- Member for
- 5 years 33 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|1 year 22 weeks ago||Great post||
Dead on about Harbaugh
|1 year 29 weeks ago||Turnover margin is the differentiator||
You're identified a really powerful correlation; I'd say that turnover margin is the differentiator year over year.
|1 year 29 weeks ago||Graham's playing Linebacker||
Not a lot of pass rush but he's playing almost every down. What I noticed specificially was that the Giants didn't run at him a single time.
|1 year 30 weeks ago||This is awful. Just awful||
Defensive, underlying snarkiness, implications of attacks and hurt feelings. Just looks weak and wounded, yet arrogant and entitled at the same time.
Self-pity is just the worst strategy for messaging negative sentiment. I wonder if he got coached on this at all.
|1 year 30 weeks ago||This could be a whole new thread||
A much more fun thread :)
|1 year 30 weeks ago||There are girls you date, and girls you marry||
Let that sink in for a second, folks
|1 year 30 weeks ago||Oregon's going to get the last shot||
|1 year 30 weeks ago||Beat 'em last year||
With a QB who had never been recruited to play college football at any level, and who broke all of Arizona's QB rushing records that year.
|1 year 31 weeks ago||indianas defense is||
|1 year 31 weeks ago||Hackenburg Just||
Sent a NW guy to the hospital who was trying for a low tackle. He should be ejected for targeting but he won't be because you know.
Dude is competitive but he's clearly an a-hole
|1 year 31 weeks ago||Hoo boy||
I was certain that Michigan was going to vaporize Minnesota and really only get pasted by MSU and Ohio State. Now I'm not so sure. It didn't look that bad live; I thought it was just Michigan struggling against a very well coached, disruptive defensive that is not something Nussmeier saw much in the SEC or these players saw much in the Big Ten.
Now I dunno.
|2 years 18 weeks 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.
|2 years 18 weeks 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.
|2 years 22 weeks 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?
|2 years 23 weeks 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
|2 years 24 weeks 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.
|2 years 24 weeks ago||HOBO APPRECIATION THREAD||
HOBO APPRECIATION THREAD
|2 years 24 weeks 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.
|2 years 24 weeks 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.
|2 years 24 weeks ago||Best diary I've ever||
Best diary I've ever read.
And there have been some very, very good ones. Bravo
|2 years 25 weeks ago||This is not your best work,||
This is not your best work, man.
|2 years 25 weeks 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.
|2 years 25 weeks 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.
|2 years 25 weeks ago||…Linguist?||
|2 years 26 weeks 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
|2 years 26 weeks 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
|3 years 26 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"
|3 years 31 weeks ago||resist...telling...over/under...joke||
|3 years 31 weeks ago||Wow, that was some vanilla offense||
I don't think they did play action ONCE.
|3 years 32 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.