- Member for
- 6 years 23 weeks
|4 years 23 weeks ago||Also, with Avery rolled up as||
Also, with Avery rolled up as the overhang defender, he was responsible for any play that comes outside the TE. Having both Kovacs and Avery take this responsibility is a redundancy that gives numbers to Wisconsin (besides, if Kovacs attacks from the weakside of the play, there's little to no chance that the RB makes it outside the TE). And the reason Avery can't just attack the weakside B-gap is because he has coverage on the TE should he release, relieving Kovacs of both of his responsibilities in the original cover-3 design.
Defensive formations shift judging by the way offenses line up. Kovacs missed one of these checks in the original play, but this is a cover-3 formation.
|4 years 23 weeks ago||But the play didn't go to the||
But the play didn't go to the A-gap. The cutback sent the play to the weakside B-gap. Weakside defenders can't just stand around and hope the play comes at them. Also, there wasn't a TE assigned to block Kovacs: the TE and LT doubled Van Bergen. Kovacs (until it was too late) was completely unblocked.
|4 years 23 weeks ago||It's cover-3 but when||
It's cover-3 but when Wisconsin uses twins to the strongside, Avery rolls up and covers Kovacs' zone. Kovacs needs to attack the backside of the play and Avery (essentially) has man coverage on the TE should he release upfield. Vinopal and Rogers also drop into, essentially, man coverage should both receivers run vertical routes. Underneath zones are handled by the linebackers and Gordon.
|4 years 23 weeks ago||With the lack of a receiving||
With the lack of a receiving threat on the weakside and Avery rolled toward the LOS as the overhand defender, Kovacs not attacking the play becomes problematic (hence, the result of the play). He needs to attack the backfield because Avery has coverage should the TE release. Kovacs removing himself from the play creates an even bigger numbers advantage for Wisconsin and opens the backside entirely.
|4 years 23 weeks ago||I think this is wrong||
You're missing a lot of stuff on this play. You keep ignoring the fact that there's actually a tight end lined up on the weakside of the offensive line. In the original play, the weakside defensive end (Van Bergen) is actually doubled by the LT and TE, and gets sealed to the outside. That's one of the reasons that he got taken so far out of position and there was a huge cutback lane. Also in the orginal play, the double team on Martin comes from the LG and C, and when that double releases, it's the LG that ends up blocking Mouton and opening the hole for the Wisconsin back.
In this play, however, the weakside DE (Banks) in only blocked by the TE, allowing him to get playside and close off the cutback lane. The LT releases immediately and blocks Mouton (like the LG did in the original play). Once again, the LG and C double Michigan's NT, but this time, the LG doesn't release from the NT.
On the playside, this is identical to how the original play happened: the RG is given a free release and is stuffed by Demens and the FB is hit by Ezeh in the hole. Why Wisconsin decided not to double the weakside DE and open that cutback lane when it worked so well the first time (and, strangely, deciding to double Patterson for the whole play rather than Martin when he was playing) is beyond me.
On BWS, I addressed what I think went wrong with the original play--mostly, that Kovacs was responsible for the cutback lane when Van Bergen was doubled--and had planned on posting this one tomorrow. But the point is, the only difference in these two plays is the blocking scheme on the backside of the play which allowed Banks to close off the cutback lane.
|4 years 39 weeks ago||Tax free might also mean||
Tax free might also mean Miami.
|4 years 41 weeks ago||Yeah, there have been a ton||
Yeah, there have been a ton of injuries in my games, but never the QBs (Koger, Moundros, Odoms, all come to mind as injury prone). There's almost certainly a slider where you can turn down injuries--I haven't looked--but if not, it could end up being a problem.
|4 years 42 weeks ago||I was going to make some joke||
I was going to make some joke about how 500 drinks in 12 months seems light, but the math works out. Carry on.
|4 years 42 weeks ago||Yeah, Operation Sports was a||
Yeah, Operation Sports was a mess yesterday. Just found Fairdale Kings a few minutes ago. Thanks all.
|4 years 45 weeks ago||Putting the two-headed UM QB||
Putting the two-headed UM QB on that list makes no sense and completely defeats the exercise. Tate and Denard should be no where near that list. Neither should any of the skill position players on the offense for that matter, save maybe Odoms, but even he's a stretch.
