- Member for
- 3 years 42 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|27 weeks 1 day ago||Boy that team is incredibly||
Boy that team is incredibly young. Their best wide receiver is a true freshman; their best linebacker is a true freshman. Their o-line is sophomores and juniors.
|27 weeks 1 day ago||No||
Kelly chose the Eagles b/c of the organization, not the roster.
1) Kelly has stated repeatedly that he adjusts his offenses to match his players.
2) Additionally, a lot of the Eagles players had to make serious changes to weight point and conditioning to fit into the system.
3) Foles is a pocket passer first and foremost, and was chosen over the more mobile Vick.
None of these data points suggest that the Eagles were a "spread-ready" team. Kelly is a good coach.
|32 weeks 10 hours ago||You can almost smell the panic in this letter||
What a clown. Never throw your own people under the bus, even those you had to let go. It just makes everyone else ready for the axe to fall on them.
Secondly, bluster is a sign of weakness. Demonstrate results and exhibit confidence.
Who exactly is supposed to be the audience of this sweat flop?
|33 weeks 18 hours ago||My sense of this game||
follows with what Brian is saying; if NW had caught even half of these balls the final score could have been 27-3.
More evidence that God does not want Northwestern University playing college football
|33 weeks 5 days ago||The Michigan Jimmies and Joes||
The Michigan Jimmies and Joes in this final recruiting class will have far, far more star power than Arizona. Michigan will have a top fifteen class at worst.
Arizona's talent profile is more like Michigan State. In theory if you were just looking at talent profiles in the Big Ten the only team that should even have an outside chance to beat Michigan is Ohio State. This will remain true when Rutgers and Maryland slouch in next yer.
I didn't say all that to be mean.
|33 weeks 5 days ago||HOBO APPRECIATION THREAD||
HOBO APPRECIATION THREAD
|34 weeks 16 hours ago||Your latin trumps my latin||
I will go off and ponder this. My latin is nonexistent so I can't use the terms you are using but you'll probably be familiar with the colloquial terms so I won't worry about it overmuch.
I would argue that it remains false cause and not fallacy of accident because Brian correlates the problems (run game sucks) and then argues causality (scheme), whereas all that is being proven is that the run game sucks multiple times. fallacy of accident would be "well, they were just really unlucky all those times" which I am certainly not saying. Something is definitely wrong with this offense.
I would argue that SC avoids false cause because he demonstrates the soundness of an initial offensive premise through example and explanation, and then shows how it doesn't work. He may be making other errors - no true scotsman is the most likely one. But in the scope of this flow of our "debate" nobody has said to SC "that's not a real offensive set" or "that offensive set is a unicorn beast that nobody uses because it's ridiculous", so I didn't consider it. Maybe they are unicorn formations, I don't know.
We are agreed on wrongness in the offense; to me this is just a discussion of how the alchemy of coaching, scheme, teaching, and personnel may be affecting it.
|34 weeks 17 hours ago||this discussion is so fun I did a debate flow of it||
Let's look at it from a logic flow/debate flow perspective
Here is the core thing they are arguing about:
Is the Michigan Offense a coherent system that can create yards? Pro/Con
1) SC is PRO. He is saying that in his opinion as a football coach, these schemes are sound, represent a coherent game plan, and that they are reasonable plays to execute, and that the coaches are failing to teach the kids how to execute them.
The PRO position relies on arguments organized around a history of how these schemes work in the larger scope of a game plan, a history of defenses against these schemes, and an argument that proper execution of assignments would have worked in this model, particularly with a fullback.
In summary, proper execution of this scheme, given its history in the world of schemes of this kind against defenses of this kind, have worked in the past.
2) Brian is CON. He is saying that the schemes were doomed from the outset and it is unrealistic to expect them to get pulled off.
The CON position relies mostly on examples of places where Michigan's offense has failed using similar schemes with different tweaks to what the backs were doing.
In summary, the scheme as a whole is flawed, which is why the players repeatedly fail to exeucte.
So far so good. Nice initial points made by each.
Note that in both cases the coaches are letting their players down, just in different ways.
