Dog Days Poll

[kemajic]

My comments don't fit the poll questions well, so I'll freelance in the interest of showing "the gonads to evaluate our coach."

First, Stitt won a playoff game in his first year. That makes him the first UM HC to do that since Glenn. Also dominated both EWU and MSU and managed to knock off the defending NC. Not insignificant.

Stitt is a smart man and while the jury is still out, his recruiting could hardly look more positive at this point. Obviously heavy on WRs, but I won't judge this early. Don't forget the schollie handicap he has worked under.

My biggest concern with Stitt so far are his priorities. I suspect he recognizes he can't fix everything at once and tends to do things in sequence, but the priorities he places on a running game and on special teams leaves me very cold. This has already cost us games and there can be no argument about that. But when you place so much emphasis on WRs, there isn't much room for emphasis elsewhere. I can't believe a TE that could help out with the running game and short yardage/red zone receiving would compromise his top priority. Kicking, kick coverage, returns? No better than a D-. Hauck showed how this is done; we're spoiled.

With TG gone, you will see a significant improvement in team unity. How that will translate to success remains to be seen, but I expect the D to be more aggressive and better. But without a punishing Griz running game they will be on the field a lot and opposing defenses will not be worn down, able to stay in the game to the end with a chance to win.

So far, his record outside of MT is 2-3. It does not look like the same team on the road. Not sure how he fixes that, but our tough games this year are on the road.

Unlike several predecessors, Stitt is a strong salesman and good with the press. I think he will be very effective with key donors. His communication skills will benefit the internal politics where his strong case for revenue generation will provide program protection during the current enrollment/budget crisis.

Gametime decisions remain questionable; I suspect that will remain the case; win some; lose some. He has a big ego and will not be predictable. Never indecisive; sometimes wrong.

Concerns aside, frankly, I'm enjoying the ride.

 

[BadlandsGrizFan]

My comments don't fit the poll questions well, so I'll freelance in the interest of showing "the gonads to evaluate our coach."

First, Stitt won a playoff game in his first year. That makes him the first UM HC to do that since Glenn. Also dominated both EWU and MSU and managed to knock off the defending NC. Not insignificant.

Stitt is a smart man and while the jury is still out, his recruiting could hardly look more positive at this point. Obviously heavy on WRs, but I won't judge this early. Don't forget the schollie handicap he has worked under.

My biggest concern with Stitt so far are his priorities. I suspect he recognizes he can't fix everything at once and tends to do things in sequence, but the priorities he places on a running game and on special teams leaves me very cold. This has already cost us games and there can be no argument about that. But when you place so much emphasis on WRs, there isn't much room for emphasis elsewhere. I can't believe a TE that could help out with the running game and short yardage/red zone receiving would compromise his top priority. Kicking, kick coverage, returns? No better than a D-. Hauck showed how this is done; we're spoiled.

With TG gone, you will see a significant improvement in team unity. How that will translate to success remains to be seen, but I expect the D to be more aggressive and better. But without a punishing Griz running game they will be on the field a lot and opposing defenses will not be worn down, able to stay in the game to the end with a chance to win.

So far, his record outside of MT is 2-3. It does not look like the same team on the road. Not sure how he fixes that, but our tough games this year are on the road.

Unlike several predecessors, Stitt is a strong salesman and good with the press. I think he will be very effective with key donors. His communication skills will benefit the internal politics where his strong case for revenue generation will provide program protection during the current enrollment/budget crisis.

Gametime decisions remain questionable; I suspect that will remain the case; win some; lose some. He has a big ego and will not be predictable. Never indecisive; sometimes wrong.

Concerns aside, frankly, I'm enjoying the ride.

But i thought all of the major donors pulled out and shut down when we didn't hire Bobby back????? You're saying this didn't happen???? Whaaaaaaaaaaa

Have you informed Playrep???

 

[NativeGriz]

My comments don't fit the poll questions well, so I'll freelance in the interest of showing "the gonads to evaluate our coach."

