Bob Stitt new OC at UNC?

[Eriul]

.......

Holy... you’re not even reading. You’re saying I’m making an argument that I’m not making. Let me try to make this simple for you.

The team took a step back this year. It’s that simple. You tried to argue we didn’t but we definitely did. The team by the end of the 2018 season is a worse team than the team at the end of the 2017 season. Again, record against SoS, sagarin rankings, etc. If you want to debate that point you are fighting a biased battle.

My argument was that I think Hauck was just as responsible for the step back as any other force. You haven’t tried to argue that

But I don't think they took a step back as they did about what I thought they would. I was never sold that this was a 9 win playoff team. You can nitpick all you want about some spots in sagarin, but in the end, the last two seasons were pretty much the same. This coaching change wasn't really about what Hauck would do this season, it was about what Stitt did in 3 and what they hope Hauck can do by year 3.

Stopped reading after your first sentence. You’re absolutely biased if you think this team is better than last years. Every analytic is going to argue against you. And at the end of the day the worse record against a worse schedule is an easy proof of concept.

Every analytic doesn't argue against his argument. Played harder. Played more physical. Tackled better. Way fewer picks. Fewer turnovers. More yards per play. Fewer yards given up per play. More leads going into 4th quarter. Ha.

None of those things are analytical ways to analyze a teams success.

 

[PlayerRep]

But I don't think they took a step back as they did about what I thought they would. I was never sold that this was a 9 win playoff team. You can nitpick all you want about some spots in sagarin, but in the end, the last two seasons were pretty much the same. This coaching change wasn't really about what Hauck would do this season, it was about what Stitt did in 3 and what they hope Hauck can do by year 3.

Stopped reading after your first sentence. You’re absolutely biased if you think this team is better than last years. Every analytic is going to argue against you. And at the end of the day the worse record against a worse schedule is an easy proof of concept.

Every analytic doesn't argue against his argument. Played harder. Played more physical. Tackled better. Way fewer picks. Fewer turnovers. More yards per play. Fewer yards given up per play. More leads going into 4th quarter. Ha.

None of those things are analytical ways to analyze a teams success.

Yes, they are. They are more relevant than what you mentioned.

 

[Eriul]

Stopped reading after your first sentence. You’re absolutely biased if you think this team is better than last years. Every analytic is going to argue against you. And at the end of the day the worse record against a worse schedule is an easy proof of concept.

I am done, but I if you want to split hairs over 2 non-playoff teams that were both the same type of mediocre, knock yourself out. Neither was a good team. One team won 7 games with 2 gimmies and the other won 6 with 1.

Sorry that facts disagree with you.

The fact that Stitt was in year 3 of his program and it was minimally better than what Hauck did in his first season. Hauck took a team that won 6 and 7 games with no playoffs the last 2 years and people are pissed that they all of a sudden didn't win 9 games. Stitt is gone. Hauck is not going to be compared to what Stitt did, he is going to be gauged on how this team progresses from this season just like Stitt was judges by how his team progressed from year to year. Hint, it didn't.

Not pissed we didn’t win 9 games. My argument has been simple since post 1. You’re just ignoring it to the point that you bring your bias in. Team was worse this year than last year and I think Hauck is equally responsible. Simple as that. Never tried to compare quality of coaches... you are projecting that argument onto me in hopes of being correct for once

 

[Eriul]

Stopped reading after your first sentence. You’re absolutely biased if you think this team is better than last years. Every analytic is going to argue against you. And at the end of the day the worse record against a worse schedule is an easy proof of concept.

Every analytic doesn't argue against his argument. Played harder. Played more physical. Tackled better. Way fewer picks. Fewer turnovers. More yards per play. Fewer yards given up per play. More leads going into 4th quarter. Ha.

None of those things are analytical ways to analyze a teams success.

Yes, they are. They are more relevant than what you mentioned.

You say you played the game and that’s great and all. I work in analytics and understand what the word analytics mean. Not going to argue that any further. Hint: it’s a bit more complicated than “Way fewer picks” aka...3

Btw: king of college football analytics agrees with me. You may have heard of him... his name is Jeff sagarin

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Stopped reading after your first sentence. You’re absolutely biased if you think this team is better than last years. Every analytic is going to argue against you. And at the end of the day the worse record against a worse schedule is an easy proof of concept.