But Brian is making three fallacies here in his arguments which undermine his position:
1) He is using an appeal to authority, basically saying "look high school coach--IF THAT'S WHAT YOU REALLY ARE--you don't know what you're talking about this is big boy Div I college ball and things are different here."
2) He is making a straw man argument, saying that SC is ignoring his initial position about scheme.
The first is just unfair; look, none of us are experts here but at least SC is putting his cards on the table about why he thinks what he thinks. For that to have less validity than Brian's study of film in UFR is a draw and we should let it go.
The second seems to be a misinterpretation of SC. SC spends almost three pages in his diary explaining why he thinks this play is the right one in this context.
3) Which leads Brian to his most egregious fallacy in this post, which is a false cause example. Brian basically says, "well, here are three more plays that suck, therefore it's the OC's fault. QED."
This argument does not prove that the OC has bad schemes. This proves that the play didn't work. This does not in point of fact address SC's arguments.
Brian may well be right. SC may well be right. But from a debate charting perspective, SC is pantsing Brian.
There are interesting things to say about scheme here. Brian may well be right. But he seems to be at a loss at how to respond to SC's core argument, which is that it's the right scheme in a larger body of work and traditions of effective work of this kind in the past.
|34 weeks 23 hours ago||Best diary I've ever||
Best diary I've ever read.
And there have been some very, very good ones. Bravo
|34 weeks 6 days ago||This is not your best work,||
This is not your best work, man.
|34 weeks 6 days ago||Michigan was a top-25 team a||
Michigan was a top-25 team a week ago.
It's not an unfair comparison and it is the right ballpark.
There are a lot of ways to argue with this data, mostly by disputing the core premise of the line as an averaged unit, but saying that what has been done here is "cherrypicked" is not on target.
|34 weeks 6 days ago||There are losses, and there||
There are losses, and there are losses.
Better to use FEI, rather than losses. From an FEI perspective another way to put it is that with the exception of UCLA, all the less experienced teams have far superior offensive FEI ratings, and even UCLA and Michigan's OFEI is almost equivalent.
|35 weeks 18 hours ago||…Linguist?||
|35 weeks 2 days ago||Just to be clear 1) I'm||
Just to be clear
1) I'm talking about the use of that INCREDIBLE coaching in the context of a pro-style offense. It's not the incredible coaching, it's the pro style system that seems like a lot of effort relative to other strategies
2) Stanford has a brutal final schedule, and they have been a little shaky all season. The only dominant wins are UCLA and Arizona State. USC, Notre Dame, and Oregon should clarify whether they are conservative or "sqeaky".
That's why they play the game I guess
|35 weeks 2 days ago||You can see the ceiling from here||
The team is going to be much better next year. But look, Stanford is some kind of freakish fluke and it's unclear whether it can be sustained. The wheels are already looking a little squeaky.
Michigan will hit a higher level but continue to lose to top-tier teams because of their ideology about how football is played. Since the road to the Rose Bowl will run through Ohio State, Wisconsin, and occasionally MSU every year, that means that Michigan will get there one year in six. Maybe. And then when they hit the real killers, the Oregons and the Alabamas, and even the Oregon States of the world...hoo boy.
That's the ceiling. We'll always have the gophers, I guess
|1 year 36 weeks ago||Forbes' article is really misleading||
A few things
1) I saw the game. Arizona took a time out after the hit and the coaches and medical staff talked to Scott both after the hit and during the time out, so they did do an initial check
2) When RR was at Michigan I saw him sit starting quarterbacks in three different games when the outcome was definitely in doubt because of a potential concussion (Iowa 2009, Iowa 2010, and Illinois 2010). I got the sense from those games that that kind of injury was non-negotiable for him.
3) Scott said after the game that he'd been nauseous all day.