First, Stitt won a playoff game in his first year. That makes him the first UM HC to do that since Glenn. Also dominated both EWU and MSU and managed to knock off the defending NC. Not insignificant.

Stitt is a smart man and while the jury is still out, his recruiting could hardly look more positive at this point. Obviously heavy on WRs, but I won't judge this early. Don't forget the schollie handicap he has worked under.

My biggest concern with Stitt so far are his priorities. I suspect he recognizes he can't fix everything at once and tends to do things in sequence, but the priorities he places on a running game and on special teams leaves me very cold. This has already cost us games and there can be no argument about that. But when you place so much emphasis on WRs, there isn't much room for emphasis elsewhere. I can't believe a TE that could help out with the running game and short yardage/red zone receiving would compromise his top priority. Kicking, kick coverage, returns? No better than a D-. Hauck showed how this is done; we're spoiled.

With TG gone, you will see a significant improvement in team unity. How that will translate to success remains to be seen, but I expect the D to be more aggressive and better. But without a punishing Griz running game they will be on the field a lot and opposing defenses will not be worn down, able to stay in the game to the end with a chance to win.

So far, his record outside of MT is 2-3. It does not look like the same team on the road. Not sure how he fixes that, but our tough games this year are on the road.

Unlike several predecessors, Stitt is a strong salesman and good with the press. I think he will be very effective with key donors. His communication skills will benefit the internal politics where his strong case for revenue generation will provide program protection during the current enrollment/budget crisis.

Gametime decisions remain questionable; I suspect that will remain the case; win some; lose some. He has a big ego and will not be predictable. Never indecisive; sometimes wrong.

Concerns aside, frankly, I'm enjoying the ride.

Good read, though I was a bit concerned with some of your grammar.

 

[Atlanta Griz1]

STOP STARTING THREADS!!!!!

Stop reading my threads. There is a badminton game on the ND/MT border calling to you.

If I still lived near there I would gladly attend....both the badminton game and sticking my nuts in a meat grinder are much higher on my list of "Things I'd rather do other than read Atlanta Griz1 posts" list

I see you are still reading. Dip stick

 

[Atlanta Griz1]

My comments don't fit the poll questions well, so I'll freelance in the interest of showing "the gonads to evaluate our coach."

First, Stitt won a playoff game in his first year. That makes him the first UM HC to do that since Glenn. Also dominated both EWU and MSU and managed to knock off the defending NC. Not insignificant.

Stitt is a smart man and while the jury is still out, his recruiting could hardly look more positive at this point. Obviously heavy on WRs, but I won't judge this early. Don't forget the schollie handicap he has worked under.

My biggest concern with Stitt so far are his priorities. I suspect he recognizes he can't fix everything at once and tends to do things in sequence, but the priorities he places on a running game and on special teams leaves me very cold. This has already cost us games and there can be no argument about that. But when you place so much emphasis on WRs, there isn't much room for emphasis elsewhere. I can't believe a TE that could help out with the running game and short yardage/red zone receiving would compromise his top priority. Kicking, kick coverage, returns? No better than a D-. Hauck showed how this is done; we're spoiled.

With TG gone, you will see a significant improvement in team unity. How that will translate to success remains to be seen, but I expect the D to be more aggressive and better. But without a punishing Griz running game they will be on the field a lot and opposing defenses will not be worn down, able to stay in the game to the end with a chance to win.

So far, his record outside of MT is 2-3. It does not look like the same team on the road. Not sure how he fixes that, but our tough games this year are on the road.

Unlike several predecessors, Stitt is a strong salesman and good with the press. I think he will be very effective with key donors. His communication skills will benefit the internal politics where his strong case for revenue generation will provide program protection during the current enrollment/budget crisis.

Gametime decisions remain questionable; I suspect that will remain the case; win some; lose some. He has a big ego and will not be predictable. Never indecisive; sometimes wrong.

Concerns aside, frankly, I'm enjoying the ride.

Damn good analysis, free of sucrose. I agree with 90% of it.

