Michigan this year. And yet I think if the two were to play Michigan would win by about 42 points. Not necessarily because WVU is all that bad, but I've watched John Gruden utterly destroy a far more talented Raiders team because he knew all their weaknesses. But, but, but, . . .
But they play in the big east, against a bunch of weak teams. They should be favored in most of those games. They've got a Heisman candidate at QB. They've got great talent coming in! Losing their head coach shouldn't matter that much? Right?
The parallels are just too many. The one saving grace for WVU is that they had a much better D than UL, and they managed to keep their DC. (oh yeah, and their special teams coach, HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAH). But anyone predicting more than 8 wins for them is stepping out on a long branch, (on a tree that hasn't seen much rain thanks to global warming).
The nytimes says that their worst case scenario is 9-3. I guess that works if you can count losses to colorado, Rutgers, Auburn, Cincinnati, Pitt, and south Florida as 3 losses.
And then there's notre lame
What exactly can we use for a comparison? I mean, how often has a 10-2 team turned into a 3-9 team? How many BCS teams (even if they didn't deserve going to the BCS) turned into un-coalesced shit the next year? The kind of shit you get the next morning when you mix kimchee with tequila. (trust me, don't do it) We're talking about one of the worst offenses in history. IN HISTORY. But at least they've got a lot of starters returning, especially from the WORST OFFENSIVE LINE IN HISTORY. I'm sure they're much better now.
And it's not like they can use Louisville's excuse about a coaching change. This was Charlie Weis in his third year. With 3/5 of the team being his recruits. Now the team is 4/5 his recruits, minus the 20 or so players who transferred in mid season. (LOLMSM: "but michigan had 2 players transfer in the offseason during a coaching change, let's freakout about THAT!")
The NYtimes kind of throws their hands up on this one. They predict anywhere from 3-9 to 10-2. Bold predictions there. Hey, why not just predict 0-12 to 12-0?!? at least then you'd be 100% right. But it's better than CFN which hasn't put up a prediction yet, (4 days before the start of the season). *bunchafuckinggutlessfuckingretardedmoronsdon'tfuckingknowanythingaboutfuckinfootballfgmmngfmfdmm*
The funniest prediction came from cheese slice-I mean charlie weis, (sorry freudian slip) himself. He's predicting at least 9 wins. BWAHAHahahahahahAHAHHAHAHAahahahahAHAHAH!!!!!!
And other racist bastards- I mean notre dame fans, such as Beano 'the hutt' Cook, Lou 'sssthsssthssp' Holtz, and our friendly forum trolls (mostly on mlive, not so bad around here) are making similar, if slightly less insane statements.
GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK. The best parallel I could find was 1999 penn state went 10-3 and then the next year bombed out at 5-7. There was no coaching change. This was all Joe Pa's work. in 2001 they 'rebounded' to 5-6. They had to replace the 'irreplaceable' kevin thompson with rashard casey. Chafie Fields was replaced by Eddie drummond, yadda yadda, (it's college, you're ALWAYS replacing more than 1/5 of your team.) And eric mccoo was replaced by, oh yeah, eric mccoo. But at least in 2001 they benefited from from all that playing time... oh wait.
The one thing that ND has over that 2001 penn state team is that they're not starting a new QB for the third straight year. Unless Charlie Weis pulls a charlie weis and starts dayne crist causing Casey- I mean Jimmy - I mean Rick, no wait, I do mean Jimmy, JIMMAH! Clausen to transfer to Tennessee after the 2nd game.
But, But, But, The Schedule! It's sooo much easier. Right? Because airforce and navy were such recruiting juggernauts...
But, but, but. They play stanford. That's an autowin right? Stanford, a team that nearly beat them last year, beat USC, and isn't coached by the ugliest narcissist in the world. Someone explain to me the logic behind the idea that ND will improve a lot from year 3 to year 4 of weis, but stanford won't improve much from year 1 to year 2 of harbaugh when stanford has already improved by leaps and bounds from year 0 to year 1 of harbaugh.
Maybe I'm being too harsh, if you guys can find good examples of teams falling off the BCS wagon into a bowl-less season and managed to get back up to snuff the next year without a coaching change...I'd be willing to listen.
But to me, it seems like 'one hit wonders' tend to only go in the positive direction. An 'out of nowhere' bowl run followed by a return to mediocrity is more likely than a winning team tanking it and then getting right back on the horse the next year.
Just to finish that penn state analogy, in 2002 Larry johnson in his third year of active duty and Zack mills in his 2nd led them to a 9-4 record (so some faint hope for ND) but then johnson left and mills couldn't do it by himself as they fell to 3-9 and 4-7 the next two years.
