|1 day 23 hours ago||mine was better||
mine was better
|1 day 23 hours ago||Couple ideas: 1) Batting||
1) Batting average on balls in play with a shift versus no shift
2) Batted ball results (or just rate of swing and misses) vs. velocity of pitch
3) Batting results vs. order in the lineup
4) Pitcher runs allowed vs. K/BB ratio
Shift stuff would be super interesting but that's also probably a bit fanciful. The rest should be pretty easy.
|4 weeks 4 days ago||Without a baseline, it's hard||
Without a baseline, it's hard to say that 80% is actually adding incremental information. Given how important recruiting is, I doubt there's a lot of value add considering the far more granular data a given coaching staff is going to have. Get the coaching staff on board to rate commit likelihood on a regular basis and you can really build a tool of some use.
|1 year 5 weeks ago||Made a quick model of||
Made a quick model of expected stars by the rank of a recruit in Michigan's class and the size of the class and then took the average difference between the actual and the expected to rank M's recruiting classes in Seth's spreadsheet. E.g if M's best recruit in the class is typically a 4.5 star guy, in 1998 we would have expected him to be rated 4.94 stars.
Just wanted to correct for class size, really. But not sure that actually did that, since class size and starz were positively correlated and I would have expected the opposite.
|1 year 24 weeks ago||I don't think that's much of||
I don't think that's much of a defense. It's purposeless on a maize background.
|2 years 8 weeks ago||Jim Light also has this vid||
Jim Light also has this vid from last year's Mizzou game:
They get lit up a bit here. Spent the game in Nickel/Dime in an Over playing C1/C3 plus some fire zones. Nothing real mind blowing, but one thing they don't seem to do is apex the slot. Always playing w/ outside leverage. Seem to funnel everything inside, not really a spill defense. Non-corner DBs play very deep.
|2 years 18 weeks ago||Also RIP my I <3 <3 shirt.||
Also RIP my I <3 <3 shirt.
|2 years 18 weeks ago||/signs in as Musket Rebellion||
/signs in as Musket Rebellion
|2 years 18 weeks ago||RIP Haloscan||
|2 years 20 weeks ago||Scroll up.||
|2 years 20 weeks ago||Dantonio was a C3/C1 guy.||
Dantonio was a C3/C1 guy. Narduzzi went 100% C4 in his first DC job at Miami.
|2 years 20 weeks ago||Definitely false.||
|2 years 20 weeks ago||Dantonio was a C3/C1 guy.||
Dantonio was a C3/C1 guy. Narduzzi's defense is his baby.
|2 years 28 weeks ago||WHAT THE HELL||
WHAT THE HELL
|2 years 30 weeks ago||In HS, pretty much everyone's||
In HS, pretty much everyone's best player plays up the middle, especially SS.
|2 years 30 weeks ago||Some evidence of the point:||
Some evidence of the point: in the clip, M runs a corner/seam route that gets both of them reasonably open thanks to the way Borges knows the DBs will leverage the routes. Gallon runs seam, CB has outside leverage. Funchess runs corner, safety has inside leverage. But the throw over the top to the seam ends up taken away by the field to the opposite side playing C2 against the nub.
There are a lot of safeties out there, perhaps ours included, who won't find work like that weak safety did to get over the top of a seam route on the other side of the field. And a lot of DBs in general will get beat a lot worse than either of theirs did given the playcall.
|2 years 34 weeks ago||Sea Goggles /game blouses||
|2 years 43 weeks ago||FWIW: Chatman iirc weighed in||
FWIW: Chatman iirc weighed in at 213 at the same Jordan Whatever Camp Thing. Getting him up to GRIII Fr. weight seems doable.
...things are still anger rage face times though
|2 years 44 weeks ago||that price is boggling. i||
that price is boggling. i want to say it was $20 per game from '04-'08 or so? it's amazing how fucked up the relationship between the students and AD has gotten since then.
amazing and depressing.
|2 years 50 weeks ago||the point about pricing his||
the point about pricing his inventory to market, i think, is on point though. at some of the lesser home games, i think it's clear that it's not just students who aren't showing up.
|3 years 20 hours ago||if they're going more w/ 4||
if they're going more w/ 4 down linemen and a detached SAM over the slot, that gives the 3T and 5T roles a lot more separation. 3T is going to see more doubles and has to plug gaps. 5T has to set the edge, pass rush, drop into coverage a bit. until some of them start to show real separation in strength or quickness, i think looking at weight's probably the best proxy for position.
in which case: Wormley and Godin to 3T, Poggi and Strobel to 5T.
|3 years 1 day ago||yeah, agreed. Mattison is a||
yeah, agreed. Mattison is a package guy. he seemed to run more C4 this year and w/ more success. between deciding to increase the prominence of that package and the amount of nickel they were in anyway, they flopped Ryan to MIKE.
|3 years 1 day ago||i really think Ryan will end||
i really think Ryan will end up taking a good number of SAM snaps.
in that interpretation, we're trying to solve our problems against good up tempo spread to run teams. the whole point would be to be able to kick Ross out over the slot while cutting down on Bolden/Gedeon reps AND making sure we have enough size on the line. i.e. not being forced to play both Beyer and Ryan on a 4 man line. it definitely seems at least a bit convoluted and perhaps somewhat over-focused on OSU.
so i guess that Ryan will bump down to SAM against any alignments w/ 2 or fewer WR and on the regular on passing downs. he doesn't need the reps at that spot to be at least solid and i really don't think we've had many problems out of the base defense since Mattison's been here.
who knows. coaches are always talking about how some guys are just football players. maybe Ryan is that. even if they're not trying to use Ryan as superman, the fix comes off as a little Borgesian. instead of getting better out of what they already do, they're adding patch fixes that perhaps, they can't practice enough to actually get good at. the defenses that have adjusted best to uptempo seem to be more Narduzzi (make small adjustments to one universal base defense, not a lot of sub packaging) and less Saban (multiple base defenses w/ moduled substitute packages to each). Mattison's definitely more Saban than Narduzzi in that sense.
|3 years 1 day ago||that would be the most||
that would be the most coherent way to address what it seems like they're trying to do. but it's also a system that none of them have coached the nuances of and is at least a bit different philosophically.
it also really taxes our safeties, which are unproven at this point.
|3 years 5 days ago||i don't think Mattison would||
i don't think Mattison would characterize these as philosophical changes, but that's maybe semantics. i think they're further adapting to how little they get to line up in a traditional 4-3 Under where it makes any sense to play the SAM on the line. they see Ryan as a box player, so they're going to give him a position that always keeps him in the box.
|3 years 4 weeks ago||Just in case anyone wants to||
Just in case anyone wants to see what the Beilein offense looks like now as opposed to the Classic WVU version, here's the '05 tourney (PITTSNOGLE!) vs. a Bobby Knight Texas Tech outfit:
The base actions are very similar, though the ball screen emphasis is obviously severely lacking. That said, it IS in there and does lead their PG to some opportunities in the lane. The current set up is a lot more stripped down. Partly, I'd assume, to account for less teaching time given the relative constrains of coaching guys like D-Mo and Burke.
|3 years 9 weeks ago||His alleged quotes from the||
His alleged quotes from the police report from the Gibbons incident were pretty ugly, too. That whole thing makes me feel not good.
|3 years 11 weeks ago||writing for an audience of||
writing for an audience of any considerable size selects for thick skin, so it's not that. this blog is going to have it's 9 year anniversary shortly. at some point you get to not have to put up with assholes.
|3 years 14 weeks ago||How representative are the||
How representative are the videos posted? I see soft corners and lots of field pressure, which means Devin should be looking to the field hitch. They're open in at least 2 of the 4 vids after the jump. And the field pressure is tipped by the safety lining up directly over the nickel to the field.
...I'm definitely willing to bet that Devin is making a lot of bad reads, but I don't know how to divide responsibility between him and Borges. If NW is just running a lot of field pressures and DG refuses to recognize them, I think I'm willing to let Borges off the hook somewhat.
|3 years 16 weeks ago||never change, Don.||
never change, Don.
|3 years 19 weeks ago||Oof/disheartening.||
|3 years 19 weeks ago||We actually ran the tunnel||
We actually ran the tunnel screen to Gallon against PSU, and to good effect. But it only came out once. And of course we didn't run the counter off that, which is the stalk-block-and-go. Only ran that one like once or twice all last season even after teams finally started cheating on that screen.
|3 years 19 weeks ago||Which reminds me, interesting||
Which reminds me, interesting question: DeBord or Borges? Still Borges, right? But this is definitely reminiscent of some of the worst sins of the '07 offense. Which, iirc, we fixed by going spread no huddle against Florida in the Cap1. Sigh.
|3 years 19 weeks ago||Just to add to the inanity of||
Just to add to the inanity of Borges' stubbornness, Michigan had smoke checks in Lloyd's offense. And bubble screens. Or, at least they did under Malone. Pretty sure even DeBord had them. I think that kind of says it all.
|3 years 19 weeks ago||What's the point? Other than||
What's the point? Other than registering the discontent with the situation, I can't think of any. And since everyone is already obviously pissed, there's really nothing that can be done. Either Hoke will get it together and can at least Borges (possibly Funk too) or he won't. Huge test of the direction of the program forthcoming.
|3 years 20 weeks ago||4th and 4: 11 Personnel, TE||
4th and 4: 11 Personnel, TE Trips to field.