 

[Atlanta Griz1]

My comments don't fit the poll questions well, so I'll freelance in the interest of showing "the gonads to evaluate our coach."

First, Stitt won a playoff game in his first year. That makes him the first UM HC to do that since Glenn. Also dominated both EWU and MSU and managed to knock off the defending NC. Not insignificant.

Stitt is a smart man and while the jury is still out, his recruiting could hardly look more positive at this point. Obviously heavy on WRs, but I won't judge this early. Don't forget the schollie handicap he has worked under.

My biggest concern with Stitt so far are his priorities. I suspect he recognizes he can't fix everything at once and tends to do things in sequence, but the priorities he places on a running game and on special teams leaves me very cold. This has already cost us games and there can be no argument about that. But when you place so much emphasis on WRs, there isn't much room for emphasis elsewhere. I can't believe a TE that could help out with the running game and short yardage/red zone receiving would compromise his top priority. Kicking, kick coverage, returns? No better than a D-. Hauck showed how this is done; we're spoiled.

With TG gone, you will see a significant improvement in team unity. How that will translate to success remains to be seen, but I expect the D to be more aggressive and better. But without a punishing Griz running game they will be on the field a lot and opposing defenses will not be worn down, able to stay in the game to the end with a chance to win.

So far, his record outside of MT is 2-3. It does not look like the same team on the road. Not sure how he fixes that, but our tough games this year are on the road.

Unlike several predecessors, Stitt is a strong salesman and good with the press. I think he will be very effective with key donors. His communication skills will benefit the internal politics where his strong case for revenue generation will provide program protection during the current enrollment/budget crisis.

Gametime decisions remain questionable; I suspect that will remain the case; win some; lose some. He has a big ego and will not be predictable. Never indecisive; sometimes wrong.

Concerns aside, frankly, I'm enjoying the ride.

Good read, though I was a bit concerned with some of your grammar.

This isn't about grammer. He talkes foostball, and obviousley nos quite a bit aboute it. We'll leave the grammer for peple who give a flip about it.

 

[Atlanta Griz1]

1) recruiting: F. Can't even out recruit S Utah for F's sakes... The players have really skinny arms and not enough white guys. Waiting for some more stud WR transfers. Heard Northern has a stud from Circle that would like to transfer.
2) offensive strategy. F... Clearly does not consult egriz enough... Won't even return Growlers phone calls on how to execute dive right better...
3) defensive strategy. F... Because sugar is for Kool-aide and participation trophys. You are a Bernie supporter if you think differently...Food stamps... Wally world...
4) game time decisions. F. He really should try picking his butt more and insult his players like the Donald.
5) game time adjustments F. See #4 because its the same exact thing...

Lets face it the guy is from a loser school like Colorado School of Mines.... I mean how can you trust a guy from basically a school of loser nerds... Should have hired a stud Trump University graduate. Alum from there have been trained to win and to take no crap from anyone.

Good post...

 

[UMGriz75]

1) recruiting C I think he has brought in a lot of talent but how can you grade a coach after one year of recruiting?

----------------------------
While I fully understand "fan fervor," this is the one area of "performance" that I find ... distracting. If each recruiting class were as good as the fanboys claim each year, which is almost invariably "the best ever," we should by this point as the result of 20 years of "best evers" be hands-down the leading NFL collegiate team in the nation.

It something of a fool's errand.

I've watched enough high school tapes and then seen the kids as they transition to college football, grow from 17 year olds into 19 and 20 year olds and see the field again, and can only conclude that there is a large element of "luck" involved, out of the control of the coach's keen eye and sharp attention to a 17 year old kid. That doesn't say you don't do the best you can from the recruiting angle, but its the fan assessment angle that I find practically an exercise in imagination and futility more than reality.

It's an assessment than can only be made 2-3 years down the road, and the grade is almost always "B."

 

[AllWeatherFan]

Straight A's. Solid work, Bob.