Of course the situations aren't exactly the same, I'm predicting 6 wins for ND, but 3-9 would make me happy. and then I could write a lot of 'told you so' posts like I did this year for predicting an irish 0-8 start last year. (damn you UCLA and your 5th string quarterback)
BUT WHAT ABOUT US?
By now, any racist bastards - i mean ND and WVU fans, reading this are probably saying to themselves, 'so what? your team is going to suck!' to which I reply: No, we won't.
And even if we do, we are being predicted to suck by the LOLMSM. And this post is about unrealistically high predictions. So it doesn't matter.
Yes our O-line is scary, and not in the good way. And I'm confident in saying that if we have any more injuries up front we could easily go 4-8. But rather than write all the arguments again, I'll just point you to my previous post on that subject.
Thank you and goodnight.
I'm so sick of hearing the same tired and flawed arguments over and over again. I'm sick of educating trolls one point at a time. Instead I'm just going to throw out everything here and post links to this diary post.
I guarantee we will not go 3-9 this year like ND last year.
I guarantee we will not go 3-8 like WVU did in RR's first year (2001).
And anyone who wants to put their wallet where their brain farts are can send me email at [email protected] I'll wager 100,000 KRW against your measly 1,000 USD. Any takers?
We will win 4 games or more this year, and here's why:
- Miami, Toledo, Northwestern, Minnesota
- Charlie Weis forgot to teach fundamentals, RR has repeatedly stressed fundamentals
- Head Coaching Experience. When RR was hired by WVU he had never been a head coach of a division one program before.
- Recruiting. Even in the transition year we pulled in a higher ranked class than nearly all of our opponents.
- Defense. ND had none.
- 5 of the first 6 games are at home, including a bye week, the second road game isn't until October 18
- Your head coach sucks (unless you are a bucknut). The big ten has a terrible lineup of coaches. There's the cryptkeeper and his son, the retiring walrus, the guy that got ran out of florida, the guy who was hired as emotional salve when the real coach died, the guy who went 1-11 last year, the guy with his foot firmly embedded in his own mouth (i'm looking at you dantonio), the guy who has had 40% of his team transfer or get suspended, the guy who thinks this is still the 1980's, and whoever the hell runs indiana these days.
- Our backup running backs are better than your nickle backs. Learn the names now so you won't have to ask 'who the heck just ran over our db?' later. Brandon Minor, Carlos Brown, Sam McGuffie, Michael Shaw. We will 'long handoff' and 'bubble screen' you to death.
- Coaching Family. This isn't Nick $aban leaving MSU for LSU and NOT A SINGLE
COACH FOLLOWING HIM. RR brought everyone with him. Only two coaches
didn't come, and they were replaced by Fred Jackson and Scott Shafer.
- Scott Shafer got freaking STANFORD's defense to hold USC to 23 points in his first freaking year there.
- Fred Jackson has put more running backs into the NFL than your last three coaches combined. (Tyrone Wheatly, Thishmanga Biakabutuka, Chris Howard, Anthony Thomas, BJ Askew, Chris Perry, Mike Hart)
- Mike Barwis. Not only did RR bring the coaches, he brought the training staff too. He didn't have Mike Barwis in 2001. But we've got Mike Barwis now. Mike Barwis thinks you're too fat. Mike Barwis will make you stronger. That's just what Mike Barwis does. Mike Barwis. (and for those who don't know, Mike Barwis likes to use full names, and likes to talk in the third person, Mike Barwis.)
- In the spread, quick passes means the line doesn't have to block for very long.
- In the spread, short passes means the QB doesn't need a rifle for an arm
- Wildcat formation MOFO. We've got lots of small, fast guys that you can't tackle. And we like to put them all over the place. We've got a package of screens, draws, options, sweeps, flares, and reverses that will make your defensive ends go home crying like little girls who just had their sandwiches eaten.
- With middling recruits RR beat the SEC champ, the ACC runner up, and the Big12 champ in successive bowls.
- Snake oil Bee-otch! At WVU RR had to beg and plead for kids to come to the backwater mountains. The Old Michigan regime would recruit by flashing the block M and saying 'hey, get a load of us.' Now we've got a recruiter who can close. ABC. Always be closing. Have some coffee RR.
- Mike Barwis has made Terrance Taylor and Brandon Graham hungry. They want to eat your puppies. And we told them your QB is hiding the puppies.
- Speed kills. Morgan Trent is faster than Percy Harvin. Brandon Harrison is faster than Morgan Trent.
- AND FINALLY; Our position coaches' wives are hot. This probably doesn't mean much to you, but 'gladiator make good kill, go home, bang wife. ARRRRRRRRRR!!!!'