-Penn State goes Nickel w/ split safeties. Henne looks to field since #1 to boundary has safety plus corner. TE flat plus double slants to field. Penn State is maybe in Quarters? In any case, Manningham is #1 and singled up w/ no help given #2 inside. CB gives up position. Game: blouses.
|3 years 20 weeks ago||I bet if you went back to the||
I bet if you went back to the tape there would (maybe) be only one sense in which that's true. At least since he's been here, his coverages have been fairly simple. He'll run basically anything with his front 7, but like 90% of the back end will be C1/2/3. And of that, C3 is probably a significant plurality if not majority.
But like GM says, it's a matter of trade offs. If you want to get exotic on the back end, your guys better be able to execute. The SC bowl game and the infamous Marvin Robinson-to-deep-center incidents suggest that his guys just aren't there yet. The stuff that he'd like to run requires some really athletes and technicians. It's less true on the line where all they need to do is fill a gap (more or less...oversimplification is fun). But the risk of a blown stunt is a handful of yards. It's a TD in the secondary. And that's what Mattison means by caring about points. He knows where he can afford to experiment.
|3 years 24 weeks ago||He's Gary Moeller 2.0. Minus||
He's Gary Moeller 2.0. Minus certain of Gary's less good things.
|3 years 24 weeks ago||we should have used this post||
we should have used this post as our throwback uniformz
|3 years 24 weeks ago||he also UFR'd '05-'07, which||
he also UFR'd '05-'07, which provides a nice middle ground: NFL level talent, less than stellar scheme/coaching.
|3 years 24 weeks ago||never ever leave me.||
never ever leave me.
|3 years 24 weeks ago||Re: coach types, yes please.||
Re: coach types, yes please. Very confusing. Some kind of weird twist? Fire zone? It was to the boundary and Mattison loves dropping ends into the boundary, so there's that.
|3 years 24 weeks ago||I think they went with the||
I think they went with the devil they knew? ND commits to running the ball and they do it pretty well. And they only averaged 17 completions per game last year. That meant a lot of C4 to deal w/ those zone runs. Turns out Daniels is a baller. Pretty useful info. Glad we're playing them second week and not the first.
|3 years 24 weeks ago||I'm pretty sure that first||
I'm pretty sure that first picture pages was C4 not C1. They ran a version of Mills to the boundary while the slot to the field ran to the flat. Field safety leaves the slot and looks to number 1. Boundary safety sucks up on TE, CB has 1v1 on post w/ outside leverage. Good playcall, but BCB was clearly overmatched by Daniels. The second TD iirc was a post-corner also against C4 that threatened the exact same play, the CB freaked out and Daniels was in easily.
|3 years 25 weeks ago||a bunch of 18 year old drunk||
a bunch of 18 year old drunk stoners tripped at the five yard line, so i'm guessing you need at least intermediate level parkour and some Japanese heritage to actually get away.
|3 years 26 weeks ago||Yeah I know it's accounted||
Yeah I know it's accounted for in my response. The defense accounts for threats. The single high safety is the QB's counterpart and isn't part of the run fit. There's no actually additional personnel. The spread wins because it makes it harder to play run/pass, not because it makes just running easier. That's what I meant by MSU/Bama. They play a ton of split safety, both of which are in the run fit.
|3 years 26 weeks ago||Is the game played 11 on 11||
Is the game played 11 on 11 or not? How did Denard acquire an "extra" blocker? Did this "purist" watch Michigan State or Alabama play defense ever? The days of playing 1-high against a running QB are pretty much toast. But even if you want to, there are defenses that still make the numbers work (two gap or 2G1G schemes for instance).
Not to mention the "yeah but scheme" argument is one that forgets what kind of offense Bo ran and against whom. How many scholarships were available to Bo in 1973? The greater necessity of scheme in the first place comes from the fact that talent differences are less massive. And if you watched '11 and '12, you saw plenty of square peg/round hole problems. Not to mention the injury. So the schematic advantage he had across his 3 full seasons was relatively limited.
He still ran for 7 yards a pop in 2013, despite the total dysfunction of the offensive line and many of the RBs. That wasn't scheme. That was ludicrous talent with the ball in his hand.
Oh, also: sack yardage? Pretty sure that's counted against a QB total, but not RBs. There's even a plausible argument that says at least some sack yardage should be counted against RBs, since the effectiveness of the run game plays into the effectiveness of play action and other aspects of the passing game as a function of alignment/personnel responses to effective rushing.
|3 years 26 weeks ago||Stribling!||
|3 years 26 weeks ago||FOOOOOOTBAAAAAWWWWWWWWWW||
|3 years 26 weeks ago||championship level comment.||
championship level comment. or so i assume, because i have no idea what a quantitatively good comment looks like.
|3 years 26 weeks ago||I don't suppose you could run||
I don't suppose you could run year to year correlations between teams? I.e. how much better would your model get adding some number of previous years weighted for recency? Obviously this won't make Michigan look any better, but the question of the marginal value of knowing what happened, say, 5 years ago seems interesting to me. Also: obviously this is great and you are a lunatic in the best sense of the word.
|3 years 32 weeks ago||Not that I really care||
Not that I really care considering how incredible watching that in person was, but the draft pick disparity in that game was almost totally overcome by Stanton and Herrmann. And yet the latter was still better than Ron English.
We went like 10 years without really legitimate competent defensive coaching. And we still haven't changed the scheme. Herrmann was as much a 4-3 under guy as Mattison is. I.e. technique/fundamentals really do matter that much.
|3 years 33 weeks ago||it might just be me, but i||
it might just be me, but i can't actually see any of the illustrations. might have to rework the html.
|3 years 34 weeks ago||Irvin is ~25th in his own||
Irvin is ~25th in his own class. That doesn't scream lottery. But yeah, Michigan has probably 4-5 future draft picks. Small sample size on Beilein's PGs at M, but pretty good chance that Walton goes somewhere. Still better than State, as are a lot of teams on that list. I don't think Goodman's aware that recruiting sites exist. Or Draft Express.
|3 years 36 weeks ago||I'm guessing this was||
I'm guessing this was mentioned, but I didn't find it on a quick check. The running plays contain the sack numbers? Adding those and INTs back into the YPP average would be interesting. You can do INTs if you're so inclined. Places like Advanced NFL Stats and Prof Football Reference use -45 yds per INT. That's on average what they lose you/gain the opposition. That brings Al's YPP down to 6.2 or so.
Chris Brown did a whole thing about run/pass balance that I think is dead on:
Basically, I think you can weed out the bad play callers based on this principle. The best ones will be slightly run heavy because running down the clock is a legitimate strategy, but in general the YPC and YPP should be about equal. I'd bet that if those numbers were again adjusted for sacks it'd be clear that Borges was more or less theoretically optimal per CB.
|3 years 37 weeks ago||Too bad they're not allowed||
Too bad they're not allowed to actually bet money with each other. Not much to lose otherwise.
|3 years 37 weeks ago||6 point dogs at home to OSU?||
6 point dogs at home to OSU? ugh. that's gotta put them pretty much in the running for the NC game. gross. that RR attrition is such a big deal and it's really annoying. that costs us more than anything Tat Gate cost them.
|3 years 39 weeks ago||Anyone else think Speight||
Anyone else think Speight looked pretty mobile there? Surprising athleticism from a guy his size and (insert salt grains) recruit ranking.
|3 years 39 weeks ago||Scrambling gets dealt with a||
Scrambling gets dealt with a couple ways. For one, you'll see that DEs don't get upfield much and look to knock down passes. The idea is to contain the passer and make him actually throw the ball. Teams did this a ton against Denard, for obvious reasons.
Another option you'll see is a spy. So maybe they rush 3 rather than 4 and have a James Ross type waiting to track down the QB leaking out or the dump off. I think this is the worst option. It never seems to work that well.
There's also the zone blitz, which I like as a complement to the first option. You get 5 rushing instead of 4 so you cover more gaps in the OL. Usually scramblers aren't great passers, so you're not giving up much to get more pass rush.
And the one thing you always hear announcers talk about is playing zone pass coverages rather than man coverages. That's oversimplified for the audience a bit. Zone is so ubiquitous that the distinction is pattern reading vs. spot dropping. Here's a solid rundown from a blog I like:
|3 years 40 weeks ago||Ugh I still screwed up. 5 OL||
Ugh I still screwed up. 5 OL plus 1 TE plus 2 ball carriers is 8, not 9. Plus a few annoying other grammar/syntax errors. Whatever I'll take it.
|3 years 40 weeks ago||Yeah sorry I don't think I||
Yeah sorry I don't think I was as clear as I would like. But WLA2 interpreted me correctly. Hopefully this clarifies:
It's not a simple matter of there being 8 in the box or whatever. When the offense lines up and it's not an obvious passing down, the defense will set up with some number of run-first defenders to account for the run. In order to get a good run fit, you need one run-first defender for every blocker and every possible ball carrier. If Devin is in, we likely would not count him as a possible ball carrier based on what we've seen from Borges' playcalling with him at the helm.
If Denard is in, he's of course included. So if M lines up 3 WR 1 TE 1RB, that's 2 ballcarriers and 7 blockers. You need 9 in your run fit in this case. If MSU were lining up against us, you'd get the front 4, the 2 middle LBS, the LB lining up over the slot and the 2 safeties.
That's pretty oversimplified, actually, but the point is you can usually discern what teams are trying to take away from you and what they'll give up. From what I've seen, teams generally don't like to switch up their run fits a whole lot. They'll just bring in blitz packages and formations like Mattison does if they don't think you can run enough to be worth worrying about given the down and distance. So if teams are staying in base when you're in base, you can usually be sure normal run fits are in place and that they're playing you more or less straight up.