The arizona forum boards are lit up about this topic; a lot of doctors have been weighing in basically saying "puke <> concussion"
|1 year 40 weeks ago||resist...telling...over/under...joke||
|1 year 41 weeks ago||Wow, that was some vanilla offense||
I don't think they did play action ONCE.
|1 year 41 weeks ago||Two things to look at during UFR||
1) Brian, I think when you do the UFR you might find that Notre Dame ran a stunningly conservative and vanilla offense for most of the game, which may one of the reasons the defense looked so good. Not to say that they didn't play well, but when ND ran the same run play three times in a row in the early fourth quarter it made me go "hrm". You'll probably see major RPS edge from michigan.
2) WRT (1), I think it's funny that you mention lloydball b/c early in the 3rd quarter I started thinking "Brian Kelly is playing Lloydball here," and I suspected he was doing it on both sides of the ball, basically grinding up clock through the defensive sets and what he was doing on offense. I think that his very conservative playcalling reflected this attitude - use up clock, don't cough up the ball, win a close one.
|1 year 41 weeks ago||Agreed||
If there is any real progression in the last two years, it's that teams have to work harder to push him out of his comfort zone, but once they do, he gets bad very quickly. So, we'll see better performances against inferior opposition, but against elite teams there will be regression.
Notre Dame had a great scheme and talented athletes, that put pressure on Denard through blitzes and a wide variety of reads he had to make. It's small comfort that the next team with the personnel to pull those shenanigans will be Ohio. Maybe MSU, but probably not this year.
|1 year 41 weeks ago||I'm saying you can skip the RPS metric and still get good value||
out of the UFR. Actually, sounds like we're agreed. Sorry if I unfairly overextended your perspective on RPS to the rest of the analysis
|1 year 41 weeks ago||You can use UFR a lot of different ways||
I've accused Brian of bias in the past, but at least with UFR you have something tangible to look at to examine or dismiss that bias.
Look, let me give it to you this way: I assert that Notre Dame absolutely whipped our asses in that football game, and not because of the turnovers. The score doesn't show it, and the yards don't show it. But if I'm right, the game plan, as expressed by scheme, and the matchups are easier to see when you do charting than when you just talk about the game. Brian does the charting. FOR FREE.
If you just skip to his scoring summary, you're basically taking Brian's word for it. But you can also go through it play by play and have the conversation with Brian as he describes what he sees. Sometimes you agree, sometimes you don't. But there's nothing of comparable quality, detail, or insight in college football.
|1 year 41 weeks ago||Not Borges' Fault||
He called a good game, but he was outmanned and Notre Dame's Defensive Coordinator pitched an almost perfect game. I think that UFR will show that Notre Dame took advantage of their talent edge and identified the key weaknesses of this offense. Someone referred to Notre Dame as "Alabama Light" and I totally saw that. Their linebackers are just unbelieveable.
|1 year 42 weeks ago||Vegas spotted OK State 22 pts over Arizona, too||
They're spotting Oregon 23 1/2. But hey that means if Oregon drops 70 on them then Arizona will score 47 points and the game will last SEVENTEEN HOURS
|1 year 42 weeks ago||Commence Bear Teasing||
ARIZONA MICHIGAN ROSE BOWL WOOOOOOO
|1 year 42 weeks ago||Gotta give Air Force credit||
They came in and executed almost flawlessly, aggressively, and without fear. This is a superbly well coached team. I wouldn't feel too bad about it being so close now that I've rewatched it.
I am a little worried about all the missed tackles in the secondary, tho.
|1 year 43 weeks ago||I hate to have to kibbitz on this but...||
Against OK state, Arizona had:
- no muffed kickoffs or punts
- no fumbles or interceptions
- They were 3 for 3 on field goals
- 27 total yards of penalties.
What poor fundamentals or ball handling are you referring to? WRT the defense, time will tell.
They looked sloppy against Toledo. They looked like a tough, disciplined team against OK State.
|1 year 43 weeks ago||Jeez pac 12 football is like the 2010 Illinois game||
Only EVERY WEEK
|1 year 43 weeks ago||No, see this is why he's so brilliant||
That was a TUNNEL SCREEN, which we never saw in 2009 or 2010.
|1 year 43 weeks ago||Just saw Arizona score a TD on a tunnel screen||
If Rodriguez can call a tunnel screen, surely Borges can call moar bubble screens!!