Defense Metrics

[PlayerRep]

Your word is wrong.

Ummm...no I am not. His game planning responsibilities were reduced...but thank you for your continued abrasive remarks.

You're going to state, "Word is Ty was not coordinating the defense the last 4 weeks..." and add a caveat that explains that it isn't you saying this and that you read it somewhere, then that you don't claim to have inside info. You're going to great extents in preparing for someone to refute what you're saying, but when someone does refute you, you get all butt hurt and inexplicably say "Ummm...no I am not", which doesn't fit the conversation as you've now taken ownership of what you were originally saying wasn't coming from you. And then absurdly follow that with walking back what you claim someone else said, which is again absurd since you said they weren't your words and if not you wouldn't need to walk them back.

His remarks weren't abrasive because they weren't directed at you. Your reaction, however, makes it appear that your original statement was your own, since you took ownership of it. It's beginning to look like you're lying. Do you want to just come clean and directly tell everyone what you said was just made up, because you've essentially done just that with your "not coordinating the defense" to "his game planning responsibilities were reduced".

To quote Stitt on naming Semore as DC:

"He hasn't been in the business a ton of years, but his knowledge is way beyond his years. He had a huge influence on our defense this past year, especially in the second half of the season."

You can try to turn the semantics to whatever you wish, but the fact is TG and reduced duties in coordinating the D...possibly more than you want to acknowledge. So maybe the word was not so wrong....

I take that with a grain of salt. What do you expect Stitt to say? He's come a long way since being a grad assistant at Okla St in 2013. It's not uncommon for good defensive coaches to have huge influences on the defense. Do you think Legi didn't have a huge influence on the defense? Do you think Germer didn't have a huge influence on the offense, or the receiver coaches? Having a very good defensive mind is good. Now we'll see if he can make sure the whole defense gets coached properly, whether he can motivate players to the fullest, and whether he can coordinate the defense and make the right play calls. Stitt was high on Semore before he brought him to Montana. I have no doubt he's a good coach.

 

[AZGrizFan]

Ummm...no I am not. His game planning responsibilities were reduced...but thank you for your continued abrasive remarks.

You're going to state, "Word is Ty was not coordinating the defense the last 4 weeks..." and add a caveat that explains that it isn't you saying this and that you read it somewhere, then that you don't claim to have inside info. You're going to great extents in preparing for someone to refute what you're saying, but when someone does refute you, you get all butt hurt and inexplicably say "Ummm...no I am not", which doesn't fit the conversation as you've now taken ownership of what you were originally saying wasn't coming from you. And then absurdly follow that with walking back what you claim someone else said, which is again absurd since you said they weren't your words and if not you wouldn't need to walk them back.

His remarks weren't abrasive because they weren't directed at you. Your reaction, however, makes it appear that your original statement was your own, since you took ownership of it. It's beginning to look like you're lying. Do you want to just come clean and directly tell everyone what you said was just made up, because you've essentially done just that with your "not coordinating the defense" to "his game planning responsibilities were reduced".

To quote Stitt on naming Semore as DC:

"He hasn't been in the business a ton of years, but his knowledge is way beyond his years. He had a huge influence on our defense this past year, especially in the second half of the season."

You can try to turn the semantics to whatever you wish, but the fact is TG and reduced duties in coordinating the D...possibly more than you want to acknowledge. So maybe the word was not so wrong....

I take that with a grain of salt. What do you expect Stitt to say? He's come a long way since being a grad assistant at Okla St in 2013. It's not uncommon for good defensive coaches to have huge influences on the defense. Do you think Legi didn't have a huge influence on the defense? Do you think Germer didn't have a huge influence on the offense, or the receiver coaches? Having a very good defensive mind is good. Now we'll see if he can make sure the whole defense gets coached properly, whether he can motivate players to the fullest, and whether he can coordinate the defense and make the right play calls. Stitt was high on Semore before he brought him to Montana. I have no doubt he's a good coach.

Oh come the fuck on, PR. There it is, STRAIGHT out of the head coach's mouth and you're STILL going to try and spin it into some sort of plausable denial? Yeah, Legi had an influence on the defense. He was a defensive coach. But Stitt SPECIFICALLY SAID "especially in the 2nd half of the season", which clearly implies that Semore's role CHANGED in the 2nd half. Why do you find it so hard to just admit you were wrong about something?