Tangent: basically, college defenses are very modular. You see this with, for instance, what they're doing with Dymonte Thomas or how they in general give defensive backs a chance at corner first. Safety requires somewhat less athleticism, but a lot more know how. With Thomas, they figure if they can teach him to play flat/seam pass defense and blitz, he can at least be a weapon on 3rd down. If they can add playing force defender to that, then he can probably play all three downs. From there it's just a matter of what formations they're seeing and what he shows he can do. If it turns out he can also play over the top of the #2 receiver and MOF safety, then he'll be a full fledged starter who can be slotted in wherever you might want to play a guy of his talents. I think this is basically what they were hoping they could get from M-Rob or Furman, but it turned out not so much the case.
But, if, for instance, if Thomas never added anything beyond the flat/seam and blitzing, then him being in the game on 1st down would tell the offense a lot about the defense thinks of its ability/willingness/need to run. In the OSU case, I don't think they got out of base or were dialing up exotic blitzes or anything else that might betray an obvious lack of committment to stopping the run. My recollection aside, defenses will tell you what they think of your ability to run or pass. They will try not to, but they pretty much have to.
|3 years 40 weeks ago||I think this is right. And||
I think this is right. And it's verifiable. All you have to do is check and see how many guys were in the box. IIRC, usually teams were committing enough to make a proper run fit. I.e. they weren't playing a man down in the box because they figured that would be enough.
|3 years 40 weeks ago||I would really bet that if||
I would really bet that if Borges did an evaluation of up-tempo teams that there were two things wrong with it. First, I bet he neglected to make his results tempo free. Without that, of course you're going to find that increasing tempo leads to the other team scoring more points.
Perhaps more interestingly and maybe less likely: I bet there are selection effects. Teams that choose uptempo are likely not doing it because they were front runners in the first place. Those teams tend to be slow to change because their incentives are to stay relatively still. As you can see from Borges, it's relatively easy to let other teams pay the price of experimentation to see what works and what doesn't provided your team is the one with the talent advantage. Being new or different is most likely to be a direction taken by a new coach and/or an old coach in a poor situation.
|3 years 40 weeks ago||Padmapper is a nice little||
Padmapper is a nice little web app that takes craigslist ads and maps them onto google maps. In the very least, it'll help you get some sense of what the market looks like.
|3 years 41 weeks ago||J Walter Weatherman: And||
J Walter Weatherman: And that's why you always write rap songs heavily featuring your own name.
|3 years 42 weeks ago||It's not that hard to get to||
It's not that hard to get to 7-5. Team is basically the same, but minus half a season of Denard and Jake. That said, I'd be surprised if the rest of the B1G has enough talent to actually capitalize on our weakness. We'll be at a talent deficit against ND and OSU. That's about it no? 8-4 sounds right to me.
|3 years 42 weeks ago||Sounds like you're very well||
Sounds like you're very well read and extremely open minded.
|3 years 43 weeks ago||Obviously his brother being||
Obviously his brother being here helps make the decision to visit, but he's visited here twice as much as ND and we offered well before they did. That doesn't really scream "slight ND lean". Regardless of what the 247 guys say, visits are usually pretty telling.
|3 years 43 weeks ago||Just to add some more||
Just to add some more context, 247's composite ranking has Irvin at 29, Walton at 47 and Donnal at 88. Supposedly it was updated today, but I have no idea if the update actually includes the new ESPN rankings. It shouldn't matter too much.
Past Beilein recruits: GRIII finished 17, McGary 28, Stauskas 82, Brundidge 87, Trey 93. Aaaand that's as far back as 247 goes because they hate backdating. But between Scout, Rivals and ESPN, Smotrycz averaged 80. D-Mo was 77 to Rivals, 100 to ESPN and the 20th best PG to Scout. Vogrich was 100 to Scout, 131 to Rivals and the 40th best SG to ESPN.
Obviously the trajectory is pretty good. Also helps to see that Beilein does have some misses (Vogrich and Brundidge) but everyone else contributed as a freshman and at least showed flashes of things to come.
|3 years 43 weeks ago||ugh.||
|3 years 43 weeks ago||it was awful for forever?||
it was awful for forever? it's good now though.
|3 years 43 weeks ago||Given his FB velo, that's||
Given his FB velo, that's most likely a curve. Having a faster and slower curve is common-ish.
|3 years 44 weeks ago||And given the number of punts||
And given the number of punts per game, switching from an old-style to a spread punt is worth something like 1-2 points in expectation per game? 8-12 possessions, so, 4-8 punts per game? Maybe only 1 point in expecation?
|3 years 45 weeks ago||How about ordering||
How about ordering in likelihood of committing, including Ways? Ways, Williams, Scott, Holmes, Andrews?
|3 years 46 weeks ago||I've heard that next year's||
I've heard that next year's class is supposed to be amazing? I kind of just assumed that would somehow convince Craft to go? But yeah he'd be really selling low on himself. He just had his worst season shooting from 3. That's got to have him thinking he can do better.
And he's a much better NBA value if he suddenly develops a serious 3pt threat. OSU could have been #1 this year if Craft can shoot, imo. So yeah, fair enough.
I don't have anything really to say about Ferrell. I barely noticed the guy. He was what, the 5th option on the floor? But yeah there's not a whole lot to like in his numbers. I don't know how his ORtg is that good, because his TO% sucks and his shooting was pretty meh. But scouts seem to like him.
Overall, I like your tiers. I think you're underrating OSU a bit though. I'd put them with Iowa/Wisconsin. The more I watched Thomas, the more I noticed how little he tried on defense. He gave back a lot of his points. I think Ross and Thompson will replace a lot of his production even if it looks even uglier than it did this year. Craft will regress to his mean and there will be talk about how he's better than he's ever been even though he'll be shooting at his career averages. I think it'll mostly come down to how much they cough it up.
You're probably right to like Purdue. This was Painter's worst team since his first in '06.
|3 years 46 weeks ago||Here's DX's most recent top||
Here's DX's most recent top 100 freshmen update, which was last week. Take whatsoever grains of salt you wish:
9. Glenn Robinson
41. Mitch McGary
47. Nik Stauskas
Others of note:
14. Gary Harris (State)
30. Yogi Ferrell (Indiana)
31. Sam Dekker (Wisconsin)
51. Adam Woodbury (Iowa)
65. Jake Layman (Maryland)
71. Jeremy Hollowell (Indiana)
78. Shaquille Cleare (Maryland)
84. Hanner Perea (Indiana)
90. Amadeo Della Valle (Ohio)
Looking at the sophs likely to return, OSU has a big class with a lot of talent that hasn't quite put it together (Williams, Scott, Ross, Thompson) but the B1G is otherwise pretty empty on that front. Presumably Craft and Thomas are gone (2nd rounders, iirc, per DX), but if not they'll have their entire team back plus a year of experience.
Iowa is a pretty good sleeper pick if Marble and Basabe come back. White, Woodbury plus those two give them a nice core.
For State, a lot depends on what Payne and Harris do. I'd guess they'll come back, but who knows. If they do, they'll be very good. Replacing Nix isn't that big a deal. Not landing Parker was though. Parker, Harris and Payne likely would've made them B1G favorites.
Indiana will have a lot of talent, much of it being asked to handle far greater usage. I'd guess they'll be fine given the pedigree, but there's some variance there.
M is basically in the same boat. We (hopefully) lose one fewer lottery pick, but no Vonleh in the incoming class. If GRIII stays, the talent level will once again be very high but we'll also be once again dependent on young guys. It would be nice if THJr came back, obvs, but especially because he could help offset the youth at PG.
Wisconsin will presumably be Wisconsin. Goddamnit.
Still lotta ins, lotta outs given the draft, but the contenders look like they'll be able to stay on top. Iowa might be able to force its way into the conversation. Purdue could give it a go if Hammons really breaks out, but who else is going to score on that team? Minnesota loses its two best players. IL hasn't recovered from Weber yet, but supposedly are in the running for Drew Crawford. NW, PSU and Nebraska are bad.
Picking from the favorites is a real slog because everyone has question marks even if everyone likely to come back actually does.
|3 years 47 weeks ago||Actually Syracuse does||
Actually Syracuse does remarkably well at defending 3P%. KenPom has forwarded the idea that teams actually can't control opponents' 3P%, they just control how many they put up. That's because year to year, the vast majority of teams don't see any correlation between 3P%. Syracuse, surprisingly for a 2-3 zone team, appears to. They make you take a lot of 3's and they apparently do a great job contesting them. Best guess? It's related to their height around the perimeter.
|3 years 48 weeks ago||I didn't say anything about||
I didn't say anything about play calling, I said play design. They consistently had trouble throughout the season executing runs that weren't inverted veer. Whatever you think of the play calling, lack of execution consistently put us in trouble throughout the season.
Meanwhile, there's no hint from this article that he's learned anything new. Just that he is doing what he always does, which is look over what good offenses have done and how they were successful.
|3 years 48 weeks ago||"Borges, who does a forensic||
"Borges, who does a forensic study each offseason of the top offenses in the nation in an attempt to discover why those offenses worked, has a much greater understanding of the allure of the spread option after working with Robinson for two years. The offense can always scheme to overload the defense on the play side, overwhelming with superior numbers. Still, it has one major drawback. “There is a case for spread offense. Because it looks so good on the board,” Borges said. “There are no runs that look bad.""
