Eye of the Tiger
- Member for
- 5 years 6 days
- View recent blog entries
|50 min 22 sec ago||Really nicely done||
Thanks, SC! As you know I'm just a bit excited about our flexible and "subtlely complex"/"deceptively simple" system. This underscores just how much of a schematic upgrade we've gotten this year on offense--the dividends from which will be fully apparent by the end of the year.
|1 day 4 hours ago||"Reverse sear theory"||
I'm familiar with the theory and method, and have used it to great effect elsewhere. So I'm not a "sear first" zealot. :)
But I've done it both ways with tri-tip and find that: a) unevenness isn't really an issue with this cut of meat if you are doing it right; and b) searing first gives you better texture and flavor. Nice and crusty on the outside, perfect and even medium-rare on the inside. Not saying reverse sear will get you a bad result, or isn't better in other situations, but in my experience searing first produces a superior result with tri-tip on a grill.
FTR, I make this a lot, as all the butcher shops in LA carry the cut, it's easy to be consistent with once you've done it a couple times, and it's much less labor-intensive than a brisket (though that is a lot of fun to do if you have the time and attention span). I like to use a simple Weber grill with natural hardwood charcoal for this.
|1 day 6 hours ago||Awesome, but I'd change a few of the details||
I'm a Californian and make Santa Maria style tri-tip regularly. A few recommendations:
1. It works better if you sear it on direct hear first (3-5 minutes per side), and THEN move it to indirect. You get a better char and the meat stays juicy and (depending on how long you keep it on indirect) medium-rare on the inside.
2. I also recommend putting the rub on in advance--a few hours or so--as this allows the spices to seep in.
3. If you want to do it authentic Santa Maria style, your rub should just be sea salt, black pepper and garlic powder. Add paprika, cayenne and onion powder for a simple homemade BBQ rub. (Grill a few chiles alongside it though.) But any quality BBQ or all-purpose rub will do.
|2 days 20 hours ago||At this point...||
All we really need from an RB on Inside Zone is:
1. Get to the LOS quickly
2. Choose the right path (frontside or backside).
3. Fall forward when tackled.
Do those three things and we will consistently gain 3-5 YPC, and not produce TFLs. The rest is awesome but is less important than doin these three things consistently.
FTR, Green did that against Miami (NTM). He did not against ND (nor did Smith).
|3 days 6 hours ago||Do they still let him in the building?||
But regardless, that "question" had FREEP written all over it.
|1 week 1 day ago||"Start Morris" comes from the same place as "fire everybody"||
Our program is a tire fire and people want accountability. That's understandable. Unfortunately most/all of these "solutions" would just make things worse.
Right now what our offense needs more than anything is a stable starting lineup who keep taking reps until they master the playbook, technique and core concepts.
Pushing the panic button isn't an efficient way of making that happen.
|1 week 1 day ago||Wrong||
Yep. This game was over way before Devin started to play poorly.In fact, DG's turnovers don't even bother be. He was just trying to make a play, and really had nothing to lose. I just hope it doesn't had to the PTSD and he can stay mentally strong.
|1 week 2 days ago||Because that has worked wonders||
...the last two times we tried it.
Seriously, we do need some level of continuity here. Not saying we need to retain everyone, but it would make sense to let Nussmeier implement his system rather than abandon it before it's had time to develop. Besides, replace the staff with who, exactly?
|2 weeks 5 min ago||You forgot my diary||
Though I guess that's understandable as it was posted pre-App State.
|2 weeks 3 days ago||Better than not pushing them around||
...a la Akron 2013.
|2 weeks 3 days ago||Funk is supposed to be a zone specialist||
So arguably he wasn't being used as well as he could have been prior to this year. We'll see, as many people have said, once we go up against better competition. But if our OL plays better than last year, especially considering we graduated two tackles to the NFL, then we'd have to conclude that the problem isn't/wasn't Funk being a "bad coach."