 

[signedbewildered]

Word is Ty was not coordinating the defense the last 4 weeks...only what I read; I was not in any meetings with coaches nor do I claim to have an inside informant.

Your word is wrong.

Ummm...no I am not. His game planning responsibilities were reduced...but thank you for your continued abrasive remarks.

"Reduced game planning responsibilities" does not equal "not coordinating the defense", especially when the DC is still calling plays during the game.

What's about abrasive about this, just out of curiousity: "Your word is wrong."

.......and "Ty's name being thrown around" does not equal "was offered and turned down the HI job"

Maybe now you can relate to his comparison a little better.

You're welcome.

 

[UMGriz75]

Wasn't in the room, so can't say who influenced what, but, breaking the season into literal "halves" ...

in the first half of the season, opponents scored an average of 22 points. A trendline shows that successive games were resulting in progressively lower scores for opponents, at a declining -2.4 point rate per game, with final four game score of 14, 13, 24 and 16, which included two of the lowest scores scored by UM opponents during the entire season.

In the second half of the season, opponents scored an average of 29 points and there was no significant trend, with the highest opponent score of the season scored in the last game.

 

[PlayerRep]

Your word is wrong.

Ummm...no I am not. His game planning responsibilities were reduced...but thank you for your continued abrasive remarks.

"Reduced game planning responsibilities" does not equal "not coordinating the defense", especially when the DC is still calling plays during the game.

What's about abrasive about this, just out of curiousity: "Your word is wrong."

.......and "Ty's name being thrown around" does not equal "was offered and turned down the HI job"

Maybe now you can relate to his comparison a little better.

You're welcome.

Call anyone you know at the top of the athletic dept. and ask them if he was offered the Hawaii job, and what other opportunities he had. I assume they'll tell you what some of them told a number of us.

 

[PlayerRep]

You're going to state, "Word is Ty was not coordinating the defense the last 4 weeks..." and add a caveat that explains that it isn't you saying this and that you read it somewhere, then that you don't claim to have inside info. You're going to great extents in preparing for someone to refute what you're saying, but when someone does refute you, you get all butt hurt and inexplicably say "Ummm...no I am not", which doesn't fit the conversation as you've now taken ownership of what you were originally saying wasn't coming from you. And then absurdly follow that with walking back what you claim someone else said, which is again absurd since you said they weren't your words and if not you wouldn't need to walk them back.

His remarks weren't abrasive because they weren't directed at you. Your reaction, however, makes it appear that your original statement was your own, since you took ownership of it. It's beginning to look like you're lying. Do you want to just come clean and directly tell everyone what you said was just made up, because you've essentially done just that with your "not coordinating the defense" to "his game planning responsibilities were reduced".

To quote Stitt on naming Semore as DC:

"He hasn't been in the business a ton of years, but his knowledge is way beyond his years. He had a huge influence on our defense this past year, especially in the second half of the season."

You can try to turn the semantics to whatever you wish, but the fact is TG and reduced duties in coordinating the D...possibly more than you want to acknowledge. So maybe the word was not so wrong....

I take that with a grain of salt. What do you expect Stitt to say? He's come a long way since being a grad assistant at Okla St in 2013. It's not uncommon for good defensive coaches to have huge influences on the defense. Do you think Legi didn't have a huge influence on the defense? Do you think Germer didn't have a huge influence on the offense, or the receiver coaches? Having a very good defensive mind is good. Now we'll see if he can make sure the whole defense gets coached properly, whether he can motivate players to the fullest, and whether he can coordinate the defense and make the right play calls. Stitt was high on Semore before he brought him to Montana. I have no doubt he's a good coach.

Oh come the f*** on, PR. There it is, STRAIGHT out of the head coach's mouth and you're STILL going to try and spin it into some sort of plausable denial? Yeah, Legi had an influence on the defense. He was a defensive coach. But Stitt SPECIFICALLY SAID "especially in the 2nd half of the season", which clearly implies that Semore's role CHANGED in the 2nd half. Why do you find it so hard to just admit you were wrong about something?