 

[Yukon]

My comments don't fit the poll questions well, so I'll freelance in the interest of showing "the gonads to evaluate our coach."

First, Stitt won a playoff game in his first year. That makes him the first UM HC to do that since Glenn. Also dominated both EWU and MSU and managed to knock off the defending NC. Not insignificant.

Stitt is a smart man and while the jury is still out, his recruiting could hardly look more positive at this point. Obviously heavy on WRs, but I won't judge this early. Don't forget the schollie handicap he has worked under.

My biggest concern with Stitt so far are his priorities. I suspect he recognizes he can't fix everything at once and tends to do things in sequence, but the priorities he places on a running game and on special teams leaves me very cold. This has already cost us games and there can be no argument about that. But when you place so much emphasis on WRs, there isn't much room for emphasis elsewhere. I can't believe a TE that could help out with the running game and short yardage/red zone receiving would compromise his top priority. Kicking, kick coverage, returns? No better than a D-. Hauck showed how this is done; we're spoiled.

With TG gone, you will see a significant improvement in team unity. How that will translate to success remains to be seen, but I expect the D to be more aggressive and better. But without a punishing Griz running game they will be on the field a lot and opposing defenses will not be worn down, able to stay in the game to the end with a chance to win.

So far, his record outside of MT is 2-3. It does not look like the same team on the road. Not sure how he fixes that, but our tough games this year are on the road.

Unlike several predecessors, Stitt is a strong salesman and good with the press. I think he will be very effective with key donors. His communication skills will benefit the internal politics where his strong case for revenue generation will provide program protection during the current enrollment/budget crisis.

Gametime decisions remain questionable; I suspect that will remain the case; win some; lose some. He has a big ego and will not be predictable. Never indecisive; sometimes wrong.

Concerns aside, frankly, I'm enjoying the ride.

Damn good analysis, free of sucrose. I agree with 90% of it.

 

[poorgriz]

1) recruiting A. Arguably the best class in the FCS coming in. Stitt's first year-long recruiting effort.
2) offensive strategy B. Running game must improve in addition to consistency at QB and RZ efficiency. Better this year.
3) defensive strategy C+. Shedding TG is a positive. New adaptive schemes, Semore...we'll see.
4) game time decisions B-. I think we'll get a better sense of his instincts this season.
5) game time adjustments C-. Staff must improve here. Too many fits and starts, and playing not to lose in some cases. Have to learn to bury teams.

Overall---I give him B. Not bad for his first year IMO.

Program overall....A-... given the superb facility upgrades ongoing and planned. Trajectory is good.

Certainly the biggest, in the history of college football. And with 60 brand new players there damn well better be some good ones in there.

 

[UMGriz75]

3) I would say after Semore got involved it was B before that I give it a C for "cushion"

UM had been improving its defensive margins over the past three years. As compared to the top five offensive teams of each year, UM's success had kept the "top five" to 29 points, 24.5 and 24 in 2015. While not necessarily statistically significant, it's the direction a team wants to go.

What were the differences in 2015? Against a top five team, including PSU and prior to PSU, Griz kept opponents to 24 points, but one of those top five was second place NAU, kept to 14 points. That's a quality achievement. After PSU, to 25 points,

The data suggests that prior to Semore, the Griz were improving over the past three years, and in the first half or so of the season were improving in a fashion that was consistent with prior years.

Indeed, against a top five team (14 points) or all conference opponents prior to PSU, UM was keeping conference opponents to an average of just 17 points, despite the fact that UM lost two of those four games.

After PSU, the results go in the other direction. Whether against a top five, or all opponents, the points allowed to the other team under Semore were higher than the comparable scores under Gregorak.

Prior to PSU, UM was having its best defensive season ever, holding opponents to 17.7 points, despite the fact that UM lost 50% of its conference games. Whatever can be said, it wasn't the Defense that was losing games. And that improvement in the Defense was consistent with the trend of the previous two years. It was not an anomaly.

Post PSU, conference opponents were held to an average of 26 points, nearly double what opponents were held to prior to PSU.