(And keeping in mind that "better than last year" includes "mediocre" and "average." This is still a very young line, after all.)
|2 weeks 5 days ago||Actually||
I think Glasgow replaces Magnusen at LG, as Mags is physically built to be a tackle not guard, and will likely struggle against better DLs at the guard position. Mags and Cole platoon at LT.
|2 weeks 5 days ago||This||
"I feel like (Nussmeier) is simplifying everything, and making it so I can understand (what's going on) and help the younger guys."
|3 weeks 2 days ago||Because||
No matter what, Cole is in the 2-deep, which means he'll play a significant amount of time even if he doesn't start the majority of games. Now of course he may start all the games--I was just speculating. But Magnusen has played guard before, so if he is a better option at LG right now and Cole is good enough at LT, then it would make sense. But again, just speculating. I expect both Cole and Magnusen to get a lot of PT this year.
(Plus our coaches seem to like burning redshirts.)
|3 weeks 2 days ago||With what we know now? No way||
...at the time, however,there were reasons to think our OL would be better than it was (2 NFL tackles and the supposedly "most college ready prospect," Kalis, at RG), and reasons to think Borges' offense would be more coherent than it was (the end of the 2012 season). I was also disappointed in our bend-but-don't-break approach to defense.
That said, it's also important to note that, as disappointing as last year was, we were 11 points away from being 10-2. It also works in the other direction, of course, but I think when you consider everything in balance we were most likely an 8-4 team that was more unfortunate than fortunate, and ended up 7-5 as a result. We collapsed in a couple games (Nebraska, Iowa), but positively threw that PSU game away.
I have deep and abiding concerns about the OL this year, in part because of last year and in part because we graduated those tackles to the NFL. Otherwise, though, we have a lot of promise--especially on defense, where we should be significantly better than last year.
And our schedule is quite different.
And I've changed the way I predict individual games a bit, bestowing the 1.00 "guaranteed win"**** status less often. Had I done that last year, the overall win prediction would have been a bit less generous.
|3 weeks 2 days ago||I'm guessing||
...that Cole at LT and Magnusen at LG may have more to do with Glasgow's suspension than anything else. I suspect, given what we've heard about Miller, that the starting five for ND will be:
The other possibility is to flip Magnusen and Cole at LT and have Magnusen back up multiple positions. But I doubt Magnusen will start at LG after the first game. Just a feeling...
|3 weeks 2 days ago||Structural problems||
There are long-term structural problems on the OL that are still being sorted out. I mean, OL take a long time to develop even in the best of times (when you have program stability and upperclassmen ahead of you). But ideally you want to never be forced to start a true freshman and only start redshirt freshmen when they are exceptionally ready (which is almost never). Ideally you replace upperclassmen (who have had time in the system and are now fully conditioned for the role) with new upperclassmen every year, a la Wisconsin.
The fact is that we are forced to start a young interior OL last year because of poor OL recruiting in 2010 and 2011. And they were forced to learn an extremely complex offensive system with 6 base run plays (some of which called for man blocking and others for zone). And that system kept changing week to week. And the starters on the OL kept changing week to week.
I don't have high hopes for the OL this year, but I do think that the shift in offensive scheme will produce improvement over the course of the year, and set us up nicely for next year, when those structural problems should mostly be worked out.
|3 weeks 3 days ago||Alabama ran Power O as a changeup||
Make of that what you will.
We're still asking them to do fewer things this year...
|3 weeks 3 days ago||"But we'll need to be 2011-lucky"||
That's a running theme in my diary: if the balance of intangibles runs even, we are a 9 win team. If they fall in our favor, we'll probably win 10; if they don't, 8. If they really don't, 7.
|3 weeks 3 days ago||Love the optimism||
...but I can't quite buy into it. Not all the pieces are in place yet, and the OL could be a massive problem. A 3-4 loss season seems likeliest to me.
|3 weeks 3 days ago||Nice!||
Looks like the normal distribution around 8.70 is moderately more optimistic than I am on winning 10+, and a tinkle more concerned about us failing to win 8 games. There are defensible arguments for that distribution, for sure.