Molk will probably show up on there and I wouldn't be surprised to see him in the 4-6 range given the obvious impact he has on Michigan offense.
I think Roh is probably too young and unproven to get on the list at this point, especially with his move to linebacker. But we also might see Woolfolk pop up in the top 10.
|4 years 47 weeks ago||Good points. But like I||
Good points. But like I mentioned somewhere above, these teams know realistically the players they're going to get. If Manny is #10 on someone's draft board, he's not going to that team.
Again, take my pessimism with a grain of salt. I'm a noted Manny hater; I don't like his game or his upside, with empirical evidence to back my sentiments. Maybe he's someone's #1 pick and goes in the first round. I'd be willing to wager a pretty significant sum of money that he's no where near the draft.
|4 years 47 weeks ago||Every team in the NBA pretty||
This is almost certainly false. Teams likely don't build their lists of prospects off of the entire pool of players. That's a fools game and a waste of time because the Lakers and Cavaliers and Celtics know damned well they're not drafting John Wall. There's absolutely no reason to include him on your list.
These top 10 lists would cease to have any meaning at all--and given that they have pretty little meaning right now as is, that's saying something--if teams all included the top 10 prospects in the draft.
|4 years 47 weeks ago||We can say with near||
We can say with near certainty that Manny is not a lottery pick, leaving 45 players left to get drafted. If we assume that even 33% of the teams in the league have him somewhere in their top 10--a specious statement, to say the least, given that a) being in the top 10 could mean, ya know, 10th and b) the three teams Ford breaks down is by no means an adequate sample size to apply to the whole league, but we're being optimistic for Manny's sake--it's a toss up.
Let's say, hypothetically, that Manny is #5 on 1/3 of the team's top 10s (put him dead in the middle of their lists for an overly optimistic percentage of the league). That's 40 "players". Take into consideration the fact that there's probably a lot of overlap between the team's respective lists and let's estimate that there's 15 players that Manny is considered amonst as reasonable draft prospects. So those 15 players are all in consideration for the 1/3 of the final 45 spots left in the draft (i.e., 15 spots).
So now you'll look at that and think, 15 players, 15 spots, he's likely to get drafted. But realistically, he could either be on far more or far less people's top 10 lists. And given what we know of Manny and his draft potential (the "eye test" mentioned above; an average sized, moderately athletic shooting guard without an outside shot), logic leads us to say that's probably tending toward the latter.
I've been a pretty outward Manny critic for a long time, so take it with a grain of salt, but even these optimistically hazy numbers paint a pretty grim picture for Manny's draft potential.
|4 years 47 weeks ago||Even if 33% of the league has||
Even if 33% of the league has Manny somewhere in their top 10, he's a holy lock to go undrafted. There are only two rounds in the NBA draft (60 players). So unless Manny features in the top 1-4 for a non-lottery team--you have to assume that this evaluation is not including the likes of John Wall, Evan Turner, and the other high-draft locks in the top 10--he's not getting anywhere near the draft board.
|5 years 5 days ago||U.N.K.L.E. - Rabbit in your||
U.N.K.L.E. - Rabbit in your headlights
|5 years 6 weeks ago||Yikes.||
|5 years 6 weeks ago||I thought God was playing a||
I thought God was playing a trick on just me.
|5 years 8 weeks ago||The correct answer is Babies||
The correct answer is Babies with Laser Eyes
|5 years 14 weeks ago||Michigan State 76, Michigan|
|5 years 14 weeks ago||It's basically an open||
It's basically an open practice where fans can come and watch the team scrimmage (amongst other things) in the Big House.
|5 years 21 weeks ago||I'm not arguing against the||
I'm not arguing against the sentiment. But the article itself is half baked, and his arguments are too subtle to argue an institutional bias. Semantics can be explained away as a poor headline writer. Plus Chait's own admittance that different reporters can have different biases argues firmly against his cause.
