fair point that
- Member for
- 5 years 21 weeks
- View recent blog entries
- Total # of Plays: 119
- Total # of Plays Correctly Predicted: 109
- Total # of Plays Incorrectly Predicted: 10
- Percent of Plays Correctly Predicted: 91.6%
|1 day 23 hours ago||Right, so your claim is that||
Right, so your claim is that the call on Zettel had no effect on the way the other players play, including Henry's, throughout the rest of the game?
I think you're simply being obtuse, but there is an important point here that gets to the heart of the targeting rule. If we assume that players will respond to the way the game is officiated, we can create a safer environment for all players by calling a tight game (and I think that this is a reasonable assumption to make). If, as you presume, players will not react in any way to the officiating, then the targeting rule is pointless theater.
|1 day 23 hours ago||So, let me get this straight.||
So, let me get this straight. You don't think the way a game is called has an effect on the way players play? You don't think players in general try to avoid penalties?
|1 day 23 hours ago||Yeah, exactly. The Zettle||
Yeah, exactly. The Zettle thing frees up Henry to blast Hackenberg on this play. And I think the more interesting question is, if Zettel gets kicked out for that one, do you think Henry comes in that hard? My guess is not.
|2 days 13 hours ago||Are the LT and LG flipped in||
Are the LT and LG flipped in the IU diagram?
|6 days 20 hours ago||On the second play: "Rudock||
On the second play:
"Rudock gives 'em a hard count you can see the second level of IU's D flinch to the LOS. Rudock checks"
Is it possible to tell what he checks out of?
|1 week 1 day ago||M 20 PSU 24||
M 20 PSU 24
|3 weeks 55 min ago||26 - 19 Michigan||
26 - 19 Michigan
|3 weeks 1 day ago||Practice time probably||
Practice time probably contributes, in addition to the good points others have made. You probably don't rep versions of the same play with and without the play-action, so in the game you just go with what you've practiced, whether or not the fake is likely to be convincing or not.
|4 weeks 15 hours ago||41 32 m||
41 32 m
|6 weeks 1 day ago||28-27 M||
|6 weeks 3 days ago||Woops, didn't mean to step on||
Woops, didn't mean to step on your toes. Great minds think alike?
|7 weeks 3 days ago||The closer I look at football||
The closer I look at football outsiders the more I think that they have absolutely no idea what they're doing.
|10 weeks 1 day ago||I get the impression that||
I get the impression that this staff emphasises vision and balance over "explosive to-the-house speed".
|12 weeks 2 days ago||M 20 U 18||
|12 weeks 6 days ago||Utah doesn't have any||
Utah doesn't have any material from which to scout the offense. There are going to be a lot of surprises in terms of personel packages and constraint plays.
|14 weeks 2 days ago||Its pretty normal for objects||
Its pretty normal for objects towards the edges of photographs to appear larger than things in the middle.
|15 weeks 2 days ago||From the article: 2014 Dallas||
From the article:
2014 Dallas Cowboys at Jacksonville Jaguars
Is 91% really high accuracy? Sounds like a recipe to get gashed by play action to me.
|1 year 26 weeks ago||Davis really did make an||
Davis really did make an argument for more playing time. Hopefully it wasn't a result of the competition level as it was nice to see.
The game also clarified Altidore's role I think. As Brian said, he didn't have many one-on-one scoring opportunities, but he did a good job of boxing defenders out and fighting for possession.
There was a nice sequence in the second half where Altidore controlled a long pass, kept the defender away from the ball with his body, made a quick little pass to Bradley who tried to thread another quick pass to a wide open Davis which was just narrowly deflected.
I have a feeling that more than one goal in this World Cup will follow that model: Altidore fights for possession deep allowing the rest of the team to come up, quick pass to Dempsey, quick pass to Bradley, etc, as opposed to a lone player streaking down the field beating defenders.
|2 years 2 weeks ago||Gardner seems to be reading||
Gardner seems to be reading the MLB ... Does he keep because that LB takes off for the playside? But that doesn't seem right, because the pulling guard ends up on the MLB. Is this supposed to be a handoff but Gardener pulls because the FB botches the block?
|2 years 5 weeks ago||I very much like this theory,||
I very much like this theory, and giving the coaches some credit in general. Regarding important games, I would throw in ND, which would seem to be a datapoint in Borges's favor.
Now, for the tackle-over stuff, I think it makes a lot of sense to deploy it for the two-game Minny/Penn St. stretch. Its a totally sensible gameplan against Penn St. in particular who are thin at the linebacker position. However, it would very much be a datapoint against the coaching if we continued to see it this year.
I think another factor behind running non-optimal plays partway through the season is that we want to hide plays from Michigan St. and Ohio. Make them prep for weird stuff, and then throw something completely new that they haven't seen. There are only so many times we can reinvent the offense during the season, and it makes sense to try to have some stuff off-film going into those games.
For example, it would make a lot of sense to me see this team turn into a short passing team that utilizes the strengths of Gallon, Dileo and Norfleet in those games. But if that (or some other direction) is coming in the future, we don't want it on film yet, so it should stay in the barn against inferior opposition. Furthermore, if that is the plan, then you don't want to be throwing lots of bubbles, because you don't want to see press coverage on every play.
|2 years 8 weeks ago||There's another option, which||
There's another option, which is to change up the playcalling. This line has been better at pass-protection than run protection. It seems to me that an emphasis on short passing routes might get some defenders out of the box and make the running game easier. The problems come when the opponent knows we're going to run and we run anyways.
|2 years 9 weeks ago||30 - 10 Wolverines||
30 - 10 Wolverines
|2 years 33 weeks ago||Thank you! You'll always be||
Thank you! You'll always be remembered for your TREMENDOUS blocks and those sweet throwback screens!
|2 years 43 weeks ago||News like this demands||
News like this demands muppets!
|2 years 50 weeks ago||It seems like you'd see a||
It seems like you'd see a bump (over the team average at least) this whenever your worst rebounder shoots, assuming that getting your own rebounds (a la McGary) is rare.
|2 years 50 weeks ago||Couldn't these teams also||
Couldn't these teams also just be the ones for which your method is the least accurate - for whatever reason? You're essentially saying that teams that won more than you expected got "lucky", but what if your model is just plain wrong for some teams?
|3 years 1 week ago||31 - 17 Michigan||
31 - 17 Michigan
|3 years 2 weeks ago||Thanks for all your work BISB||
Thanks for all your work BISB - especially in the (ever chaotic) liveblog!
|3 years 2 weeks ago||25-15 Michigan||
|3 years 3 weeks ago||This is obviously better than||
This is obviously better than the straight numbers, but the problem with this approach is that different teams schedules can have very different levels of difficulty. For example, if team A plays a very difficult schedule, they're not going to change those strong teams offensive output as much as team B, who plays nobody but cupcakes.