I have previously said that Semore's role increased as the season went on. Not spinning anything. There's a big difference between Semore's role in game-planning increasing and his having more influence on the defense, and his running the defense or TG being relieved of duties. Sorry that you are unable to see the differences.

 

[grizindabox]

Ummm...no I am not. His game planning responsibilities were reduced...but thank you for your continued abrasive remarks.

"Reduced game planning responsibilities" does not equal "not coordinating the defense", especially when the DC is still calling plays during the game.

What's about abrasive about this, just out of curiousity: "Your word is wrong."

.......and "Ty's name being thrown around" does not equal "was offered and turned down the HI job"

Maybe now you can relate to his comparison a little better.

You're welcome.

Call anyone you know at the top of the athletic dept. and ask them if he was offered the Hawaii job, and what other opportunities he had. I assume they'll tell you what some of them told a number of us.

I still stand by the theory that in coaching it is not necessarily what you know it is who you know.

 

[Ursa Major]

To quote Stitt on naming Semore as DC:

"He hasn't been in the business a ton of years, but his knowledge is way beyond his years. He had a huge influence on our defense this past year, especially in the second half of the season."

You can try to turn the semantics to whatever you wish, but the fact is TG and reduced duties in coordinating the D...possibly more than you want to acknowledge. So maybe the word was not so wrong....

I take that with a grain of salt. What do you expect Stitt to say? He's come a long way since being a grad assistant at Okla St in 2013. It's not uncommon for good defensive coaches to have huge influences on the defense. Do you think Legi didn't have a huge influence on the defense? Do you think Germer didn't have a huge influence on the offense, or the receiver coaches? Having a very good defensive mind is good. Now we'll see if he can make sure the whole defense gets coached properly, whether he can motivate players to the fullest, and whether he can coordinate the defense and make the right play calls. Stitt was high on Semore before he brought him to Montana. I have no doubt he's a good coach.

Oh come the f*** on, PR. There it is, STRAIGHT out of the head coach's mouth and you're STILL going to try and spin it into some sort of plausable denial? Yeah, Legi had an influence on the defense. He was a defensive coach. But Stitt SPECIFICALLY SAID "especially in the 2nd half of the season", which clearly implies that Semore's role CHANGED in the 2nd half. Why do you find it so hard to just admit you were wrong about something?

I have previously said that Semore's role increased as the season went on. Not spinning anything. There's a big difference between Semore's role in game-planning increasing and his having more influence on the defense, and his running the defense or TG being relieved of duties. Sorry that you are unable to see the differences.

Using those old DB skills I see:

Note: Although DB generally stands for "Defensive Back", please feel free to interchange it with "Douche Bag" in this sentence.
Thanks!

 

[horribilisfan8184]

To quote Stitt on naming Semore as DC:

"He hasn't been in the business a ton of years, but his knowledge is way beyond his years. He had a huge influence on our defense this past year, especially in the second half of the season."

You can try to turn the semantics to whatever you wish, but the fact is TG and reduced duties in coordinating the D...possibly more than you want to acknowledge. So maybe the word was not so wrong....

I take that with a grain of salt. What do you expect Stitt to say? He's come a long way since being a grad assistant at Okla St in 2013. It's not uncommon for good defensive coaches to have huge influences on the defense. Do you think Legi didn't have a huge influence on the defense? Do you think Germer didn't have a huge influence on the offense, or the receiver coaches? Having a very good defensive mind is good. Now we'll see if he can make sure the whole defense gets coached properly, whether he can motivate players to the fullest, and whether he can coordinate the defense and make the right play calls. Stitt was high on Semore before he brought him to Montana. I have no doubt he's a good coach.

Oh come the f*** on, PR. There it is, STRAIGHT out of the head coach's mouth and you're STILL going to try and spin it into some sort of plausable denial? Yeah, Legi had an influence on the defense. He was a defensive coach. But Stitt SPECIFICALLY SAID "especially in the 2nd half of the season", which clearly implies that Semore's role CHANGED in the 2nd half. Why do you find it so hard to just admit you were wrong about something?

I have previously said that Semore's role increased as the season went on. Not spinning anything. There's a big difference between Semore's role in game-planning increasing and his having more influence on the defense, and his running the defense or TG being relieved of duties. Sorry that you are unable to see the differences.