Qualitatively speaking, however, it's hard for me to see the chances of winning 10 as equal to those of winning 8. The latter seems nearly as likely as winning 9, as I see it, while the former rests on a hell of a lot of things rolling the right way. But I wouldn't complain if we won 10 games :)
|3 weeks 3 days ago||You missed the point||
It's not that zone is "simpler" than man (though Inside Zone is in fact simpler than Power O, which mixes man and zone blocking concepts). It's that we ran both man and zone blocking schemes last year, and apparently had 6 (6!) base run plays--some of which were man and others zone.
Nussmeier's Inside Zone-based blocking scheme is in fact simplified in comparison to that. But yes, zone blocking is highly technical and challenging to implement in its own right.
|3 weeks 3 days ago||Borges sought forbidden knowledge||
That explains everything!
As far as Minnesota is concerned, here's my argument: over the past 32 meetings, we are 30-2 against them. We've won the last 6, including years when we were bad (2008, 29-6) and they were not bad (2013, 42-13). I suspect they are dazzled by our winged helmets. Regardless, the regularity and typical scoreline of wins makes it very hard for me to see much uncertainty there--especially considering this is about the time when our offense should start to show improvement.
But even if we reduced the probability to .75, it doesn't really affect the season prediction all that much (8.70 wins to 8.55).
|3 weeks 3 days ago||Well||
I said we have a 1.00 probability of beating Rutgers and a .90 probability of beating Minnesota, so no.
As for App State and Minnesota, please read the text.
|3 weeks 4 days ago||You're right about Utah 2013||
I'll add a strikethrough edit.
However, I'm not sure it changes all that much in terms of probability. A .75 probability of a win still contains a significant level of uncertainty. Yet we still *should* win the game, especially since it's at home. Maybe .67? If it were on the road, I'd definitely have it in the .50-.60 range.
|3 weeks 4 days ago||NFL||
A whole lot of starters for Michigan in THE HORROR ended up in the NFL.
|3 weeks 4 days ago||I believe||
...it had the highest composite recruiting profile. Could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I saw that somewhere. That's one way of measuring "talent."
There are of course many reasons why the 2008 team was such a disaster, including massive attrition on offense, a difficult transition to a new offensive scheme and coaching philosophy, and some serious human resources problems on defense (i.e. seniors, DC and coach all not on same page). We lost a huge number of guys to the NFL, had our QB-in-waiting transfer and then had a lot of guys underperform/be poorly utilized on defense. Plus griping about RR's practices/approach from upperclassmen and all the well documented issues between RR/position coaches and Scott Schafer (apologies if I misspelled his name).
|11 weeks 2 hours ago||English football||
...is structurally terrible. They have poor-quality youth programs and an insular culture of entitlement and vilification that destroys any progress they do, from time-to-time, make.
I was just saying that the long-derided English tactics (emphasis on running, long crosses, etc.) are quite prevalent now, mostly thanks to the influence of Jose Mourinho. England just happen to be bad at their own preferred style of play.
|11 weeks 2 days ago||As much as I enjoyed reading this...||
...given my dislike of the English National Team (sense of entitlement + no rational reason to feel entitled), I don't think it's quite an accurate assessment. The style of play you see the English use is actually quite widespread in European and South American football, and much more common that the possession game employed by Barcelona and Spain.
The difference between England and, say, the Netherlands, isn't so much of tactics, but of effectiveness. England is just bad and Holland is just, well, better.
|12 weeks 5 days ago||Winning the group is now on the table||
I don't think anyone ratioanlly thought this possible, but it is now.
First off, if we beat Portugal we are through. If we draw with Portugal, we'd need a draw with Germany to go through (or for Portugal to beat Ghana and then us to go through on GD, etc.).
But if we beat Portugal and tie or beat Germany, we win the group. That would set us up in the Round of 16, most likely, against mediocre South Korean or Russian teams--rather than very talented and dangerous Belgium. This is obviously the draw we want.
Obviously a lot has to happen for that to come to pass, and I imagine both Portugal and Germany will play with a lot of desperation at this point. But it's no longer a pipe dream.