Not that it wasn't evident in the play design, but this is good to hear. Further evidence that Borges definitely gets X's and O's. Execution was the problem last year and that's obviously the other half of it. But there are plenty of B1G coordinators who seem to struggle with both. So cheers to that.
|4 years 6 days ago||Have you found any papers||
Have you found any papers that looked at natural experiments in this arena? There are probably a decent number but my brief googling has turned up nothing so far, which I thought was weird.
|4 years 6 days ago||I just tracked down||
I just tracked down this:
Even considering this study doesn't (per Gelman...I'm not familiar enough with the statistical techniques in question to know) establish causality, it certainly seems plausible that Congress can do quite a lot to negotiate the specifics of NIH funding given the following:
"In the House Appropriations Committee (HAC), the NIH budget request is handled by the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies Subcommittee (LHHE). A similarly named subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee (SAC) evaluates the NIH budget request in that chamber. The LHHE subcommittees consider the NIH budget request, amend the funding requests in the presidential budget, and “mark up” the appropriations bills, sometimes specifically for institutes and centers at the NIH, that are ultimately reported to the House and Senate by each chamber's appropriations committee.
The subcommittee meeting reports that accompany the appropriations bills to the floor contain additional detail and guidance on the allocation and disbursement of appropriated funds by the NIH. Transfers affecting the level of support may involve (i) reallocation for NIH funding among the agency's institutes and centers, (ii) subcommittee support for specific fields of biomedical research associated with particular diseases, and (iii) project-level transfers that reallocate funding among particular lines of research and/or research projects within a given disease field. (See Supporting Online Material for examples)."
Just as a matter of agenda setting, it would seem Congress and assorted lobbies have the power to do what MJ suggests they can on an order of meaningful magnitude. Again, that's far from establishing causality, but I would like to be convinced both that it can't and that it doesn't. Assuming this mechanism is viable, I think the incentives for a given congressperson are clear.
|4 years 6 days ago||Does it perhaps make a little||
Does it perhaps make a little more sense to divide funds apportioned to a given state for research on some kind of merit basis? The way you have it is that Pitt doesn't add anything because we have PSU, right? But presumably PSU and Pitt split that money along some lines. It also seems to indicate that if we took Duke we'd be less likely to take UNC? Anyway, if I had to guess, the total is more or less determined by research status but the marginal dollar goes to the more politically connected district of the two.
Do I have that right and would altering your formula along those lines change much?
|4 years 2 weeks ago||It's worth mentioning that||
It's worth mentioning that the NFL's struggles were at least in some part related to the fact that they simply haven't seen much spread to run stuff. College defenses (like Narduzzi's, for instance) are clearly designed around the idea that the QB will be a run threat. They know that traditional pass-only defenders need to be involved in the run. While I'm sure plenty of NFL guys know it too, the number of times when teams just flat out screwed up their numbers just doesn't happen in college these days. The scheme is too old.
Relatedly, I saw a great screen shot of the Bears lining up against one of the spread teams this year in obvious C2 (turned out to be C2 man, at that) against a 4 wide set. That left 5 in the box against 7 for the offense. Guess how well that turned out.
I don't watch the NFL that much but I bet if I went back to the All-22 and checked out the numbers on a lot of defenses that they lost the battle well before the snap.
|4 years 2 weeks ago||Given the incentive structure||
Given the incentive structure you laid out, why wouldn't cheating be rampant? Isn't that a pretty weird belief?
Also: there's another party to add to the interested in seeing Phil and friends get busted. Namely, any non-cheating rivals have a very significant incentive to at least work through back channels in bringing this kind of thing to light. But I imagine they would have to be extremely secretive because there's very likely a lot of anti-snitching codes in place throughout the game. ADs are hamstrung by this, but boosters probably could devote some time/money to it. It doesn't have to be just Yahoo that funds Charles Robinson.
|4 years 3 weeks ago||So M has two of the top||
So M has two of the top couple players in the league but won't even be above average? How bad are the rest of our guys? No offense meant, I just assumed we were average-ish top to bottom for whatever reason.
|4 years 3 weeks ago||I'm guessing it means there's||
I'm guessing it means there's a decent chance that Jourdan Lewis pulls a Reverse Zion Babb.
|4 years 3 weeks ago||That is something that may||
That is something that may well be generally true, but a lot of the research that has gone on in biomechanical research in kines labs and the like is starting to be incorporated usefully into training regimens. Given access to that kind of thing, athletic guys with quarterback stature and a feel for throwing are candidates for velocity gains.
Not saying Borges is that sort of guy, but I would imagine that as the throwing programs that are starting to proliferate in baseball trickle into football that the pool for quarterbacks will grow.
|4 years 3 weeks ago||Cool it! You're on third||
Cool it! You're on third street!
|4 years 4 weeks ago||The fact that most interested||
The fact that most interested parties are willing to spend more money to go see a school play, buy a jersey, etc. when a school is better relative to when a school is worse and the substantial portion of extremely wealthy boosters who do so with things like massive donations for facilities and the like suggests that people are willing to pay some amount for increased performance.
Better recruits are a pretty obvious means of getting better performance, so all that matters is the perceived legality/morality/consequences of doing so. If NCAA enforcement is lax, consequences are obviously out of the picture. I don't think it's illegal to give money to somebody, but maybe I'm wrong there. So all that's left is morality. And most fans think that players should be paid at least something these days.
On top of that, all that's left is whether or not it's okay to privilege your team over another. Say what you will about whichever programs, but when I think of win-at-all-costs programs, I think of SEC programs (and perhaps certain others).
In any case, the incentives are all there. It's just a matter of if people give in to temptation, if they even consider it to be sinful.
That said, you do have an interesting point. Why don't schools explicitly fund investigators to out their rivals? Explicit funding is probably seen as gauche, but there's probably a decent amount of under-the-table tipping off of reporters and the like. I would bet that's basically what happened in the old SWC, not to mention some of the Bama-Auburn stuff.
But for example, OSU is awfully well shielded from that kind of thing. None of the local rags are going to sell more papers doing that kind of muckraking and they might just get Herbstreited for it. The whole state, more or less, is in favor of one outcome. So Clarett gets railroaded for speaking up (and he only does so after he exhausts the generosity of Ohioans) and everything else gets swept under the rug. On the other hand, when you have multiple factions relatively nearby, the payoffs are either rooted out or have to pass intense scrutiny such that it becomes so highly organized that it is effectively institutionalized. That more or less matches that 30 for 30 Pony Express doc, right?
I won't necessarily stand behind everything I just laid out and I don't know if it will stand up to scrutiny. But I think it at least hangs together and it reflects what I've picked up reading about college football over the last decade. The topic really does need some serious research to actually figure out the systematic principles behind college football economics.
|4 years 6 weeks ago||Actually El Paso iirc is the||
Actually El Paso iirc is the safest city in the country.
|4 years 6 weeks ago||Depends what you're||
Depends what you're interested in. It's easy living for all the obvious reasons, but it lacks the breadth and depth of culture in big American cultural centers. Their best high end restauranteurs, for instance, ditch the place for a more vibrant scene once they prove they can run a shop ably. The same is true for music, comedy, etc. It would be less of an issue if SD were farther away from the gravitational pull of LA. You really have to prefer the said obvious stuff to culture to want to pass up LA or SF for SD, hence the state of affairs.
Why this is not true of the beer I have no idea. It is fantastic. It's also probably a significant part of the reason why SD is starting to come into its own as a "real" city, culture-wise.
Also, yes, this is for a given definition of culture. Pacific beach bros certainly have their own collective culture that they find very satisfying.
|4 years 6 weeks ago||Having watched those teams up||
Having watched those teams up close, they played their asses off to my eye. They didn't lack for heart and defended the hell out of Yost and each other. Goaltending was their big issue and iirc Brian and others talked about how Montoya didn't seem to want to be there for his final season. Sauer obviously never really figured it out.
That said, I was a novice watching those games and I'm still no expert.
|4 years 7 weeks ago||(No subject)||
Accompaniment opportunity missed:
|4 years 7 weeks ago||Doubles typically come by||
Doubles typically come by rules based on alignment, not talent assessments. In particular that's likely true in all star games like these where there's just not a ton of specifics in playcalls.
|4 years 7 weeks ago||So you were surprised to see||
So you were surprised to see that Tacopants made it to San Antonio? The obvious explanation: Shane's personality is simply that magnetic.
|4 years 8 weeks ago||Thanks for running all this.||
Thanks for running all this. At first glance I see mostly just confirmation of what we saw: it takes an elite back like Denard just to get to the second level and beyond with our OL quality. That combined with his production once he got into the open field...holy crap. Insanely talented. Mike Hart took slightly better OL talent and turned losses into 5 yard gains. Denard turns them into TDs.
|4 years 9 weeks ago||first result for "lifting||
first result for "lifting weights children":
|4 years 10 weeks ago||Fucking hell.||
|4 years 10 weeks ago||2014 or bust! Also I wanted||
2014 or bust!
Also I wanted your opinion on how much the OL attrition during the later Lloyd years was responsible for things like Henne Being Sacked 7 Times In A Rose Bowl and Rueben Riley At Tackle versus the coaching problems of Andy Moeller et al? I didn't realize Moeller was in the league coaching OL. That plus these numbers make me wonder if I blamed coaching overly.
Also also: Carr lost a lot of dudes to injury. Gittleson FTL?
|4 years 10 weeks ago||Going by the draft results||
Going by the draft results and subsequent NFL careers, there's a pretty decent argument we were significantly more talented than that OSU team.
|4 years 10 weeks ago||QB, OL and S were the problem||
QB, OL and S were the problem areas in the late Carr era. In 2005, they had problems with each and hence had Carr's worst season. But really, I think you could make the argument that QB was the big issue. If Henson doesn't leave and Gutierrez stays healthy, in the very least we have more success against OSU.