I would agree with your take if not for Ty's sudden, petulant move to his arch rival's team. Makes it look like Ty had already been replaced. And it makes more sense now why Stitt waited until this week to name Semore DC. If he had done it immediately, would that have shown Semore was the defacto DC the last 4 games? Maybe someone who was on the headsets can tell us if it was Semore or Ty calling the plays, and end this endless speculation.

 

[AZGrizFan]

Wasn't in the room, so can't say who influenced what, but, breaking the season into literal "halves" ...

in the first half of the season, opponents scored an average of 22 points. A trendline shows that successive games were resulting in progressively lower scores for opponents, at a declining -2.4 point rate per game, with final four game score of 14, 13, 24 and 16, which included two of the lowest scores scored by UM opponents during the entire season.

In the second half of the season, opponents scored an average of 29 points and there was no significant trend, with the highest opponent score of the season scored in the last game.

And the 2nd half of the season also featured the 3 most prolific offenses in the BSC--EWU,MSU,ISU. But I'm sure that didn't have anything to do with it. Nor the fact that the "highest opponent score of the season" happened to include 21 points NOT given up by the defense. For a lawyer you sure exclude a lot of important info.

 

[tgreseth]

Wasn't in the room, so can't say who influenced what, but, breaking the season into literal "halves" ...

in the first half of the season, opponents scored an average of 22 points. A trendline shows that successive games were resulting in progressively lower scores for opponents, at a declining -2.4 point rate per game, with final four game score of 14, 13, 24 and 16, which included two of the lowest scores scored by UM opponents during the entire season.

In the second half of the season, opponents scored an average of 29 points and there was no significant trend, with the highest opponent score of the season scored in the last game.

And the 2nd half of the season also featured the 3 most prolific offenses in the BSC--EWU,MSU,ISU. But I'm sure that didn't have anything to do with it. Nor the fact that the "highest opponent score of the season" happened to include 21 points NOT given up by the defense. For a lawyer you sure exclude a lot of important info.

Pretty sure '75 isn't a lawyer. Teaches (and coaches?) at UM...maybe he'd like to (finally) clarify what his relationship to the University of Montana is?

 

[Buttegrizzle]

All I know is when we had a QB crisis and could not put up good offensive numbers our D was not able to stop Poly or Weber. Nuff said.

 

[grizindabox]

Wasn't in the room, so can't say who influenced what, but, breaking the season into literal "halves" ...

in the first half of the season, opponents scored an average of 22 points. A trendline shows that successive games were resulting in progressively lower scores for opponents, at a declining -2.4 point rate per game, with final four game score of 14, 13, 24 and 16, which included two of the lowest scores scored by UM opponents during the entire season.

In the second half of the season, opponents scored an average of 29 points and there was no significant trend, with the highest opponent score of the season scored in the last game.

And the 2nd half of the season also featured the 3 most prolific offenses in the BSC--EWU,MSU,ISU. But I'm sure that didn't have anything to do with it. Nor the fact that the "highest opponent score of the season" happened to include 21 points NOT given up by the defense. For a lawyer you sure exclude a lot of important info.

Pretty sure '75 isn't a lawyer. Teaches (and coaches?) at UM...maybe he'd like to (finally) clarify what his relationship to the University of Montana is?

I believe he may be adjunct faculty in the Law School....

 

[UMGriz75]

And the 2nd half of the season also featured the 3 most prolific offenses in the BSC--EWU,MSU,ISU. But I'm sure that didn't have anything to do with it. Nor the fact that the "highest opponent score of the season" happened to include 21 points NOT given up by the defense. For a lawyer you sure exclude a lot of important info.

Oh, I've pointed that all out in the past. No, the reason I post some of this data is to see how many excuses people can come up to explain why the data can't be true, even though ... you know, it actually is. There may be "explanations," but that's different than the usual "oh yeah, well what about ..." and "oh yeah, well what about ...?" and "oh yeah, well what about ...?" until we finally get to the preferred narrative of the individual poster -- that has nothing really to do with "the data" or otherwise, but simply their need to reinforce their designated bias and worldview.

Kind of like "you know, Stitt is going to recruit quarterbacks that are fast and accurate." The comment says nothing about Stitt except what we would hope to hear about any coach, and usually do. The comment says everything about the posters that think it is a distinction as though they have an all-knowing edge on what Stitt is "going to do."

