Petway nails threes to death metal. Seriously.
- Member for
- 2 years 27 weeks
|1 week 6 days ago||Lose-lose for the coaches?||
The defense slipped a bit last year; if they make changes, it'll get worried about as "reactionary", if they don't make changes, it'll be "why aren't they changing anything?"
I'm inclined to wait to see it in action before making judgments.
|6 weeks 1 day ago||Was at a party with some friends||
Saw the score when we were down 6 with 13 to go.
I'm in a mild state of shock at the moment.
|26 weeks 6 days ago||I'm going to save that first image somewhere.||
Even though I've been watching football religiously for about 5 years (it was a habit I picked up in college), as a non-football player I've only had vague ideas of most positions. That's the first image that's managed to make the defensive lineup absolutely clear. So props for that.
|28 weeks 3 days ago||Eh, a survey?||
27, male, Mount Rainier (PG Country, MD - or just "DC" for short), graduated Hillsdale College (MI) '08, right-handed (but I'm nearly ambidextrous for ping-pong and fencing), and Thoth.
|37 weeks 4 days ago||Borges = Martz?||
This is more and more the conclusion I've been coming to reading through the series. Mike Martz had "The Greatest Show on Turf" until ...he lost a perrenial Pro Bowl RT (to the Browns, of all teams). This is the biggest difference when the thing suddenly fell apart. The Rams were never the same, apart from one season which is in retrospect an outlier. The Lions o-line has been bad for years, San Fran was a debacle, and the Bears o-line is... well, look at Cutler's sack numbers.
Borges with Molk in 2011 - apart from game-planning problems - was solid. Take away an all-American center from that line, and his offense struggles a bit.
|39 weeks 1 day ago||Based on this write-up||
My impression is that Notre Dame this year is basically a better MSU with different defensive concepts. Which admittedly worries me, given the trouble the Spartans have given Michigan lately.
|1 year 18 weeks ago||Judgment call||
Suppose they yanked Bellomy. Unless we pulled out a win somehow, then you have, "Why would you pull Bellomy, just showing you have no confidence in him, when there wasn't that much you could expect?"
If the kid has his head screwed on straight, a bad performance in an emergeny situation when he's barely played isn't going to do long-term damage; if it's seriously going to impact his confidence, then he's not the guy we were looking for and we're back to questioning recruiting.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||I don't follow LSU dropping that far, looks like over-reaction||
Specifically, they're still way better than Georgia, Oregon State, or Florida State, and I'm not sure about Clemson.
|1 year 26 weeks ago||Thing I would pay good money to see...||
I know that the service academies play "small" guys because they literally can't have guys be bigger and still scrape through the military requirements (especially endurance stuff), but I've always had a fondness for the resulting normal-sized-people-playing-football. Army-Navy is consistently one of the most watchable games of the year not involving powerhouses. (Uh, also my dad was in the Navy. That might have something to do with this opinion, especially recently.)
I also have a suspicion that the gradual size creep is probably causing corresponding gradual a) direct injury creep and b) residual health problem creep, especially for linemen.
I know the Shaun Rogers and Ndamukong Suhs of the world are way more "in shape" than I am, but carrying that kind of weight has to be unhealthy. Nothing would make me happier than to see football leagues - NCAA and pro both - instituting some kind of "healthy body" standards.
The only drawback I can see would be the loss of the Fat Guy Touchdown, and while that's a major drawback, everything has its price.
|1 year 27 weeks ago||My meager contribution||
|1 year 27 weeks ago||"Keep checking mgoblog..."||
Alabama: USC has to play Oregon, Stanford, a messy PAC-12; I don't like it. They might be better than 'Bama but SEC or not I think 'Bama has fewer chances to trip and a safer strategy (and a better defense).
Michigan: Georgia might be better. So I'm a homer. Sue me.
WVU: Better than Clemson or Texas. MSU and Wiscy have to deal with the B1G mess - I think they're both guaranteed a loss and may each lose another; I don't know who what to make of West Virginia.
