“We were losing a bunch of one-goal games, and now we’re able to pull these games out,” Hunwick said. “It’s huge in the second half to know you can play in games like that.”
caup
History
- Member for
- 3 years 31 weeks
- Blog
- View recent blog entries
Karma
- Current value
- 1
Recent Comments
| Date | Title | Body |
|---|---|---|
| 6 weeks 2 days ago | I concur |
There is too much margin of error in his inputs, yet he seems so definitive in his conclusion, as if the ball was clearly 2.5" short. He needs to change his summation to conclude that any mathematical calculations yield a ball position that is still within any reasonable margin of error so it cannot be determined whether or not the ball is across. Then say BOOM! math'd and be done with it. But for him to "prove" that the ball wasn't across using these flawed inputs smacks of Buckeye Engineering. And to that I say "C'mon Man!" |
| 6 weeks 3 days ago | Ah, but there's the rub! |
The whole point of my disagreement with WolverineBlue is that he has NOT found a frame (from any angle) in which the knee is REALLY touching and the ball is short. He is using a freeze frame that Periera has proven to be a mirage. This exposes WolverineBlue's otherwise thorough anlysis to be flawed. |
| 6 weeks 3 days ago | First off, |
Merry Christmas fellow die-hard M fan! Second, we both probably need to get a life, given the time we are even debating this. Third, you do not correctly identify Exhibit B in your response to me. This is NOT what Pereira shows in his video analysis. He shows WolverineBlue's Exhibit A, THEN he continues to run that same video angle until the knee actually impacts the ground. WolverineBlue's Exhibit B is NOT the same as Pereira's freeze frame showing Toussaint's knee conclusively impacting the ground. They are two totally different cameras! WolverineBlue needs to use Pereira's continuation point of the Exhibit A angle. Let him analyze where the ball is at the true point of impact, THEN we can talk.
|
| 6 weeks 3 days ago | WolverineBlue, |
I commend you for devoting a thorough diary to this topic because this play also caused me so much trauma that it is absolutely worth rehashing, even weeks later! However, I am very disappointed that you did not even reference the excellent analysis that Mike Pereira, the recognized expert on NFL replay analysis, did on this very play! Did you even see his video analysis of this play? If not, please look it up and watch it! Your analysis does not take into account Pereira's pivital point: ABC's coverage freezes the replay frame at a point when Toussant's knee IS NOT DOWN! Peirera very astutely points out that ABC's freeze frame captures a moment in time slightly before his knee makes contact with the ground. He says that replay officials need to freeze the frame when they see evidence of impact, i.e the compression of the knee pad or extremity that is visble when contact with the ground actually occurs. What ABC (and you) use as evidence is milliseconds before contact. The knee at that point is perhaps 2 inches ABOVE the ground, beginning to enter the strands of the artificial turf. Peirera shows the frozen moment in time that ABC INCORRECTLY uses, which shows Toussaint your 2.5 inches short of the goal line. He then continues to run the tape to CORRECTLY show when Toussaint's knee actually DOES impact the ground. THAT is when he is down, NOT when his knee is hovering in the strands of turf 2 inches above the ground. The rule in football is contact with the ground, so replay officials need to look for evidence of IMPACT. And at knee IMPACT that the ball is clearly across the goal line. So, your detailed, geometric analysis is fundamentally flawed, because you incorrectly assumed that ABC froze the frame at the correct point in time. Once you see Peirera continue the footage and then see the plain evidence of knee impact you will recognize the error of the replay official (and yourself). The replay offical blew it. Period. I beseech you to amend your analysis, because you are wrong.
|
| 8 weeks 14 hours ago | This was a money quote, too: |
"There’s no coordinator that goes in there and does it himself. You’ve got to have a head coach that allows you to do what you want to have done and back you on everything you’re doing, and you have to have assistants that are right with you on every step."
The difference from how it was handled the last 3 years is stark.
|
| 9 weeks 2 days ago | RVB should be a captain |
They always pick him to be a speaker, even over the actual captains often times. Hoke should give Ryan an honorary "C" at the Bust. Love that kid; he really deserves that kind of recognition. |
| 10 weeks 3 days ago | Why he wouldn't retain Heacock |
with his incredible track record is idiotic. So, hooray to this news if it is true! |
| 10 weeks 3 days ago | Can anyone please tell me |
the name of the replay official? Thanks. |
| 10 weeks 5 days ago | Ooooops |
No, I didn't realize that. Sorry, Brian! HOWEVA...-12 is still quite harsh for a guy who had 75 important rushing yards in the 1st half alone and had 2 TDs rushing on the day. I think Brian takes some of what Denard gives this offense for granted sometimes. |
| 10 weeks 5 days ago | Brian Cook, |
Your QB grading system is terribly flawed. You CANNOT have the QB who was responsible for 4 TDs (four BEAUTIFUL touchdowns by the way: two dead-on great throws and 2 runs where he showed his jet-like speed) and only 1 turnover and grade him -12 on the day. NEGATIVE TWELVE? You can't be taken seriously with grading him like that after such a great overall game. Drew Sharp himself wouldn't grade Denard that poorly! I've seen net-negative QB performances before, in 2008 and 2005. I know what a net-negative performance looks like. THAT simply was not a net-negative performance! I think you alluded to the solution. You need to give him much better positives to offset his missed reads. -12?? C'mon man! |