I do like the idea that our Defense, put up against offenses that could do little against a real defense, was so handicapped by those powerful Offenses :roll: that they lost a full touchdown per game in the second half of the season. And, by implication, that is absolute proof that the Defense improved! I understand that people actually think that way. I just happen to enjoy pointing it out.

 

[horribilisfan8184]

And the 2nd half of the season also featured the 3 most prolific offenses in the BSC--EWU,MSU,ISU. But I'm sure that didn't have anything to do with it. Nor the fact that the "highest opponent score of the season" happened to include 21 points NOT given up by the defense. For a lawyer you sure exclude a lot of important info.

Oh, I've pointed that all out in the past. No, the reason I post some of this data is to see how many excuses people can come up to explain why the data can't be true, even though ... you know, it actually is. There may be "explanations," but that's different than the usual "oh yeah, well what about ..." and "oh yeah, well what about ...?" and "oh yeah, well what about ...?" until we finally get to the preferred narrative of the individual poster -- that has nothing really to do with "the data" or otherwise, but simply their need to reinforce their designated bias and worldview.

Kind of like "you know, Stitt is going to recruit quarterbacks that are fast and accurate." The comment says nothing about Stitt except what we would hope to hear about any coach, and usually do. The comment says everything about the posters that think it is a distinction as though they have an all-knowing edge on what Stitt is "going to do."

I do like the idea that our Defense, put up against offenses that could do little against a real defense, was so handicapped by those powerful Offenses :roll: that they lost a full touchdown per game in the second half of the season. And, by implication, that is absolute proof that the Defense improved! I understand that people actually think that way. I just happen to enjoy pointing it out.

Sorry to confuse you. By "Stitt recruiting" I meant landing recruits not offering recruits. As in, Stitt is dismissing prior landed recruits who are smaller, slower, indecisive, inaccurate, less intelligent and don't fit his systems for landing recruits we used to lose who are bigger, faster, decisive, accurate, more intelligent and fit his systems. Not like all other coaches who want these players, but like other coaches who get these players.

Since you like stats, here's a little assignment. Why don't you compare the average size, speed and SAT's of Stitts recruits by position in 3 years to the average for those positions of the players on roster when he arrived. Compare weight, and height and speed on arrival and again on graduation or last year of eligibility to make sure you are comparing apples to apples. Offense and defense. We can throw out punters and place kickers.

 

[Ursa Major]

And the 2nd half of the season also featured the 3 most prolific offenses in the BSC--EWU,MSU,ISU. But I'm sure that didn't have anything to do with it. Nor the fact that the "highest opponent score of the season" happened to include 21 points NOT given up by the defense. For a lawyer you sure exclude a lot of important info.

Oh, I've pointed that all out in the past. No, the reason I post some of this data is to see how many excuses people can come up to explain why the data can't be true, even though ... you know, it actually is. There may be "explanations," but that's different than the usual "oh yeah, well what about ..." and "oh yeah, well what about ...?" and "oh yeah, well what about ...?" until we finally get to the preferred narrative of the individual poster -- that has nothing really to do with "the data" or otherwise, but simply their need to reinforce their designated bias and worldview.

Kind of like "you know, Stitt is going to recruit quarterbacks that are fast and accurate." The comment says nothing about Stitt except what we would hope to hear about any coach, and usually do. The comment says everything about the posters that think it is a distinction as though they have an all-knowing edge on what Stitt is "going to do."

I do like the idea that our Defense, put up against offenses that could do little against a real defense, was so handicapped by those powerful Offenses :roll: that they lost a full touchdown per game in the second half of the season. And, by implication, that is absolute proof that the Defense improved! I understand that people actually think that way. I just happen to enjoy pointing it out.

So . . .

Oh, I've pointed that all out in the past. No, the reason I post some of this data is to see how many excuses people can come up to explain why the data can't be true, even though ... you know, it actually is.

And, by implication, that is absolute proof that the Defense improved! I understand that people actually think that way. I just happen to enjoy pointing it out.

75, you put forth information to elicit other poster's preferred narrative, designated bias and worldview. You repeatedly agitate other's to call them out on their allegiance to the coaching staff. I believe that falls under the definition of a troll. I don't see any difference from a cat fan coming over here to agitate the board and your continued efforts to agitate board members.