Ohio: but probably VT. I will be happy if I'm badly wrong here.
Boise State: Stanford has the same problems as USC above. How is Louisville in a group?
Arizona: Random guess. (Also known as, "Didn't want to read through the whole list to find something sensible".)
|1 year 29 weeks ago||Opinion is split, clearly||
I think this needs to happen every year.
I wonder if there's any correlation between "like this feature" and "plays fantasy football"? Probably not, though it would make sense.
|1 year 29 weeks ago||Quibbling like a sophomore||
That .gif is incredibly informative... once I downloaded it and took it apart piece by piece in GIMP. Up at the top of the page it flashes by too quickly - which I guess just shows I can't play quarterback. I like the format, but maybe next time slow down the frame-rate?
One question - I'm guessing this is me not knowing enough - but frame 10 is labeled "Offense: 122" when it seems like it should be 212 (I-form with HB and FB, Y on right end, 2 wide).
Anyway, cool post.
|1 year 30 weeks ago||Actually Heiko's not Millen|
|1 year 30 weeks ago||What will be telling...||
How will Rich Rod do at Arizona? We botched his hiring & tenure and there's nothing to do but admit it now, but it looks like he has what he wants and the school behind him down in the desert... and basically no expectations, relatively speaking. He's going to the equivalent of State, at best, not a "power" program - they will be (or "should" be, historically) happy with a consistent 8 or 9 wins and fairly regular bowl wins.
Whether or not that's his upside - his WVU days make me guess it's not but the PAC12 is a better conference than the Big East (this is where WVU was then, yes?) - I think even if things had worked here we'd be at "only" 9 wins far too often for us to accept in the long run. On the other hand, I have a sneaking suspicion that RR's offense is/was conceptually better than what we have now, though he didn't really get a chance to prove it. I'm not knocking Borges by any means, but that's what I think.
|1 year 30 weeks ago||Maybe it's the lack of drop-back passers?||
I mean, other than at Iowa, where James Vandenberg at quarterback gives them the most Iowa-named quarterback ever, which QBs in the conference are actually going to be dropping back and throwing the rock?
McGloin at PSU, probably, given the new coach's pedigree. Maxwell at MSU I would assume, though I haven't paid attention. Maybe whoever hands off to Ball at Wisconsin.
As for Miller... well, even if the OSU game last year is his upside, that's not a bad upside all things considered.
|1 year 31 weeks ago||On the bright side||
That touchdowns reel is the best thing I've seen today.
|1 year 32 weeks ago||In fact||
I honestly quite like these (minus the gloves, which are beyond dumb): I still disapprove on the basis that a uniform should be, y'know, uniform and the one we've got already is classy.
|1 year 33 weeks ago||Fumbles and Bad Defense?||
Fumble Hypothesis: fumble recovery has some correlation to bad defense; is not significantly tied to good defense.
I'd liken it to taking penalties in soccer: if you're decent by the standards of whatever level you play at, nobody but the Beckhams of the world are going to be noticeably better than you statistically. On the other hand, if you're not good in the first place, you're probably not very good at penalty-taking either... but at the same time there's an element of luck so you're not going to be hugely worse even at that.
To bring the analogy around, I would expect, then, that "bad defenses" have on average worse fumble recovery rates than "good defenses", even when we sort out good vs. bad defense with some metric that ignores FRR completely. In other words, there's no telling when the football gods will screw your great defense and you only pick up 35% of fumbles... but if you have a bad defense, there's probably a ceiling there somewhere. 55%? 60%?
Unfortunately, I'm lazy and will let someone else do any investigating that they might want to.
|1 year 47 weeks ago||As a soccer player...||
...and until my teens only the most casual of football fans, I want to say that this was exceedingly useful to at least one person (me) on this board. I'd picked up most of it over the years, but having it all neatly laid out it great. Thanks!
|1 year 48 weeks ago||Wait, hockey?||
The most (only?) confusing thing about this idea is that I think I'm seeing the NHL being held up as a model for managing something sports-related.
|1 year 49 weeks ago||You're going to need a bigger bike||
We're going to need a "tandem bike" tag pretty soon.
|1 year 50 weeks ago||So, um $20K in under eight||
So, um $20K in under eight hours.