I am done, but I if you want to split hairs over 2 non-playoff teams that were both the same type of mediocre, knock yourself out. Neither was a good team. One team won 7 games with 2 gimmies and the other won 6 with 1.

Sorry that facts disagree with you.

Stitt is gone. Hauck is not going to be compared to what Stitt did, he is going to be gauged on how this team progresses from this season

Yep. IDK about everyone else, but I'm sick of reading about Stitt. Both about how he might've done this year compared to Hauck, and the "mess" he left Coach Hauck. I think the Stitt conversations are completely irrelevant now. Hauck is a season in. He will be judged on whether the program improves next season, and the one after that. Stitt has nothing to do with the next two seasons.

 

[Eriul]

I am done, but I if you want to split hairs over 2 non-playoff teams that were both the same type of mediocre, knock yourself out. Neither was a good team. One team won 7 games with 2 gimmies and the other won 6 with 1.

Sorry that facts disagree with you.

Stitt is gone. Hauck is not going to be compared to what Stitt did, he is going to be gauged on how this team progresses from this season

Yep. IDK about everyone else, but I'm sick of reasing about Stitt. Both about how he might've done this year compared to Hauck, and the "mess" he left Coach Hauck. I think the Stitt conversations are completely irrelevant now. Hauck is a season in. He will be judged on whether the program improves next season, and the one after that. Stitt has nothing to do with the next two seasons.

This... and my whole point has been that he had nothing to do with this year either. But people are just being silly

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

I am done, but I if you want to split hairs over 2 non-playoff teams that were both the same type of mediocre, knock yourself out. Neither was a good team. One team won 7 games with 2 gimmies and the other won 6 with 1.

Sorry that facts disagree with you.

The fact that Stitt was in year 3 of his program and it was minimally better than what Hauck did in his first season. Hauck took a team that won 6 and 7 games with no playoffs the last 2 years and people are pissed that they all of a sudden didn't win 9 games. Stitt is gone. Hauck is not going to be compared to what Stitt did, he is going to be gauged on how this team progresses from this season just like Stitt was judges by how his team progressed from year to year. Hint, it didn't.

Not pissed we didn’t win 9 games. My argument has been simple since post 1. You’re just ignoring it to the point that you bring your bias in. Team was worse this year than last year and I think Hauck is equally responsible. Simple as that. Never tried to compare quality of coaches... you are projecting that argument onto me in hopes of being correct for once

And my point was that neither season was good. You can nitpick the minimal statistical differences, but both seasons were mediocre. You can throw year 2 for Stitt in there also. These last two season were similar in so many ways, but even though Hauck only won 6 games, you could probably say he might have been closer to 9 than Stitt was. Bottom line, neither of the last 3 seasons is what people are hoping for, they were all very similar failures.

 

[PlayerRep]

Every analytic doesn't argue against his argument. Played harder. Played more physical. Tackled better. Way fewer picks. Fewer turnovers. More yards per play. Fewer yards given up per play. More leads going into 4th quarter. Ha.

None of those things are analytical ways to analyze a teams success.

Yes, they are. They are more relevant than what you mentioned.

You say you played the game and that’s great and all. I work in analytics and understand what the word analytics mean. Not going to argue that any further. Hint: it’s a bit more complicated than “Way fewer picks” aka...3

You aren't going to discuss with me, because you don't understand the game.

You don't think fewer interceptions, fewer turnovers, more yards per play, less yards per play given up, etc. are not meaningful patterns of data in football? Now that's pretty funny.

 

[kemajic]

But I don't think they took a step back as they did about what I thought they would. I was never sold that this was a 9 win playoff team. You can nitpick all you want about some spots in sagarin, but in the end, the last two seasons were pretty much the same. This coaching change wasn't really about what Hauck would do this season, it was about what Stitt did in 3 and what they hope Hauck can do by year 3.

Stopped reading after your first sentence. You’re absolutely biased if you think this team is better than last years. Every analytic is going to argue against you. And at the end of the day the worse record against a worse schedule is an easy proof of concept.