Semantics are not evidence of an institutional bias but it is a symptom. Chait tries to take two different journalists covering different schools and with different biases/backgrounds--and more importantly, covering very divergent stories--and from that, attempts to construct institutional bias on the strength of poor headlines a story structure (something he prefaces with a his own admittance that different writers show their bias in different ways).
Shoddy reporting and poor editing, sure. Institutional bias implies something greater, and something that can't be constructed from the argument Chait makes here--not that I necessarily disagree with the conclusion. The article reeks of vengeance and is Chait looking for controversy in the details when it's standing broadly in front of him.
|5 years 21 weeks ago||"Then you have Shannon||
"Then you have Shannon Shelton, an MSU alum who is the opposite of Rosenberg, defending her fellow Spartan athletes at all costs"
This goes to prove my point: Chait begins his column by addressing that there are individuals with biases, but then goes on to attempt to argue that the entire paper has a bias. If we're looking at the approach of two different reporters, reporting on two wildly different events that were both approved (presumably) by the same editor, this doesn't necessarily constitute an institutional bias.
But if you take similar events, look at how they were covered (and editorially approved), you can start to make connections and accusations.
|5 years 21 weeks ago||I suppose you can include||
I suppose you can include those aspects, but the Feagin situation produced "win at all costs..." and Wiston's reinstatement got some column about retribution and second chances.
Problem is that, though the NCAA piece was poorly done, it was a different aim than this current MSU incident. One was an investigative report while the other is breaking news. The Freep didn't go back to Feagin's high school coaches or dig into his background. That's enough of a bias right there, especially seeing how they treating Winston on his return.
It's a moot point, and we all agree the Freep has serious issues in its coverage. But this Chait piece poorly proves it.
|5 years 21 weeks ago||This article is pissy and||
This article is pissy and poorly written. Not only is the argument behind the article inherently flawed--that the coverage of a potential major scandal requiring NCAA sanctions should be covered the same as the incident at MSU--but his approach to it is poor and based largely in the semantics of headline writing.
I don't disagree with the sentiment, but this is not the way to go about it. Similarities should be drawn between the Freep's response to the handling of the Feagin situation and the various Winston ones, as they are more similar situations and ones that drew drastically varying coverage. That would unveil a bias. This just sounds like petty bickering.
|5 years 29 weeks ago||Yes. I know that. But what||
Yes. I know that. But what does that mean? Was my answer too smart to have come from me? It's a nonsensical reference. But judging by his output in the rest of this thread, that should be expected.
|5 years 29 weeks ago||Says the guy asking seriously||
Says the guy asking seriously what it means to get players into space.
Your trolling interests me not.
|5 years 29 weeks ago||I have honestly no idea what||
I have honestly no idea what this means. None.
|5 years 29 weeks ago||Getting players into space||
Getting players into space does not mean "We want them open". It means getting players away from the congestion of the O- and D-lines and allowing them to make plays against one or two defenders, instead of trying to run through or behind the O-line (like Wisconsin. Or Carr.)
|5 years 30 weeks ago||We weren't out coached, but I||
We weren't out coached, but I can hardly see a way to view this game except as a failure in coaching, which is to say that I don't think Dantonio did anything particularly well in his scheme. But for most of the game, MSU was loading the box and rushing 6 or 7. They were able to do that because we spent a lot of time in a two-wide set. Every time we went three- and four-wide, we were successful, both in the run and in the pass. It was a disappointing game from RichRod.
|5 years 31 weeks ago||I like how you shoot down a||
I like how you shoot down a report that has, more or less, an insider report from someone who apparently talked with Tate about the injury and then give your own completely random prognosis based on... how you feel.