For a team consistently in the top five offenses for the three year period, MSU, Gregorak-coached defenses held MSU to an average of 10 points. Under Semore, the 'Cat score of 35 points was close to the 'Cat's average season score of 41.9. Nobody in the conference shut down the 'Cats like Gregorak did, and certainly not Semore who practically let them reach their conference average -- not a "plus."

Gregorak defenses held MSU to a full 25 points under their season averages. Gregorak offered the 'Cat's the toughest defense in their recent history. The Semore defense held the Cats to just 7 points under their season average. The fact is, the Gregorak defense gave up against NDSU, the number 1 team in the nation, what the Semore defense gave up against the 'Cats, a team in collapse. There is nothing to support Stitt's decision to go to Semore. Objectively, the decision hurt the Griz and substantially so.

Now, that's not a lot of data, and the caveat here is that whatever the data, it is not offered to suggest Gregorak was the better coach, but the data simply does not, in any way, support the conclusion above. Something else may support that conclusion, it's just that the objective data does not.

Grade? C-.

 

[Umista]

Growler is sitting back in his lawn chair sipping on a red beer with a sawed off shot gun knowing I'll take the bait.
Ahh the suction got me...
I did hate the way our team played at times and I also liked the teams overall play. At certain times we were bad to the bone. My official take follows:
Special teams rated a slipery D.
The defense was OK but missed having a sharp mental leader to out flank others at certain times. Hence I gave the Defense a C+.
Our offense did show some spark during the season, otherwise it played spotty bad. I tossed the offense a C+

Coaching? A crap shoot at best. My gut feeling is Stitt will end up doing a good job and has done OK up to this point. I like him and his quick wit. I quized him about last season and all the gaffs I brought up were explained to my satisfaction. Until he gets 2 more years as the head Griz coach it is hard to judge the guy. But again I continue to like him and I am guessing he will do very well during his period as the head coach.

Recruits? Best in the west? One thing Stitt did do that I think is smart is he recruited kids that he could put on academic schollies and got good kids that are not only good players but very smart! This seems to save football money. All older folks know that each year we recruit the greatest players but after a year one half are gone and next season it all begins again. After each recruiting season we are drunk with joy then a year later we sober up and find out some of the unmentioned walk-ons turn out to be super studs.

Shoot Growler she is loaded!

 

[AZGrizFan]

3) I would say after Semore got involved it was B before that I give it a C for "cushion"

UM had been improving its defensive margins over the past three years. As compared to the top five offensive teams of each year, UM's success had kept the "top five" to 29 points, 24.5 and 24 in 2015. While not necessarily statistically significant, it's the direction a team wants to go.

What were the differences in 2015? Against a top five team, including PSU and prior to PSU, Griz kept opponents to 24 points, but one of those top five was second place NAU, kept to 14 points. That's a quality achievement. After PSU, to 25 points,

The data suggests that prior to Semore, the Griz were improving over the past three years, and in the first half or so of the season were improving in a fashion that was consistent with prior years.

Indeed, against a top five team (14 points) or all conference opponents prior to PSU, UM was keeping conference opponents to an average of just 17 points, despite the fact that UM lost two of those four games.

After PSU, the results go in the other direction. Whether against a top five, or all opponents, the points allowed to the other team under Semore were higher than the comparable scores under Gregorak.

Prior to PSU, UM was having its best defensive season ever, holding opponents to 17.7 points, despite the fact that UM lost 50% of its conference games. Whatever can be said, it wasn't the Defense that was losing games. And that improvement in the Defense was consistent with the trend of the previous two years. It was not an anomaly.

Post PSU, conference opponents were held to an average of 26 points, nearly double what opponents were held to prior to PSU.

For a team consistently in the top five offenses for the three year period, MSU, Gregorak-coached defenses held MSU to an average of 10 points. Under Semore, the 'Cat score of 35 points was close to the 'Cat's average season score of 41.9. Nobody in the conference shut down the 'Cats like Gregorak did, and certainly not Semore who practically let them reach their conference average -- not a "plus."