It should be said that that SC team was legit. They put 15 guys in the draft from '07-'08, 2 more than M. So perhaps you could make the argument they were more talented.
That's not to say we didn't have obvious coaching problems. Henne got sacked 7 times while the D got lit up. That's ludicrous given the minor talent gap. DeBord was the biggest issue, but English likely was too. And considering the OL problems, Andy Moeller deserves some blame.
Ugh. I forgot how depressing that game was. I wanted to stop watching, so I'd go and wander around the house...but I couldn't stop myself from flipping on the TVs in the rooms I wandered into. It was hard to believe we could be so much worse than SC.
|4 years 13 weeks ago||We were very very poor at||
We were very very poor at running IZ, which was one of the things these guys were recruited to run. We had to pretty much drop OZ from the playbook we were so bad at running it. There were serious problems regardless of what they were supposed to run.
|4 years 13 weeks ago||I think it's fair to question||
I think it's fair to question their talent, but they had fairly substantial technique problems, no? If anything's fixable, that should be.
|4 years 13 weeks ago||Did they run any of the||
Did they run any of the freeze play? Was OSU just ready for it?
|4 years 14 weeks ago||Yes, that's the way it always||
Yes, that's the way it always been. Students packed down and actualy manage to fill the section. Crazy right?
|4 years 14 weeks ago||Yeah, Silver is smart enough||
Yeah, Silver is smart enough to know that WAR is as much a lightning rod as any of the stats he helped defend/invent/promote during his tenure at BP.
What's really sneaky about his argument is that he's just breaking down WAR into its components and then drawing conclusions. He's also justifying the lack of WPA or Clutch in its construction. If you buy the Silver argument, then you buy the basic WAR framework. But he doesn't mention it once.
TIL: Nate Silver isn't just a much better statistician than me.
|4 years 14 weeks ago||He only ended up with about||
He only ended up with about 60 fewer plate appearances than Miggy.
|4 years 14 weeks ago||Since you mentioned it, his||
Since you mentioned it, his post is pretty on point and manages not to reference WAR explicitly:
|4 years 14 weeks ago||iirc, their wRC figure only||
iirc, their wRC figure only includes SBs but not the totality of base running (e.g. tagging up, single into double, etc.). and like i said, i think both of those fielding figures are conservative. having watched both play a lot, Trout is incredible and Cabrera was...not good.
edit: i can't remember if wRC is park adjusted, but there's not going to be a huge difference between using a 1 win per 10 runs conversion and what FG uses. i.e. there's another 10 runs out there somewhere if the difference in WAR is 3 but you can only find 20 runs in the component differences.
|4 years 14 weeks ago||This is an entirely||
This is an entirely legitimate rejoinder. The Tigers and Angels have salary constraints, so just taking their respective production percentages should be adjusted for salary to at least some degree.
|4 years 14 weeks ago||3 wins. 30 runs. Same thing.||
3 wins. 30 runs. Same thing. Baseball events can be denominated fairly easily in terms of their actual impact on a game in a given environment. Trout was 30 runs better than Cabrera per B-R and Fangraphs.
Not that you asked, but the only real point of contention for WAR calculations is about how good you think Trout and Cabrera were on defense and there's plenty of scouting consensus there. And it's plenty easy to take that kind of qualitative evaluation and come up with a reasonable run differential between the two. I'd honestly be surprised if it was only 20 runs. Then tack on baserunning.
I can't imagine folks who can read park factors and triple slash lines would think there's a difference in their batting lines that would make up that gap. The only argument you can make comes down to things that disregard absolute value of each player's performance. I guess maybe you can throw out clutchiness or something, but you shouldn't.
|4 years 14 weeks ago||Part of the reason Cabrera is||
Part of the reason Cabrera is such a huge part of the team value is because the team had to pay market value. Trout is awesome and makes the league minimum so he actually makes it easier for his team to get better because he's such a huge boon to the profit of the Angels.
Why credit Cabrera for Dombrowski's decision making process?
|4 years 14 weeks ago||What exactly does it leave||
What exactly does it leave out that's going to make up a 30 run difference?
|4 years 15 weeks ago||It's worth pointing out that||
It's worth pointing out that Nebraska's offense is at least as similar as Northwestern's to Ohio's. Part of the reason that game was close was M just happening to play poorly on defense.
|4 years 15 weeks ago||The Giving||
|4 years 16 weeks ago||I think his straight line||
I think his straight line speed is good, but he doesn't juke especially well. I think the IV is actually a pretty good play for him, since he's got some size and can get going north/south. I wouldn't want to see him run a reverse though.
|4 years 16 weeks ago||I think risk aversion and||
I think risk aversion and Devin's limited practice probably coincided. We ran what looked to me like the base offense minus the IV.
...Not exactly on topic, but I think the UFR is going to be ugly. Our interior line, especially Barnum and Mealer, are really hurting us right now. In the Nebraska UFR there was some speculation that Mealer isn't nearly as good as Molk in calling the blocks. I could be wrong, but I think that's decided on between the two guys who need to communicate. But the sacks iirc all came up the middle and were perhaps the result of bad declaration by Mealer.
I also wonder if Barnum's knee issues have hurt his ability to play. Thanks to our depth issues, we really don't have anybody who can really push them or give them time off if they're not seriously hurt but are still impaired.
|4 years 16 weeks ago||OP means the play Chris Brown||
OP means the play Chris Brown from Smart Football dubbed "Inverted Veer":
Most(ish?) teams run it with power blocking, but it's functionally similar in read since you get downblocking and a frontside DE read. It's "inverted" because it's not the B back smashing up the middle and the QB taking the edge but vice versa.
You could run it either way, but the teams that have used it in this fashion have often had larger QBs like Tim Tebow or Cam Newton to run it. We use it because Borges likes power blocking and Denard is a very good north-south runner.
Since like the middle of last year, it's been our base running play.
|4 years 16 weeks ago||It's really starting to seem||
It's really starting to seem like the trajectory of the OL is trending negatively and that a lot of the problems on offense are related to exactly that. Yes, the plays themselves lack coherence, but it seems like part of what Borges is doing is trying to compensate for an inability to execute. Hence all the bells and whistles signifying nothing. That is, no actual option is run because we can't teach it.
This is exactly what happened in the Sugar Bowl btw. I actually liked the scheme Borges cooked up, which I thought was coherent. But they didn't execute it at all. Borges' response seems to have been to bore down to a focus on doing just a very few things well...but that hasn't really come to fruition either. Presumably part of this is Denard. But the OL is clearly having problems too and Greg Frey seems to have been able to do things with many of these guys that Funk hasn't been.
Caveats apply; I'm not an OL coach. But it looks pretty rough out there.
|4 years 17 weeks ago||I just wish there was a||
I just wish there was a little more coherence between our plays. Doesn't feel like a lot of chess being played, period.
Re: OSU, they made State's DTs look a lot worse than ours did. They based off IZ and hit Hyde consistently up the middle, with counters off their base that gave them better angles and made the State LBs more hesitant. Our equivalent of Hyde rode the pine. Also, Braxton Miller is a lot more juke-y and east-west than Denard. That served them well on plays where their blocking sucked.
Basically, they have a bunch of small differences that add up. None of it especially high risk. There may be a bit of an overall talent gap, but not huge if so. If anything they have maybe a more equitable distribution of talent in their non-QB players than we do? Same average, lower variance between players. Maybe not. Talent eval is hard.
|4 years 18 weeks ago||This is one of the major||
This is one of the major changes in the offense from RR to Borges. RR ran some kind of 3 step (lots of hitches, curls and slants...very basic stuff) for free yards a couple times a game. He coached it and we executed it very ably. It's almost completely gone from the offense at this point.
|4 years 18 weeks ago||And if we're talking about||
And if we're talking about that specifically, it's worth mentioning that audibles at the line are not a panacea. You can't call an audible without the defense being aware of it, at least as far as I'm aware. So unless you go with the Peyton Manning approach (always perform something that looks like an audible) you're giving the defense the chance to get out of their play or stay in it. That in itself might be worth something depending on how well you can play that bit of game theory. It might not.
The biggest help is probably against a particular blitz that for whatever reason abuses your protections. I don't think that was really a probem last Sat. State pretty much played their base plus their usual array of blitzes and had success. Nothing we weren't ready for though.
And maybe this goes without saying but neither Magee nor Borges felt comfortable with giving Denard such responsibilities, that's at least some evidence that it was detrimental to team success to practice audibles rather than something else.
|4 years 18 weeks ago||Well that pretty much answers||
Well that pretty much answers that. And I doubt Al made that gameplan decision just by himself. JeepinBen's comment in the Picture Pages post nailed it:
|4 years 18 weeks ago||I mentioned Smart Football||
I mentioned Smart Football (of course) and Shakin' The Southland in the post and those are both great. SF in writing for Grantland has simplified a lot of his stuff for a more general audience but his blog and especially his old blogspot domain are chock full of coach jargon.
The Saban link is from here:
Brophy is perhaps best described as doing for defense what SF does for offense. His best known posts are a series of breakdowns of Saban's 1-high and then split safety defenses with primary focus spent on defending the pass.
My other big go-to is Duece at Football Is Life:
His best known posts are for his dissection of the TCU 4-2-5, but he's also got a great series that talks about the Two Gap/One Gap DL technique he's implemented.
