Perfect Foil for Brian/Roundtable Participant?

Submitted by Caesar on January 5th, 2018 at 12:23 PM

This thread was inspired by some comments in another thread. Who would do you think--whether plausible to add to the show or not--would make a good roundtable contributor?

My personal view is someone with a deep schematic knowledge. I don't know enough about football to know if he knows what he's talking about, but to my mind it's a person in the vein of Space Coyote. 

In general, I think Brian's strength is not only understanding scheme but having a strong analytical framework to put that scheme in a bigger context and derive meaning from it. Obviously, his focus on Michigan football over the years also allows for Brian to find trends in the program--from player development and coaching to playcalling. Anyway, I think this blend of scheme and analytics is what separates him from people who only do one or the other, though they may be more advanced at one or the other skill than he is.

Comments

Caesar

January 5th, 2018 at 12:33 PM ^

Craig brings some excellent knowledge of history coupled with enough football knowledge to make it meaningful. Also, I enjoy his old man shtick. But I don't think he's as 'in the weeds' as Brian, and he often just defers to Brian's analysis of the film. While this is the honest approach, and while I really enjoy Craig's contributions, more specialization and fire would be my preference.

DonBrownSoda

January 5th, 2018 at 1:05 PM ^

No offense to Ace - and it's likely because Brian is his boss - but if it's like the podcasts, it would not be a good choice. I'm speaking mainly about his immediate concession of any argument to Brian. This is something I notice and cringe at everytime it happens on the podcast. If Ace says something Brian doesn't agree with, rather than having a lively debate, Ace concedes - with the exception of certain basketball opinions. 

Don

January 5th, 2018 at 12:53 PM ^

Steve Clarke. To my knowledge he's only on WTKA once a week so probably nobody knows about him other than regular listeners, but he's one of the best analysts I hear at any level. He can use stats to support his arguments, but he doesn't get lost in the number weeds like the stat geeks of the world do, and he's incisive and perceptive without hawt takes.

Ecky Pting

January 5th, 2018 at 3:45 PM ^

I agree. Steve Clarke does a fine analysis in his own right and would make an excellent addition to the Roundtable.
 

Also, in defense of Craig Ross, he does look at some advanced stats in his assessments, most notably his favorite being Adjusted Net Yards per Attempt.

rugbypike11

January 5th, 2018 at 1:30 PM ^

Ed can be interesting when he's talking about analytics, which is his area of expertise.  I don't think he knows as much about Michigan football as most of the diehard fans, so he doesn't bring any particularly interesting perspective to the Michigan roundtable.  I'd much rather hear a former player like Chris Howard, who brings the former player's perspective without the douchy I'm-a-former-player-and-know-Charles-Woodson-so-I'm-always-right comments. Howard,  Joppru, Mignery, or any other number of non-Marcus Ray former players would fit the bill nicely, IMO.

Ed should have a different segment to talk about analytics and promote his stuff.  His constant mid-sentence interruptions don't really fit the roundtable, IMO.

schone32

January 5th, 2018 at 1:20 PM ^

He has a vast knowledge of Michigan football,& college football in general.  He's quick witted& funny. I think he would make a good radio play by play guy for Michigan football too.

chad

January 5th, 2018 at 2:03 PM ^

Dream team roundtable...

Brian Cook
Nick Baumgardner
Sam Webb
Doug Skene

Great combo of insight, analytics and outside of Webb 100% honesty and no pulli g punches.

chad

January 5th, 2018 at 2:03 PM ^

Dream team roundtable...

Brian Cook
Nick Baumgardner
Sam Webb
Doug Skene

Great combo of insight, analytics and outside of Webb 100% honesty and no pulli g punches.