Gregorak defenses held MSU to a full 25 points under their season averages. Gregorak offered the 'Cat's the toughest defense in their recent history. The Semore defense held the Cats to just 7 points under their season average. The fact is, the Gregorak defense gave up against NDSU, the number 1 team in the nation, what the Semore defense gave up against the 'Cats, a team in collapse. There is nothing to support Stitt's decision to go to Semore. Objectively, the decision hurt the Griz and substantially so.

Now, that's not a lot of data, and the caveat here is that whatever the data, it is not offered to suggest Gregorak was the better coach, but the data simply does not, in any way, support the conclusion above. Something else may support that conclusion, it's just that the objective data does not.

Grade? C-.

Comparing the offenses of Weber, NAU and PSU to EWU, MSU and NDSU is laughable. Also, against both EWU and MSU, Griz were blowing their doors off then got conservative. The final score rarely (if ever) tells the whole story. There's lies, damned lies, and statistics.

 

[UMGriz75]

Comparing the offenses of Weber, NAU and PSU to EWU, MSU and NDSU is laughable. Also, against both EWU and MSU, Griz were blowing their doors off then got conservative. The final score rarely (if ever) tells the whole story. There's lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Well, that's the point of taking three years of results of the top five offenses in the conference, then taking all conference results, and then taking a metric that was consistent across the three year data range in terms of offensive ranking. It's a three-way analysis designed to minimize "laughing," "doors," "conservatives," "lies," and people who, at the end of the day, refuse to believe anything if it does not fit their "cosmic perception" which appears to be their operative analytical tool. The kind of people that don't believe in accounting, because "we can't be broke, we still have checks!" For them, there will never be a bottom line .... nor a final score, "despite the final score, we actually won that game!"

At some point, to refute that, you have to start claiming that the "final score" never tells the "whole story." Or, more interestingly, that it doesn't tell the whole story for Semore, but it does for Gregorak. Right? Let's just put a real nice double standard in there.

But, for the claim itself, that the "final score' never tells the "whole story," actually, the way that its set up with that scoreboard thingy, over time, it is the whole story. It's an interesting claim, perhaps representing unrequited love rather than a rational point.

The fact is, I don't think the data supports any argument that Semore did a better job this year than Gregorak. There wasn't a single trend across three axes of data that could demonstrate that, but that rather, the results showed that he did considerably worse than Gregorak, and certainly when Gregorak's longer term trend was taken into account.

 

[kemajic]

Comparing the offenses of Weber, NAU and PSU to EWU, MSU and NDSU is laughable. Also, against both EWU and MSU, Griz were blowing their doors off then got conservative. The final score rarely (if ever) tells the whole story. There's lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Well, that's the point of taking three years of results of the top five offenses in the conference, then taking all conference results, and then taking a metric that was consistent across the three year data range in terms of offensive ranking. It's a three-way analysis designed to minimize "laughing," "doors," "conservatives," "lies," and people who, at the end of the day, refuse to believe anything if it does not fit their "cosmic perception" which appears to be their operative analytical tool. The kind of people that don't believe in accounting, because "we can't be broke, we still have checks!" For them, there will never be a bottom line .... nor a final score, "despite the final score, we actually won that game!"

At some point, to refute that, you have to start claiming that the "final score" never tells the "whole story." Or, more interestingly, that it doesn't tell the whole story for Semore, but it does for Gregorak. Right? Let's just put a real nice double standard in there.

But, for the claim itself, that the "final score' never tells the "whole story," actually, the way that its set up with that scoreboard thingy, it is the whole story. It's an interesting claim, perhaps representing unrequited love rather than a rational point.

The fact is, I don't think the data supports any argument that Semore did a better job this year than Gregorak. There wasn't a single trend across three axes of data that could demonstrate that, but that rather, the results showed that he did considerably worse than Gregorak, and certainly when Gregorak's longer term trend was taken into account.