There are a few more that are considerably less prolific, but they can be found in the blogrolls of the aforementioned. The other point worth noting is that either all or just most of these guys started out at the Coach Huey message board and then branched out to blogging to accommodate big posts. I've gone there for pointers too.
|4 years 18 weeks ago||I came up with the title at||
I came up with the title at like 3 in the morning after pounding keys for a while. The post was going to be even longer--I really wanted to talk in depth about their blitz packages and possible counters--but its unwieldy as it is. "Quarters" is an easy layman catch all for 4-3 Over Cover 4. But to your point, you google "4-3 Over Cover 4" you'll actually get to a two YouTube promo clips of Narduzzi's instructional DVDs. Which Im giving some thought to buying. If you google "quarters" you'll find out a lot about a particular fraction and coinage logistics.
|4 years 18 weeks ago||Yeah exactly that. But even||
Yeah exactly that. But even if you don't want to spend the time teaching that read, just adding a run fake to it would open it up further.
|4 years 18 weeks ago||I actually was going to do a||
I actually was going to do a whole thing on their blitzes, but the post is already overstuffed and I was having a tough time coming up with a good, tangible answer.
Screens are the usual approach, but I didn't see too many in watching ND and OSU. I'm guessing the safety measured involvement in the run game shuts down a lot of the usual RB screen stuff.
One answer I like is 3 step stuff like Y Stick. Line up Funchess and have him run a quick hitch and work to find the soft spot. When he aligns to the boundary, they'll feel like they have either the double A gap or corner and LB blitz in their pocket. But the read should also be simple enough that Denard can throw it (or scramble) if they play base D.
|4 years 18 weeks ago||Nah I don't coach. I'm just||
Nah I don't coach. I'm just weirdly obsessive. To be fairer to me, I also write long overthought stuff for SBN's White Sox blog. I take the same approach to baseball as football. After we took a dump in September I needed something less depressing to spend time thinking about.
Also there are a ton of absolutely great blogs written by lower level football coaches. With all that material, figuring out a few things isn't so hard.
|4 years 19 weeks ago||...8 years? i just got a big||
...8 years? i just got a big time sad.
|4 years 20 weeks ago||The Vegas line seems like a||
The Vegas line seems like a set up to me. I think, on average, Vegas lines represent true talent differences. But it is true that there's no way to arbitrage sucker's bets, right? And presumably Vegas can cover their asses even if they take on some risk by increasing the possibility of a big loss. To me, this looks fishy, especially if the line didn't move. Seems to me a lot of dead money M fans would look at that line and go "Michigan by only 3 over Purdue?!"
That said, Vegas isn't infallible and lord knows I'm dumb and only saw a quarter of the ND-Purdue game. But dammit all that is a weird line.
|4 years 20 weeks ago||This is the play we threw||
This is the route combo we threw Funchess open with against a couple times against Air Force. As Chris points out, it's crazy common. Al definitely has this in his playbook, in numerous different sets. Don't quote me on this but I think we even ran it off of jet motion against VT...but it didn't go well. Like everything else offense-related in that game.
The reason it worked so well against Baylor is that their defense is not very good. Run that play against Bama and they'll defend it just fine. In the first screencap, the Baylor D is probably playing some version of Quarters, or maybe C3. Either of those has answers for that play call. There's no defender in a bind there. There's a flat defender to play force/contain jet, 6 in the box vs. 5 OL and the RB (plus possibly the other safety if they're in quarters). That's a sound defense that responded to a common route combo very poorly.
|4 years 21 weeks ago||How hard is it to call a||
How hard is it to call a designed run play for Denard? And how hard is it to adapt some of the plays RR got the most out of? We seem to have adapted certain parts but not others, for reasons that aren't especially clear. Guessing that that reason might be Borges' desire to stick with what he knows and calling that "stubbornness" doesn't seem out of bounds.
In the ND game, Denard passed for a sack adjusted 4.33 yards per pass and we ran for 5.1 yards per carry. That alone suggests more running plays should be called. If you adjust further for interceptions, it's pretty clear that significantly more runs (and/or run-like plays like quick outside screens/3-step passes) would have been optimal.
|4 years 21 weeks ago||The problem I think most of||
The problem I think most of his interceptions reveal is a decision that gets made prior to the snap of the football. He does not seem to read the play as it's happening very well, which I think can be explained: he was a triple option QB in HS (and probably didn't get great coaching) and then was asked to make very simple reads by RR subsequently. Much of that stuff, I think, was pre-snap stuff. I think he's actually pretty solid in that regard, as long as the defense isn't shifting a ton.
Which of course ND was.
It may be that he doesn't have great instincts relative to most, but I'm not sure we can really tell given what we might guess a guy with his footspeed playing QB would have been asked to do. I don't think it's out of bounds to say that Borges isn't adapting enough to his strengths,
Interesting (to me anyway) sidenote: watching Braxton Miller this past weekend, I noticed BM has a much better feel for moving his feet in and escaping the pocket. But he really doesn't posses DR's feel for getting upfield on called runs and setting up his blocks. They were schooled differently and hence possess different skills.
|4 years 24 weeks ago||I think part of the problem||
Edited for upfront caveat: Kovacs played worse than usual.
I think part of the problem with the Michigan safety/corner late fills is that Mattison is pretty clearly a MOF safety guy. He prefers C1/C3 coverages, at least with this team. That inevitably leaves you with 8 run-first defenders when Bama pretty much always had 2 TE and often times 2 backs in the game.
Any time they were in 22/31 personnel, a 3-deep pass-first alignment means you are going to be missing a free hitter at the point of attack if the deep third guys are all playing pass first. Whether they were actually playing pass first or just not used to having to come up and support the run with such vigor, I don't know. I do know that I don't love the idea of JT Floyd/Kovacs/Gordon taking on a Bama TE as often as they were forced to.
TCU now and VT back then used to counter such formations by making their corners responsible for deep halves and giving their safeties run-first reads. With 9 run-first defenders, you're guaranteed to have what you need at the point of attack.
Mattison's adjustment last year was to go to his Bear front, which he used a bit against Bama I think(?) but I was surprised he didn't go to it more. His gameplan suggests he was very worried about getting beat deep. Since we pretty much didn't even get to play the game with Countess, that loss might have very well put him in a lose-lose situation.
In any case, somebody said Saban hit up Dantonio in the offseason for tips? Their gamplan looked like they doubled down on what they saw in that game that worked. Until our safeties and JT Floyd learn how to attack downhill, beefy teams will probably go that route in attacking our D.
|4 years 25 weeks ago||This is pretty||
This is pretty good:
|4 years 25 weeks ago||Oh goddamnit now I want to||
Oh goddamnit now I want to lay $20 on us after being a downer piece of shit for the last three months.
|4 years 25 weeks ago||Optioning the NT is not||
Optioning the NT is not something I've ever read about a team doing and I've read a good amount. It's possible some of that is just because a lot of read option comes from the under center days, where that was pretty much infeasible because the NT was closer to the ball than the RB.
But that doesn't seem like Borges' bread and butter. Considering that it's Brian's going theory that there was no actual option/read on a lot of those plays last year, I really doubt it'll get a whole lot more sophisticated over the summer.
We're going to see a lot of play action, I would bet. I'd really really like to see some slipping WR and TE deep off of tunnel, swing screen action. And QB Oh Noes of course. That seems more feasible.
|4 years 25 weeks ago||It's not supportable, but||
It's not supportable, but it's my feeling that this team will get much much better relative to the average team from first to last. Probably more so than that Saban team.
|4 years 25 weeks ago||For whatever reason, I like||
For whatever reason, I like our team after we've had the chance to learn a few things in game. We might lose to Bama AND (god forbid) ND, but I think our chances in conference are very good. Perhaps that's too much faith in the coaches, but I'm looking forward to our conference schedule. It's early when we're gonna be vulnerable, more so than the typical team. Even Bama, whatever you think of their experience.
|4 years 25 weeks ago||Having watched the defense||
Having watched the defense improve so much from beginning of the season to the end last year and having forgotten that it happened, I wish we could fast forward and gain some experience and then come back and play this game. Alabama of course would have been stuck in a time nexus, so the growth via experience would be ours alone.
And in that obvious sense, it's the universe's fault. Fuck you, universe.
|4 years 25 weeks ago||Twice as? I'm not sure where||
Twice as? I'm not sure where you're getting that, or how you would even define that. It looks like they've got two guys in the secondary who didn't play a ton and lack the usual recruiting stars. Beyond that, they've got experience where you need it: on the lines and at QB.
Moreover, I'm pretty willing to bet they have talent that exceeds ours, given their lack of attrition thanks to oversigning and recruiting rankings, so even if they were a little bit less experienced (which, not sure where that's coming from) I'd still prefer to be in their situation.
|4 years 25 weeks ago||This was basically jamiemac's||
This was basically jamiemac's take, but I'm a little unconvinced that the line would move unless Vegas was unhappy with the bets it was taking. Why suddenly be unhappy with those bets unless you're revising some thoughts about the talent in each game.