This is fun! Let's look at the bias of your preferred narrative: "The GRIZ fans on the GRIZ BOARD blindly support the GRIZ COACH and the GRIZ FOOTBALL TEAM. I'm going to irritate and agitate them into being more critical about their coach and their team. They're idiots and I'm the only one without bias. I'm committed to finding statistics that support my world view and will reject any differences of opinion that do not serve my agenda. Those people are so close minded! I'm the only one that holds the truth!! I'm the White Fucking Knight of Truth!!"

Why would you be shocked to find a pro-Griz bias on a Griz board? This is what people do. Sports and politics seem to bring out these biases like no other human experience. You won't change it. If it bothers you, I suggest you stay out of those two arenas. Have you read any of PR's posts? At least he is open about his agenda to take on anyone who he perceives as saying negative things about the coach, the players and the program. Isn't that the kind of posters that really get under your skin?

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

And the 2nd half of the season also featured the 3 most prolific offenses in the BSC--EWU,MSU,ISU. But I'm sure that didn't have anything to do with it. Nor the fact that the "highest opponent score of the season" happened to include 21 points NOT given up by the defense. For a lawyer you sure exclude a lot of important info.

Oh, I've pointed that all out in the past. No, the reason I post some of this data is to see how many excuses people can come up to explain why the data can't be true, even though ... you know, it actually is. There may be "explanations," but that's different than the usual "oh yeah, well what about ..." and "oh yeah, well what about ...?" and "oh yeah, well what about ...?" until we finally get to the preferred narrative of the individual poster -- that has nothing really to do with "the data" or otherwise, but simply their need to reinforce their designated bias and worldview.

Kind of like "you know, Stitt is going to recruit quarterbacks that are fast and accurate." The comment says nothing about Stitt except what we would hope to hear about any coach, and usually do. The comment says everything about the posters that think it is a distinction as though they have an all-knowing edge on what Stitt is "going to do."

I do like the idea that our Defense, put up against offenses that could do little against a real defense, was so handicapped by those powerful Offenses :roll: that they lost a full touchdown per game in the second half of the season. And, by implication, that is absolute proof that the Defense improved! I understand that people actually think that way. I just happen to enjoy pointing it out.

So . . .

Oh, I've pointed that all out in the past. No, the reason I post some of this data is to see how many excuses people can come up to explain why the data can't be true, even though ... you know, it actually is.

And, by implication, that is absolute proof that the Defense improved! I understand that people actually think that way. I just happen to enjoy pointing it out.

75, you put forth information to elicit other poster's preferred narrative, designated bias and worldview. You repeatedly agitate other's to call them out on their allegiance to the coaching staff. I believe that falls under the definition of a troll. I don't see any difference from a cat fan coming over here to agitate the board and your continued efforts to agitate board members.

This is fun! Let's look at the bias of your preferred narrative: "The GRIZ fans on the GRIZ BOARD blindly support the GRIZ COACH and the GRIZ FOOTBALL TEAM. I'm going to irritate and agitate them into being more critical about their coach and their team. They're idiots and I'm the only one without bias. I'm committed to finding statistics that support my world view and will reject any differences of opinion that do not serve my agenda. Those people are so close minded! I'm the only one that holds the truth!! I'm the White f***[*] Knight of Truth!!"

Why would you be shocked to find a pro-Griz bias on a Griz board? This is what people do. Sports and politics seem to bring out these biases like no other human experience. You won't change it. If it bothers you, I suggest you stay out of those two arenas. Have you read any of PR's posts? At least he is open about his agenda to take on anyone who he perceives as saying negative things about the coach, the players and the program. Isn't that the kind of posters that really get under your skin?

He is a self-proclaimed troll....

 

[UMGriz75]

75, you put forth information to elicit other poster's preferred narrative, designated bias and worldview. You repeatedly agitate other's to call them out on their allegiance to the coaching staff. I believe that falls under the definition of a troll. I don't see any difference from a cat fan coming over here to agitate the board and your continued efforts to agitate board members.