Every analytic doesn't argue against his argument. Played harder. Played more physical. Tackled better. Way fewer picks. Fewer turnovers. More yards per play. Fewer yards given up per play. More leads going into 4th quarter. Ha.

None of those things are analytical ways to analyze a teams success.

Yes, they are if you know anything about football. They create confidence for the future since we started but 3 seniors. I do not remember a commitment in 2017 like the one we saw trailing with two minutes to go last Saturday. I feel very good about where this program is now. I did not after 2017. We were 7-4 and never beat a decent team, so I say BS to your claim that 2018 was a worse schedule than 2017. One of the teams we beat is in the second round of the playoffs.

 

[Eriul]

None of those things are analytical ways to analyze a teams success.

Yes, they are. They are more relevant than what you mentioned.

You say you played the game and that’s great and all. I work in analytics and understand what the word analytics mean. Not going to argue that any further. Hint: it’s a bit more complicated than “Way fewer picks” aka...3

You aren't going to discuss with me, because you don't understand the game.

You don't think fewer interceptions, fewer turnovers, more yards per play, less yards per play given up, etc. are not meaningful patterns of data in football? Now that's pretty funny.

This is actually super funny. You really aren’t as close to the team as you claim you are or you might not claim That I don’t understand the game... yikes

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Sorry that facts disagree with you.

Stitt is gone. Hauck is not going to be compared to what Stitt did, he is going to be gauged on how this team progresses from this season

Yep. IDK about everyone else, but I'm sick of reasing about Stitt. Both about how he might've done this year compared to Hauck, and the "mess" he left Coach Hauck. I think the Stitt conversations are completely irrelevant now. Hauck is a season in. He will be judged on whether the program improves next season, and the one after that. Stitt has nothing to do with the next two seasons.

This... and my whole point has been that he had nothing to do with this year either. But people are just being silly

Meh, a lot of people think he left a mess. A lot of people don't. My point is: I don't care now. I don't think we should care about the 2017 season, Stitt, his mess, or the 2018 season when assessing BH starting now. All that matters is whether Bobby can get it done going forward. Can't blame the last guy now, so why even discuss the last guy?

 

[Eriul]

Stopped reading after your first sentence. You’re absolutely biased if you think this team is better than last years. Every analytic is going to argue against you. And at the end of the day the worse record against a worse schedule is an easy proof of concept.

Every analytic doesn't argue against his argument. Played harder. Played more physical. Tackled better. Way fewer picks. Fewer turnovers. More yards per play. Fewer yards given up per play. More leads going into 4th quarter. Ha.

None of those things are analytical ways to analyze a teams success.

Yes, they are if you know anything about football. They create confidence for the future since we started but 3 seniors. I do not remember a commitment in 2017 like the one we saw trailing with two minutes to go last Saturday. I feel very good about where this program is now. I did not after 2017. We were 7-4 and never beat a decent team, so I say BS to your claim that 2018 was a worse schedule than 2017. One of the teams we beat is in the second round of the playoffs.

Interesting to hear from you again after you disappeared. How about that bet? Everything you listed is emotion and bias... not analytics...

Also your argument about the 2nd round playoff team. Cool, that’s 1 round farther than NAU got last year who we also beat. Legitimately, this actually argues in your favor of team success. Surprised someone found a metric that is used

 

[Eriul]

Stitt is gone. Hauck is not going to be compared to what Stitt did, he is going to be gauged on how this team progresses from this season

Yep. IDK about everyone else, but I'm sick of reasing about Stitt. Both about how he might've done this year compared to Hauck, and the "mess" he left Coach Hauck. I think the Stitt conversations are completely irrelevant now. Hauck is a season in. He will be judged on whether the program improves next season, and the one after that. Stitt has nothing to do with the next two seasons.

This... and my whole point has been that he had nothing to do with this year either. But people are just being silly

Meh, a lot of people think he left a mess. A lot of people don't. My point is: I don't care now. I don't think we should care about the 2017 season, Stitt, his mess, or the 2018 season when assessing BH starting now. All that matters is whether Bobby can get it done going forward. Can't blame the last guy now, so why even discuss the last guy?