Incidentally, I calculated that the line move was what a reasonable guess between the difference in Fitz and Rawls/etc. might produce, given Mathlete's WPA numbers and the change in expected winning percentage that the new line implies. Can't be precise enough to know for sure, of course.
|4 years 25 weeks ago||I hate the universe for||
I hate the universe for making Alabama the first game of the season. So much inexperience! Gah!
|4 years 26 weeks ago||Actually Bovada is suggesting||
Actually Bovada is suggesting we have about a 15% chance. You put your money down yet?
|4 years 26 weeks ago||Does God Shamgod have any||
Does God Shamgod have any eligibility left? Would AIRBHG slaughter one of his own?
|4 years 26 weeks ago||/nervously tugs collar||
/nervously tugs collar
|4 years 26 weeks ago||Started as Angry Michigan||
Started as Angry Michigan Safety Hating God then became Angry Michigan BLANK Hating God. Back in 2005 we assumed that we had fallen as far as possible and Brian posited the existence of god(s) who seemed intent on fucking with us. Little did we know.
|4 years 26 weeks ago||there's a good chance||
there's a good chance Hamilton is the fastest baseball player in the history of the game.
|4 years 27 weeks ago||yeah, pretty sure Brian is||
yeah, pretty sure Brian is the originator. it goes at least back to OSU '06 in this blog's archives, but i don't think that was at all the first mention of it. i kind of remember it around Minnesota '05? in any case, BHGP came into existence in '07 unless it was a blogspot blog at some point. which, can't remember there.
|4 years 27 weeks ago||I think the place to get them||
I think the place to get them in the passing game is on the backside of Trips to the field with the threat of run. They love to go 1-v-1 to the boundary and shift their attention to the field.
The extra safety spins down and takes away any jet motion/bubble action, the rest of the defense focuses on pinning the QB runs inside.
Of couse, to do that, you have to have a WR who can beat their best corner. That's often asking a lot, but there's stuff you can do.
Also: I bet if you take the sacks out, the running game looks a little better. Still not great, but it was enough to get into makeable third downs and to make the play action stuff work. The first quarter was truly disastrous, but they settled in and did okay after that.
|4 years 27 weeks ago||I went back and watched it||
I went back and watched it pretty carefully and the difference in the first and second half seems to have a lot to do with execution. In the second half, certain blocks got made that weren't in the first. Newton didn't take terrible sacks for no good reason.
Another really notable bit was how many big Auburn runs came off the bounce out on inside zone/zone veer. The pull blocking seemed to have less success. I think that was specifically coached up and it made a huge difference.
If you look at that Auburn offense, it was not incredibly talented. Outside of Cam Newton, they had their two tackles selected in the draft, in the 4th and 7th rounds. McCalebb and Dyer are obviously good, but it's not like their receivers are hot shit.
Now, it's not like that Auburn team didn't get a little lucky, either. The non-QB Oh Noes long TD pass was ugly, probably should have been picked. It wasn't largely thanks to the clever play design...and luck. But they stuck with their guns, mixed it up and had faith in the execution. Their play calls weren't that much different than what we saw in our VaTech game, Auburn just executed much much better.
If Alabama is in more of a down-year talent-wise (i.e. very good rather than jaw dropping), we should have a pretty veteran group of guys with the ability to execute a fairly varied game plan.
Oh, and it'd be really nice to have Fitz. The line has sunk from 11 to 12.5 pts. I think a lot of that is probably Fitz being possibly/probably out.
|4 years 27 weeks ago||Seems like he runs better||
Seems like he runs better than Ricardo to me.
|4 years 27 weeks ago||He just keeps getting faster.||
He just keeps getting faster. Not that hard to see him getting on the field this year either, right? Some freshmen receivers are going to play and it's obvious he's got some unique skills.
|4 years 28 weeks ago||Is there any precedent for||
Is there any precedent for track stars becoming RBs or WRs?
|4 years 28 weeks ago||I already said as much; our||
I already said as much; our implied odds per Vegas are about 20% chance to win.
|4 years 28 weeks ago||Did you read Chris Brown's||
Did you read Chris Brown's article in HTTV? The defense was not great nor exceptionally talented. It was smart, fundamentally sound and well coached. Which is why there was a relative dearth of draft picks. Great is the '06 defense. That's the kind of talent Bama has been putting out for a little while now.
This might sound snotty, but: have you watched Alabama play much? The difference in athleticism is obvious if you compare us side by side. Which is what you would expect from an oversigning team whose recruits are among the best in the nation and are coached by one of the best in the country.
There's no shame in being worse than Bama, particularly given the program strife that afflicted the program. E.g. 12 of the 27 recruits from the 2010 have left the program. They'd all be in their third year in the program had they stayed. Instead, we either don't even have a player to fill that spot, or they're a year or two younger than they might be otherwise. That's a huge deal.
So it's very likely true that we're dealing with a talent deficit right now. Oh well. We're still set up nicely in the B1G and we're obviously growing as a program. If Hoke had brought in two 30 recruit classes the two chances he got, we'd be farther along. But we couldn't, so here we are. I'm more than happy.
|4 years 28 weeks ago||What panic? It's likely that||
What panic? It's likely that we're going to lose and it's tough to come up with scenarios that don't involve a lot of luck in which we win. That's more of a reflection on just how good Bama is than that we're bad or something. We're not yet an NFL minor league team.
|4 years 28 weeks ago||Based on having watched him||
Based on having watched him play compared to the good defensive linemen we've had since 2005. The comparison to Branch is silly. If he takes a great leap forward, then terrific. There's no especially compelling reason to expect that kind of production.
Also, there are effectively 3 tackle positions on this team. There was room for Campbell or Ash or Washington to see extensive action if it were merited. Instead, Heininger played a ton and RVB and Martin could barely get off the field despite Mattison's desire to rotate.
Meanwhile, Alabama's guys are clearly in the vicinity of top 100 players. Saban has established a history of churning out top draft picks. We're still recovering from RR and GERG. It is obvious that our athleticism on defense does not match theirs offensively. The same is largely true on the other side of the ball. Which is why Vegas is giving us a 20% chance to win.
|4 years 28 weeks ago||The assumption shouldn't be||
The assumption shouldn't be that because they didn't see playing time they aren't any good. For WC, it's because he looked okay at best as a junior. Not exactly news that we're praying he turns out to be more than a contributor. Q and Ash aren't getting much hype and when they've been in (because, let's recall, Mattison rotates the hell out of the DL) they didn't look like much either.
Worrying about them going up against the ridiculous athletes Bama has in the trenches is not hypercritical. It's pretty reasonable.
|4 years 29 weeks ago||The revisions to UFR over the||
The revisions to UFR over the years are mainly Brian's expertise level and an inkling that he should try to tone down the DL a bit and award more +/- to the back 7. It's hard to say what the former would do, but the latter makes it somewhat likely that Demens is actually worse than in 2005 terms.
|4 years 29 weeks ago||what was there before?||
what was there before? please say "ha".
|4 years 29 weeks ago||If Darboh and Gardner have||
If Darboh and Gardner have draft worthy size and speed, that would go a long way against Alabama. Hard to spread them out and open up running lanes if the WRs aren't any threat.
|4 years 29 weeks ago||Same, I read TTB all the||
Same, I read TTB all the time.
I just deleted a whole bunch of paragraphs that just rehashed the whole thing and it added annoyingly little clarity. Instead, I summarize the issue like so:
You feel you're working with what feels like concrete data so you're not likely to be swayed by what seems like a lot of guesswork. I'd argue the opposite is actually true given what we collectively know for certain: I'm working with more concrete (but non-numerical) data. Given your prior assumptions, my approach wasn't going to be very convincing. If I really wanted to convince you, I'd delve into the variance of tackling numbers and that just doesn't seem that appealing.
But, if it interests you, the data is online at bentley. If tackles per game correlate significantly year to year and correspond to draft status, I might be swayed. It's a complex undertaking, so feel free to say fuck that noise like I did.
|4 years 29 weeks ago||This is also enlightening re:||
This is also enlightening re: your use of tackle numbers. From the PSU '05 UFR:
That is, making tackles is not the same thing as being good at tackling. Teams run plays in order to exploit the worst defenders. Burgess, Massey and the non-Hall secondary members struggled to make tackles.
You have tackle totals. You don't have opportunities to make a tackle. Without the appropriate denominator, we can't normalize the totals appropriately and we can't really be sure what they mean. Scouting data is far more valuble in these situations and what we have here are in favor of Harris. Similarly, what we know about Harris' subsequent career absolutely should color our perception of his '05, adjusted for aging. Athletes across most sports seem to peak from 25-29, improving somewhat until then and declining thereafter.
So just because we don't know what Demens will do doesn't mean we shouldn't assume he won't ever be--or has been--as good as Harris. So few athletes perform to Harris' level that assuming that Demens hasn't been as good until he proves otherwise is sound. At least that's what I'm pretty sure a Bayesian would say.
|4 years 29 weeks ago||Watson and Taylor were fine,||
Watson and Taylor were fine, but Branch was fantastic.
|4 years 29 weeks ago||I went back and re-read some||
I went back and re-read some of the UFRs and I think it's fair to say I overstated my case re: Harris' instincts somewhat. But not at all the case against Massey. Brian makes it abundantly clear that he was the biggest culprit on that defense, with injury and Burgess as runners up.
From Brian's '06 preview:
(Oh snap mgoblogspot nostalgia flashback.) The last sentence is pretty much the claim that I'd make. I'm not sure I'd say the same for Demens last season or not, but I lean towards "not". They are decidedly different athletes. Harris ran a 4.6 at the combine and he was evidently just about that fast as a junior. From an instincts perspective, Harris showed flashes that I don't think Demens matched.
|4 years 29 weeks ago||I read all the '05 UFRs. By||
I read all the '05 UFRs. By my recollection, Harris and Branch were the breakout players on that defense, obviously so. Pat Massey was perhaps the worst defensive tackle in the UFR era and that was deeply problematic for that defense, particularly for Harris.
I also wrote in the '08 HTTV specifically about the level of talent Harris represented and how difficult replacing him would be. I scouted a number of games from '05 and '06 specifically to write the thing.
Now, the difference between what I know about football now and then is pretty great. But I would be very surprised if Demens measured up to Harris. Neither his instincts nor his athleticism are as good Harris to my eye. Harris' ability to avoid blocks remains as good as I've seen since I've been tracking M football.
