brewskis said:
UMGriz75 said:
brewskis said:
BillingsMafia said:
The biggest weakness is the coaching. Stitt's first game was by far his best, the decline has been steady and deep. I want a pro Stitt person to post a single example where Stitt's coaching has improved anything on this team.
The coaching staff and recruiting.
And the Griz-Cat game certainly showed that, right?
Fishing is good these days! Right on cue
I enjoyed reading your posts last spring about how this was going to be a terrific season this past Fall, and all of your strongly worded and (in)credible arguments why. In particular, in comparing those comments with what actually happened.
I admire the fact that you are able to pretend nothing happened, that you were wrong all across the board, and that you demonstrated that you don't know anything about any of this, judging by your documented track record. It's good thing you didn't follow Ferguson's lead and place bets in all directions on a "paycheck to paycheck" basis. You'd be in Chapter 7 by now based on your demonstrated incompetence. Ferguson avoided that fate because no one took his challenges seriously. Good thing for him.
I love the idea of optimism; it's a little bit of what sports are all about, "when the breaks are beating the boys," but taking a "cue" from the guys that have been so wrong doesn't suggest any hope just because they say so. It's almost become like a jinx. If you say it, its likely wrong.
What "BillingsMafia" described above was something I noted during the 2015-2016 season. Statistically, through a rotation of quarterbacks, the "trend" of team and QB performance for successive games was negative. This was true through four rotations of three quarterbacks. I'd never seen that before in collegiate sports. On the other hand, never had the example of three quarterbacks in four rotations either, but it seemed remarkable. And it predicted that team performance would decline regardless of QB.
The observation was met with derision, that "football is about Xs and Os, not statistics."
Well, the stats won. The "Xs" and "Os" didn't show up.
"BillingsMafia" posed a question you avoided with a generic answer that didn't answer anything.
You predicted great things this past season. Every single reason you offered for those predictions was wrong. But, his question is a good one. Why not do some self-reflection on why you were so wrong, and attempt to offer him an answer as to 1) why you were so wrong, and 2) based on your experience of error, what analysis would you offer that accounts for your errors and yet explains the improvements you believe occurred during that time? What "improved?"
As I have noted, you can't fix what you don't measure. If you can't identify the problems of the past year, and honestly find the source of those problems, then how can you suggest that any change will fix them?