That’s my point exactly with the exception of 2018 season. 2018 season is on Bobby. Even Bobby claims it’s on him. Saying it’s stitts fault is going to be really jarring for people when Bobby ends 3 years with ~54% win rate and maybe one playoff appearance.

 

[PlayerRep]

Yes, they are. They are more relevant than what you mentioned.

You say you played the game and that’s great and all. I work in analytics and understand what the word analytics mean. Not going to argue that any further. Hint: it’s a bit more complicated than “Way fewer picks” aka...3

You aren't going to discuss with me, because you don't understand the game.

You don't think fewer interceptions, fewer turnovers, more yards per play, less yards per play given up, etc. are not meaningful patterns of data in football? Now that's pretty funny.

This is actually super funny. You really aren’t as close to the team as you claim you are or you might not claim That I don’t understand the game... yikes

If you don't understand the interceptions and turnovers are very important in football, then I'm sorry but none of us can help you. That in and of itself shows that you don't know much about football. See how much support you can get for your view that interceptions and turnovers are't important.

I can tell by how you post and what you say that you are not very knowledgeable about the game of football.

I have never said I am close to the team.

 

[twentythreeOh4]

.......

Holy... you’re not even reading. You’re saying I’m making an argument that I’m not making. Let me try to make this simple for you.

The team took a step back this year. It’s that simple. You tried to argue we didn’t but we definitely did. The team by the end of the 2018 season is a worse team than the team at the end of the 2017 season. Again, record against SoS, sagarin rankings, etc. If you want to debate that point you are fighting a biased battle.

My argument was that I think Hauck was just as responsible for the step back as any other force. You haven’t tried to argue that

But I don't think they took a step back as they did about what I thought they would. I was never sold that this was a 9 win playoff team. You can nitpick all you want about some spots in sagarin, but in the end, the last two seasons were pretty much the same. This coaching change wasn't really about what Hauck would do this season, it was about what Stitt did in 3 and what they hope Hauck can do by year 3.

Stopped reading after your first sentence. You’re absolutely biased if you think this team is better than last years. Every analytic is going to argue against you. And at the end of the day the worse record against a worse schedule is an easy proof of concept.

Last year UM played UW, but only 2 playoff teams NAU, and Weber. This year UM played 3 playoff teams, N. Iowa, UC Davis and MSU, two of which have already advanced in the playoffs.

I think this years team had a huge flaw, in the worst O-line I’ve seen in all the years I’ve watched Montana football, but despite that, they were very competitive in every game, except UND. I think with a little better o-line, this team could have been pretty good. And as hard as it is to believe this year’s team was better in turnovers, giving up 20 compared to 26 for last year’s team.

 

[Eriul]

You say you played the game and that’s great and all. I work in analytics and understand what the word analytics mean. Not going to argue that any further. Hint: it’s a bit more complicated than “Way fewer picks” aka...3

You aren't going to discuss with me, because you don't understand the game.

You don't think fewer interceptions, fewer turnovers, more yards per play, less yards per play given up, etc. are not meaningful patterns of data in football? Now that's pretty funny.

This is actually super funny. You really aren’t as close to the team as you claim you are or you might not claim That I don’t understand the game... yikes

If you don't understand the interceptions and turnovers are very important in football, then I'm sorry but none of us can help you. That in and of itself shows that you don't know much about football. See how much support you can get for your view that interceptions and turnovers are't important.

I can tell by how you post and what you say that you are not very knowledgeable about the game of football.

I have never said I am close to the team.

Every post you make is how close you are to “people on the team.” Maybe one day you should ask some coaches you’re so close to if they know a “lesbian computer lady.” I think you might be surprised

 

[PlayerRep]

Yep. IDK about everyone else, but I'm sick of reasing about Stitt. Both about how he might've done this year compared to Hauck, and the "mess" he left Coach Hauck. I think the Stitt conversations are completely irrelevant now. Hauck is a season in. He will be judged on whether the program improves next season, and the one after that. Stitt has nothing to do with the next two seasons.

This... and my whole point has been that he had nothing to do with this year either. But people are just being silly

Meh, a lot of people think he left a mess. A lot of people don't. My point is: I don't care now. I don't think we should care about the 2017 season, Stitt, his mess, or the 2018 season when assessing BH starting now. All that matters is whether Bobby can get it done going forward. Can't blame the last guy now, so why even discuss the last guy?