The most important statistics are W's and L's. We were 4-4 through the PSU game after which we were 4-1. TG did a fine job at UM, but his refusal to recognize who was HC did not help the team last year. After PSU, Stitt had had enough. UM and MSU are both likely to benefit from his move.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

There are way too many variables to compare historical data in college football to learn more than generalities. Attempting to compare based on specifics is nothing more than hogwash.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

Comparing the offenses of Weber, NAU and PSU to EWU, MSU and NDSU is laughable. Also, against both EWU and MSU, Griz were blowing their doors off then got conservative. The final score rarely (if ever) tells the whole story. There's lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Well, that's the point of taking three years of results of the top five offenses in the conference, then taking all conference results, and then taking a metric that was consistent across the three year data range in terms of offensive ranking. It's a three-way analysis designed to minimize "laughing," "doors," "conservatives," "lies," and people who, at the end of the day, refuse to believe anything if it does not fit their "cosmic perception" which appears to be their operative analytical tool. The kind of people that don't believe in accounting, because "we can't be broke, we still have checks!" For them, there will never be a bottom line .... nor a final score, "despite the final score, we actually won that game!"

At some point, to refute that, you have to start claiming that the "final score" never tells the "whole story." Or, more interestingly, that it doesn't tell the whole story for Semore, but it does for Gregorak. Right? Let's just put a real nice double standard in there.

But, for the claim itself, that the "final score' never tells the "whole story," actually, the way that its set up with that scoreboard thingy, it is the whole story. It's an interesting claim, perhaps representing unrequited love rather than a rational point.

The fact is, I don't think the data supports any argument that Semore did a better job this year than Gregorak. There wasn't a single trend across three axes of data that could demonstrate that, but that rather, the results showed that he did considerably worse than Gregorak, and certainly when Gregorak's longer term trend was taken into account.

The most important statistics are W's and L's. We were 4-4 through the PSU game after which we were 4-1. TG did a fine job at UM, but his refusal to recognize who was HC did not help the team last year. After PSU, Stitt had had enough. UM and MSU are both likely to benefit from his move.

The best things I believe Kem has ever posted.

 

[UMGriz75]

The most important statistics are W's and L's. We were 4-4 through the PSU game after which we were 4-1. TG did a fine job at UM, but his refusal to recognize who was HC did not help the team last year. After PSU, Stitt had had enough.

Enough of what? The losses prior to PSU were all Stitt's. PSU represented a flawed passing strategy in the pouring rain. After PSU, we met an EWU in complete meltdown, Stitt's strategy nearly lost the ISU game in which the DEFENSE went dry against an energized ISU -- there was a disturbing game in terms of "what are we doing and where are we going?" The offense changed in the second half because Stitt didn't like the running game that was being so successful. Changed it to what Kramer had prepared for in the first place. And then "went conservative" to preserve the lead. Griz offense imploded.

Then when ISU's offense opened up, the Grizzly defense couldn't adjust. And couldn't adjust again against MSU, and may as well not have shown up at NDSU.

C-.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

The most important statistics are W's and L's. We were 4-4 through the PSU game after which we were 4-1. TG did a fine job at UM, but his refusal to recognize who was HC did not help the team last year. After PSU, Stitt had had enough.

Enough of what? The losses prior to PSU were all Stitt's. PSU represented a flawed passing strategy in the pouring rain. After PSU, we met an EWU in complete meltdown, Stitt's strategy nearly lost the ISU game in which the DEFENSE went dry against an energized ISU -- there was a disturbing game in terms of "what are we doing and where are we going?" The offense changed in the second half because Stitt didn't like the running game that was being so successful. Changed it to what Kramer had prepared for in the first place. And then "went conservative" to preserve the lead.

Then when ISU's offense opened up, the Grizzly defense couldn't adjust. And couldn't adjust again against MSU, and may as well not have shown up at NDSU.

C-.

The behind the scenes issues. Things were far from harmonious within the team. The arrangement was never going to work.