I be like dang.
(Though I admit I haven't contributed myself yet.)
|1 year 50 weeks ago||I'm still working on getting||
I'm still working on getting past the, "Hey, we have the same HC, OC, and DC two years in a row!" thing.
I guess there just didn't seem to be much info in the presser.
|2 years 1 week ago||One Idea||
(And I'm nowhere near voting-eligible, so I get to claim disinterest)
I don't like a "hard cap" on admittees, but a (reasonable) cap on nominations, combined with a high voting bar, seems like a good option. For instance: max the nominations people can vote on at, say, 10 or 12, and then require 90%/95% favorable votes from your selection committee (readers with 100+ or 200+ or whatever points). Maybe lower the bar for "older" candidates, maybe not.
Waiting period: don't really care. Maybe 3 years?
|2 years 7 weeks ago||You would think so but...||
The only guy I knew in college not on an actual sports team to tear an ACL tore it playing ultimate. True, it was only because the quad had moles and he stepped in a hole, but that's not the point.
|2 years 8 weeks ago||Baseball||
I think the closest baseball equivalent would be watching your team load the bases repeatedly and still manage to lose one of those 3-2 games.
Or maybe I just watched too much of the Phillies with my grandfather for years before they were good.
(Granted, the crowd atmosphere at a baseball game is wildly different than the other major sports so the comparison doesn't really work anyway, but in terms of individual reactions, yeah.)
|2 years 8 weeks ago||Much as I think the BCS is a joke...||
Ignoring conferences etc. there was a consensus #1 team in the country – LSU – before the game on Monday. The eventual #2 lost one game, to the then-consensus #1, on the strength (weakness?) of missed FGs. Yeah, they <i>lost</i>... And Alabama won the rematch. Obviously, there are other teams with claims to make that they got screwed – mainly OK State (that never got a shot). Stanford and Boise State also have cases to make. In terms of what actually happened, though, the only team that played LSU close all season came back and dominated. I don't have any complaints about handing 'Bama the title (other than the fact that it's Alabama and Saban); if LSU had won there would be even less room for argument. In fact the only disaster case – Alabama winning a close one – didn't happen.
All that said, the BCS process is a sham and makes no sense, what between imbalanced schedules, potentially corrupt voting procedures, broken computer algorithms, and so forth. To say nothing of the Ponzi scheme the bowls are these days. I'm not trying to defend the BCS as such, I just think that this year's <i>result</i> is actually kind of defensible.
|2 years 9 weeks ago||Reality vs Rules||
In a sane universe, I think that has to be ruled a catch – the criteria seem to me like they ought to be, "Does he have it?", "Does anybody else have it?", and "Is he going to lose it?". Coale clearly had the ball, no one else was near him, and no way on earth he loses it. By comparison, the Megatron no-catch from 2010 (which I'm still bitter about) is less clearly a catch because Calvin did actually let go of the ball. He almost certainly thought the "process of the catch" (or whatever the verbiage is) was completed, but by not holding on (which I affirm 110% he could have) he created that doubt.
But of course, we don't live in a world where sports rules are framed like that (though soccer rules come close until you start getting into FIFA's reams of interpretations, directives, and points of emphasis), and instead of the fairly simple three-point exercise outlined above we have the rule as written, and by the rule as written (and the normal "did it move when it hit the ground?" test), it's not a catch. So, yeah, VT got robbed a little bit, but by the rulebook, not the referees.
Put it this way. If it had stood (and been the deciding factor), I would grouse about it (since it's not a catch by rule, but not very strongly (because it is one by common sense).
|2 years 9 weeks ago||One question||
I mostly feel confident about tomorrow's game, and (of course) that worries me more than anything factual about VT itself.