Eriul said:
I'm waiting for your counter from a stats standpoint. Because if you want to play the eye test, you are in the vast minority of thinking simis is good at running our offense.
And therein lies the problem: your penchant for fabrication. I didn't say that. I did say that on key metrics, Brady was deteriorating, and on one important key metric, was in bad shape consistently.
I also said that Makena was also deteriorating on key metrics, but started at a higher level on all of them, and that on that one key metric, Makena's worst performance was equal to Brady's best performance (33%).
And that's simply true.
I also pointed out that there was a consistency in the deterioration of both QBs with each subsequent game that they each played. I also corrected the misnomer that Makena was playing "slowed down" versions of the Stitt offense at PSU and ISU, when in fact, Stitt was demanding something closer to HIS preferred offense from Makena in both games and getting poorer results compared to the "actual" slowed down game against UND.
The illuminating part of that was that some observers really did believe what they wrote, whereas the "stats" said the exact opposite.
And of course, at the bottom of the heap, is the question, if Brady "understands" the playbook better, why did Makena get such better results in at least one game, and arguably better results on several metrics in others? If the "Playbook" isn't concerned with the poor rate of third down conversions, then someone needs to offer a reason why.
Hypeventilating notwithstanding, no one has done so. I am curious, what "stat" actually shows Brady not overthrowing and miscommunicating?