That’s my point exactly with the exception of 2018 season. 2018 season is on Bobby. Even Bobby claims it’s on him. Saying it’s stitts fault is going to be really jarring for people when Bobby ends 3 years with ~54% win rate and maybe one playoff appearance.

Hauck inherited the bulk of his players from Stitt and also the type of program/team Stitt left him. As I have said, a starter from last year told me recently that the team overachieved based on its talent level. That's a compliment to the team and the coaches.

 

[Eriul]

.......

Holy... you’re not even reading. You’re saying I’m making an argument that I’m not making. Let me try to make this simple for you.

The team took a step back this year. It’s that simple. You tried to argue we didn’t but we definitely did. The team by the end of the 2018 season is a worse team than the team at the end of the 2017 season. Again, record against SoS, sagarin rankings, etc. If you want to debate that point you are fighting a biased battle.

My argument was that I think Hauck was just as responsible for the step back as any other force. You haven’t tried to argue that

But I don't think they took a step back as they did about what I thought they would. I was never sold that this was a 9 win playoff team. You can nitpick all you want about some spots in sagarin, but in the end, the last two seasons were pretty much the same. This coaching change wasn't really about what Hauck would do this season, it was about what Stitt did in 3 and what they hope Hauck can do by year 3.

Stopped reading after your first sentence. You’re absolutely biased if you think this team is better than last years. Every analytic is going to argue against you. And at the end of the day the worse record against a worse schedule is an easy proof of concept.

Last year UM played UW, but only 2 playoff teams NAU, and Weber. This year UM played 3 playoff teams, N. Iowa, UC Davis and MSU, two of which have already advanced in the playoffs.

I think this years team had a huge flaw, in the worst O-line I’ve seen in all the years I’ve watched Montana football, but despite that, they were very competitive in every game, except UND. I think with a little better o-line, this team could have been pretty good. And as hard as it is to believe this year’s team was better in turnovers, giving up 20 compared to 26 for last year’s team.

This year for actual statistics as far as SoS... we had a bottom 20 fcs schedule. Last year we were 15th. Just fwiw.

Turnovers are a problem yes. But, .5 turnovers a game extra is minimal given SoS, plays/game, ppg contributing

 

[Eriul]

This... and my whole point has been that he had nothing to do with this year either. But people are just being silly

Meh, a lot of people think he left a mess. A lot of people don't. My point is: I don't care now. I don't think we should care about the 2017 season, Stitt, his mess, or the 2018 season when assessing BH starting now. All that matters is whether Bobby can get it done going forward. Can't blame the last guy now, so why even discuss the last guy?

That’s my point exactly with the exception of 2018 season. 2018 season is on Bobby. Even Bobby claims it’s on him. Saying it’s stitts fault is going to be really jarring for people when Bobby ends 3 years with ~54% win rate and maybe one playoff appearance.

Hauck inherited the bulk of his players from Stitt and also the type of program/team Stitt left him. As I have said, a starter from last year told me recently that the team overachieved based on its talent level. That's a compliment to the team and the coaches.

“I’ve never said I’m close to the team.” Jesus...

 

[PlayerRep]

You aren't going to discuss with me, because you don't understand the game.

You don't think fewer interceptions, fewer turnovers, more yards per play, less yards per play given up, etc. are not meaningful patterns of data in football? Now that's pretty funny.

This is actually super funny. You really aren’t as close to the team as you claim you are or you might not claim That I don’t understand the game... yikes

If you don't understand the interceptions and turnovers are very important in football, then I'm sorry but none of us can help you. That in and of itself shows that you don't know much about football. See how much support you can get for your view that interceptions and turnovers are't important.

I can tell by how you post and what you say that you are not very knowledgeable about the game of football.

I have never said I am close to the team.

Every post you make is how close you are to “people on the team.” Maybe one day you should ask some coaches you’re so close to if they know a “lesbian computer lady.” I think you might be surprised

I know most of the coaches and have met all of them, and know lots of current and former people associated with the program, but I have never said I am "close to the team". Do you think people on egriz don't know or suspect who you are?