Demens is not a bad football player, but David Harris was remarkable and his talent was as obvious as you'd guess from a player drafted as high as he was and who's since gone on to such accolades.
|4 years 29 weeks ago||he reminds me of GRIII with a||
he reminds me of GRIII with a year left before school. go back and watch the old tape. the difference isn't huge.
|4 years 30 weeks ago||Since 1993, VT is averaging||
Since 1993, VT is averaging 9.7 wins per season and over the last decade won 10.2 per averaging 13.5 games played in that decade.
Bo won 10.8 games for every 13.5 he played in a very very favorable environment. The Lloyd and Mo years saw that average dip to...10.2.
So it seems like the long term trends for each team are very very similar. The difference to me is that M still has to recover completely from its RR hangover. The attrition and talent deficit that affected the program during that time was substantial relative to our norm. If I had to bet, I'd very slightly favor VT.
On one hand, I wouldn't be willing to play anything that high stakes for what as far as I can tell amounts pretty nearly to a coin flip. On the other, even if you're making $2K a week and you're 55% to lost, that's only -$200 in expected value. Since it happens over the course of 4 years, you could pretty easily increase your savings somewhat to make sure a loss didn't hurt too bad.
But honestly: you didn't have the balls to say yes or no on the spot. You're probably not the gambling type and you probably don't enjoy making bets.
|4 years 30 weeks ago||Assuming I did the math||
Assuming I did the math right, if we pick up Green and Treadwell, we'll get to 3.75 average star rating. Not too shabby.
|4 years 30 weeks ago||IM A MOOOOONSTER||
IM A MOOOOONSTER
|4 years 30 weeks ago||i believe you mean "Kork".||
i believe you mean "Kork".
|4 years 30 weeks ago||In case you guys were||
In case you guys were wondering what the historical odds were given a particular spread in college football was, I have a fun link:
Vegas Insider has the game at Alabama -11. That translates to a 78% chance of winning per the trend line charting data from '05-'08. If you just look at the games with a spread from 10.5-11.5, the favored team won 84% of the time.
It's kind of a downer. On the other hand, if you think Michigan has much if any shot to win, the suggestion is it wouldn't be a terrible value bet if you're good at pegging the quality of college football teams.
I tend to assume Vegas knows more than me, so I've just sorta written this game off. I want to see us fight and I want to see what our coaches can do when they're outgunned like this. On offense in particular, I want to see how Denard looks and what Borges comes up with. This is a running oriented offense against Saban, who apparently has the dudes to two gap our stuff and take away our numbers advantage.
That's a big problem and that's why I don't get people who think we're gonna pass our way out of this. If Borges can't consistently come up with schemes to grease the running game, Denard's going to be facing more pass defenders in worse situations with worse receivers than he is used to. I don't see that going well.
So we'll see. Should be instructive in the very least.
|4 years 30 weeks ago||Are Roh and Black aiming for||
Are Roh and Black aiming for 290 or are they supposed to be done adding weight by now?
|4 years 30 weeks ago||just plain would be perfect.||
just plain would be perfect. but apparently that doesn't optimize the Q zone factor in the righteous demogs.
|4 years 31 weeks ago||it's certainly audible on||
it's certainly audible on television. the mics pick it up all the time.
|4 years 31 weeks ago||how do they have the||
how do they have the scholarships for that?
|4 years 31 weeks ago||So we should never taunt||
So we should never taunt opponents? It's almost always a given that calling a team shitty is "shitty relative to league" not "shitty relative to all humans". 1962 Mets excluded. And I'm pretty sure the Air Force kids can take it, consider what they signed up for.
|4 years 31 weeks ago||small point: they didn't||
small point: they didn't relent. PM just coded them slightly different and apparently are no longer in TOS violation. i have no idea why CL would object at all considering that it obviously drives traffic to them. then again, CL is a serious oddball when it comes to online entities.
|4 years 31 weeks ago||as Marduk would say, "eat||
as Marduk would say, "eat some more pills, pillhead".
|4 years 32 weeks ago||is crippling anxiety a sport?||
is crippling anxiety a sport?
|4 years 32 weeks ago||There's no weirder or more||
There's no weirder or more hilarious response to being a Michigan fan than that provided by a for no apparent reason irate Illini fan. That fanbase is actually more neurotic than Michigan State's. Good times.
|4 years 32 weeks ago||Sherlock is another show that||
Sherlock is another show that people should seek out. s2 finale was the shiiiiiiit.
|4 years 32 weeks ago||This is definitely how I||
This is definitely how I think about good tv. There are tiers. The top tier is The Wire and Deadwood. Aaaaand, yeah, okay, I think the Sopranos also. Then it's Breaking Bad, Mad Men, Game of Thrones, etc. Stuff that's really compelling but asks you to set aside certain issues.
|4 years 32 weeks ago||FX really is king right now.||
FX really is king right now. imo, the B+ or better shows for each: Mad Men and Breaking Bad vs. Justified, Archer, Louie, Always Sunny, Wilfred and The League. HBO might be closer in terms of total good shows, but even Game of Thrones, as fun as it is, doesn't top Justified, Archer or Louie. man, it wouldn't even be close if FX could have figured out how to get Terriers an audience. that show was terrific.
...also, no, I didn't forget Walking Dead. screw that show.
|4 years 32 weeks ago||Girls is legit. Has some||
Girls is legit. Has some holes, but even more potential. Lena Dunham is pretty damn ballsy.
Louie is one of the best things on TV. It's amazing that something like it ever aired.
|4 years 32 weeks ago||You probably won't see this,||
You probably won't see this, but I think it's more likely that he saw Kovacs' talent for playing nearer the ball than that there was some huge difference between Gordon and Kovacs playing in the middle. Like I said, we played a lot of soft coverage that was determined not to give up the big play. Lot of room in the flats and underneath last year, not deep.
I don't know if that's what Mattison would do going forward. I'd like to think he'd adjust to talent. He does seem to want to attack gaps and avoid playing two gap up front, nor does he seem to like quarters/c2/split-half stuff as much as he prefers to play 1/3 deep.
|4 years 32 weeks ago||Given that Mattison looks||
Given that Mattison looks like he prefers to at least start out in a 2-high shell most of the time and runs a lot of 3 deep coverages, do you think they're really making a lot of distinction between free and strong safeties?
|4 years 34 weeks ago||Why come no adjustments for||
Why come no adjustments for number of teams fielded? And how would that change the standings?
|4 years 35 weeks ago||Did Sabo officially decline?||
Did Sabo officially decline? Or were reports just exaggerated? Nothing against him, but I'd much prefer a guy who has ties with the game and understands intimately what it's like to run a program.
|4 years 35 weeks ago||At some point this near||
At some point this near limbless fellow counts as an ex-pirate. Pirating is no longer a thing he can accomplish without assistance from the state. Even then, does worker's comp really count as booty?
|4 years 35 weeks ago||best news since we beat Ohio||
best news since we beat Ohio in football.
|4 years 35 weeks ago||Why is that relevant? It's||
Why is that relevant? It's pretty clear what Hoke's timetable is. Guy wants to have it wrapped up before the season starts. If he can start moving seriously on 2014, all the better.
|4 years 35 weeks ago||given his lack of offers at a||
given his lack of offers at a school coaches know to be a hotbed, i doubt they liked him better. but the choice between a raw guy who will actually commit and a let's say 30% chance at a finished product at this stage of the game probably wasn't too hard for Hoke to make.
|4 years 35 weeks ago||we should probably take it to||
we should probably take it to mean that there was nothing to gain from waiting. i.e. we're out of the running.
|4 years 35 weeks ago||both seem like pretty good||
both seem like pretty good guys to take a flier on. solid athletes, good size, room to grow, potential to play multiple positions depending on how they fill out and the depth at the position is already there, so you don't have to count on them working out.
|4 years 35 weeks ago||For comparison's sake--not||
For comparison's sake--not sure if the coaches see LMIII and Stribling as an either/or proposition--here's some video from each:
McQuay - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZXcgrZpsCw
I think that's junior video for each, but I'm not absolutely positive. Apply salt grains liberally.
The McQuay video doesn't really give you much idea how well he can run in open space until the end, but I think he's probably faster/more fluid than Stribling. Stribling on the other hand is clearly playing corner; McQuay is more of a box safety in the highlights. Stribling is obviously much rawer, but they're both definitely in the vein of the bigger corners like Conley and Standifer. Not too hard to guess Hoke wants some size in his boundary corner.
|4 years 37 weeks ago||Seems like he signed his real||
Seems like he signed his real name for his joke and he also loves supporting research at GWU:
|4 years 38 weeks ago||very much this. any time||
very much this. any time it's gotten to the point where i've felt compelled to email, Brandon has reversed himself. he seems to me to be very willing to push the alums to see how far they'll let him go and this isn't just through direct statements. he seems to understand how to float ideas in the press via anonymously sourced leaks on top of the usual direct quote stuff. he's very savvy and good at what he does...i just don't happen to like a lot of it.
he seems exactly like you'd expect a Dominoes CEO to be. very capable of handling media, very quarterly report (or the equivalent) oriented. can't/won't play the long game because there's no incentive to/he never learned.
his experience under Bo doesn't seem to have taught him much about Michigan, but a lot about what it means that he survived/thrived under a guy like Bo Schembechler. i.e. "if i can play under Bo, i can do X. i'm the shit, y'all".
|4 years 38 weeks ago||...gd it, that's not who i||
...gd it, that's not who i replied to.