I disagree with you on some deeply held beliefs, obviously. No need to become a drama queen about it. I don't get married to the coaches the same way you do, because I've been involved in hiring or adminstering too many of them over the years. I love to see success. I don't like hyperventilated fraud and stupidity because I also know the damage that bandwagons and an obsequious fan culture can do to programs and players.

Are you one of the ones who sticks your chest out and projects that "Stitt is going to find quarterbacks that are fast and accurate?" As though amazed that you never accused any other coach ever of ... gee, doing just that? As I've said many times now, that's not directed at Stitt at all. I assume that's what he wants to do and will try to do it. I just don't think that he's the first guy to think of it, and I think it is a stupid observation when people like you try and pretend that makes him unique. It's not about him. It's about you. You don't get that, do you? Indeed, as "brewski" always does, if you point to any of his factual exaggerations, 'YOU HATE STITT!" because Brewski thinks he's Stitt or something ... there is a lot of projection in salivating fans like that. I'm not sorry to point out that projecting your own opinions and distorted facts onto the coach as a way of defending misguided, erroneous, and often bizarre factual fantasies is a disservice to the coach. He doesn't deserve you.

A fawning, dishonest and obsequious fan culture belongs at Bozeman with their wild mood swings from the "Best Coach Ever," to "Run Him Out of Town." If you can't be an intelligent fan of a good football team, and at least modestly respectful of differing opinions, why don't YOU become a Cat fan?

 

[grizindabox]

75, you put forth information to elicit other poster's preferred narrative, designated bias and worldview. You repeatedly agitate other's to call them out on their allegiance to the coaching staff. I believe that falls under the definition of a troll. I don't see any difference from a cat fan coming over here to agitate the board and your continued efforts to agitate board members.

I disagree with you on some deeply held beliefs, obviously. No need to become a drama queen about it. I don't get married to the coaches the same way you do, because I've been involved in hiring or adminstering too many of them over the years. I love to see success. I don't like hyperventilated fraud and stupidity because I also know the damage that bandwagons and an obsequious fan culture can do to programs and players.

Are you one of the ones who sticks your chest out and projects that "Stitt is going to hire quarterbacks that are fast and accurate?" As though amazed that you never accused any other coach ever of ... gee, doing just that? As I've said many times now, that's not directed at Stitt at all. I assume that's what he wants to do and will try to do it. I just don't think that he's the first guy to think of it, and I think it is a stupid observation when people like you try and pretend that makes him unique. It's not about him. It's about you. You don't get that, do you?

A fawning, dishonest and obsequious fan culture belongs at Bozeman with their wild mood swings from the "Best Coach Ever," to "Run Him Out of Town." If you can't be an intelligent fan of a good football team, and at least modestly respectful of differing opinions, why don't YOU become a Cat fan?

Pretty sure that is not within the rules.....

 

[UMGriz75]

And here's a good example of "Brewskie's" exaggerations.

Who would you choose as the Head Coach?

Coach 1. A 68% conference win rate, turned a struggling team around and got three conference championships in 9 years. Lost seven times to the conference rival.

Coach 2. A 65% conference win rate, turned a struggling team around and got one conference championship and one co-championship over a 15 year period. Lost nine times to the conference rival.

Which coach would you choose?

One of these has been described as doing a "phenomenal" job with his prior record. 'PHENOMENAL!"

The other one recently got fired for doing an arguably better job.

No. 1 is Rob Ash, No. 2 is Coach Stitt.

Seriously? By Brewski's hyperventilated standards, he would have hired a coach that was even more 'PHENOMENAL!" (TM) than Coach Stitt, and today Brewski would be proclaiming our new UM Head Coach, Rob Ash. And if anyone dared to point out the details of that record, it can only -- ONLY -- be because they are "ANTI-ASH!!!"

That's the problem with irrational fan culture.

Hyperbole has its place, but there's a point at which the departure from reality just becomes obnoxious. I hope Stitt does well, but that doesn't mean we have to fabricate a history and a culture for him that is false.

If he's good to his promise, he'll earn it. If not, we can look back to that "Phenomenal" record.

For the record, I don't think his "record" is a particular handicap. I think the "program" has more predictive power, which is why Joe Glenn could be such a success here, and struggle everywhere else. Same with Hauck.

That makes Stitt a very lucky man; but it has little to do with that record in Colorado.