Post Game: A beatdown and now playoff bound

[UMGriz75]

Whoa whoa whoa....

Prukop per game: 72.5 rushing yards, 275 passing. 11 Rush TDs (1 per game avg), 28 pass TDs (2.5 per game avg), 10 ints (0.9 per game).

Simis per game: 42.5 rushing yards, 148 passing. 1 Rush TD (0.2 per game avg), 7 pass TDs (1.4 per game), 5 ints (1 per game).

In no way are Simis's stats better than Prukops... None... At all.

Whoa yourself. I pointed to one single game, under similar conditions, both played on the same day, a game that Simis "lost." And so did Prukop, to a team decisively beaten by UM. Please don't adopt the careless reading of some posters and attribute to me something I specifically did not say. I did not, anywhere, say "per game." I said, "that game."

 

[get'em_griz]

Whoa whoa whoa....

Prukop per game: 72.5 rushing yards, 275 passing. 11 Rush TDs (1 per game avg), 28 pass TDs (2.5 per game avg), 10 ints (0.9 per game).

Simis per game: 42.5 rushing yards, 148 passing. 1 Rush TD (0.2 per game avg), 7 pass TDs (1.4 per game), 5 ints (1 per game).

In no way are Simis's stats better than Prukops... None... At all.

Whoa yourself. I pointed to one single game, under similar conditions, both played on the same day, a game that Simis "lost." And so did Prukop, to a team decisively beaten by UM. Please don't adopt the careless reading of some posters and attribute to me something I specifically did not say. I did not, anywhere, say "per game." I said, "that game."

Cherry picking at it's finest.

 

[UMGriz75]

Cherry picking at it's finest.

:lol: Cherry picking Makena's worst game? Now that's some cherry picking! :lol: :lol:

 

[George Ferguson]

UmGriz75, no arguing, no smack, no ill will intended here. Just an honest question, and hopefully you will deliver an honest answer because you have kept this Simis/Stitt thing going for a long, long time now. And, if you don't want to answer in public, PM me, I won't share it with anyone. But I have to know. So here it goes.

Do you think Makena Simis is better than Brady Gustafson and should be the No. 1 quarterback on this current Griz' team? Yes or no?

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

Whoa whoa whoa....

Prukop per game: 72.5 rushing yards, 275 passing. 11 Rush TDs (1 per game avg), 28 pass TDs (2.5 per game avg), 10 ints (0.9 per game).

Simis per game: 42.5 rushing yards, 148 passing. 1 Rush TD (0.2 per game avg), 7 pass TDs (1.4 per game), 5 ints (1 per game).

In no way are Simis's stats better than Prukops... None... At all.

Whoa yourself. I pointed to one single game, under similar conditions, both played on the same day, a game that Simis "lost." And so did Prukop, to a team decisively beaten by UM. Please don't adopt the careless reading of some posters and attribute to me something I specifically did not say. I did not, anywhere, say "per game." I said, "that game."

Of course everything else about those games was equal. I mean, there couldn't have been any other factors in the games that can explain performances. In other words, you are trying to compare unlike things, unless you are just making general statements and not trying to compare.

 

[UMGriz75]

UmGriz75, no arguing, no smack, no ill will intended here. Just an honest question, and hopefully you will deliver an honest answer because you have kept this Simis/Stitt thing going for a long, long time now.

I did not bring it up on this thread. Talk to those that did, and ask them why their insistence that "stats don't matter" was valid at any time.

 

[George Ferguson]

Hmmm., so not willing to answer honestly huh? OK

 

[UMGriz75]

Do you think Makena Simis is better than Brady Gustafson and should be the No. 1 quarterback on this current Griz' team? Yes or no?

I answered that question on the germane thread. At that time, I specifically said I did not know and could not know "from the data." When Brady had a good game, he had a good game. When Makena had a good game, he had a good game. But, like many Cat fans, this forum included people who wanted a predetermined result. As I specifically said at the time, "it may be true, it is just unsupported at this time by the data."

And it was. There is simply no doubt about that. I'm not inclined to spasms of despair, nor to explosions of euphoria. Just not. The data will summarize what happened, and the more of it, the better. That is why I specifically said, at that point in time, I certainly could not know; others claimed that they could.

 

[grizindabox]

UmGriz75, no arguing, no smack, no ill will intended here. Just an honest question, and hopefully you will deliver an honest answer because you have kept this Simis/Stitt thing going for a long, long time now.

I did not bring it up on this thread. Talk to those that did, and ask them why their insistence that "stats don't matter" was valid at any time.

Once again, no one said stats don't matter...what they said is that they don't necessarily tell the entire story and there are multiple ways stats can be accumulated and you need to analyze more of those specifics. Most people were of the belief that Gus was the better QB even though your statistical metric suggested otherwise, and people based this belief on actual watching and analyzing the play of both QB's. I fail to see why that is so difficult for you to understand.

 

[UMGriz75]

UmGriz75, no arguing, no smack, no ill will intended here. Just an honest question, and hopefully you will deliver an honest answer because you have kept this Simis/Stitt thing going for a long, long time now.

I did not bring it up on this thread. Talk to those that did, and ask them why their insistence that "stats don't matter" was valid at any time.

Once again, no one said stats don't matter...what they said is that they don't necessarily tell the entire story and there are multiple ways stats can be accumulated and you need to analyze more of those specifics. Most people were of the belief that Gus was the better QB even though your statistical metric suggested otherwise, and people based this belief on actual watching and analyzing the play of both QB's. I fail to see why that is so difficult for you to understand.

Please, you are rehashing an argument that you could not constructively engage in the first time. Perhaps that explains why you want another round at it on it an irrelvant thread. I fail to see why that is so difficult for you to understand. As I noted, my "statistical method" did not suggest otherwise, I simply stated "it did not prove your point" and when invited to offer something that did prove your point, you failed to do so. Well, that was that.

 

[UMGriz75]

Once again, no one said stats don't matter...what they said is that they don't necessarily tell the entire story and there are multiple ways stats can be accumulated and you need to analyze more of those specifics.

And I agreed, but I also argued you can't disregard the statistical record. When I asked you to analyze more of "those specifics," apparently your keyboard broke.

That was the sum total of that conversation.

Why are you trying to resurrect it here? To argue points you failed to argue there?

 

[grizindabox]

UmGriz75, no arguing, no smack, no ill will intended here. Just an honest question, and hopefully you will deliver an honest answer because you have kept this Simis/Stitt thing going for a long, long time now.

I did not bring it up on this thread. Talk to those that did, and ask them why their insistence that "stats don't matter" was valid at any time.

Once again, no one said stats don't matter...what they said is that they don't necessarily tell the entire story and there are multiple ways stats can be accumulated and you need to analyze more of those specifics. Most people were of the belief that Gus was the better QB even though your statistical metric suggested otherwise, and people based this belief on actual watching and analyzing the play of both QB's. I fail to see why that is so difficult for you to understand.

Please, you are rehashing an argument that you could not constructively engage in the first time. Perhaps that explains why you want another round at it on it an irrelvant thread. I fail to see why that is so difficult for you to understand. As I noted, my "statistical method" did not suggest otherwise, I simply stated "it did not prove your point" and when invited to offer something that did prove your point, you failed to do so. Well, that was that.

So since your statistical metric based on stats that summarize what happened did not prove what several others believed on analyzing the play of the QB's, it must be incorrect.....how about now that Gus has 2 more games under his belt.....

 

[grizindabox]

Once again, no one said stats don't matter...what they said is that they don't necessarily tell the entire story and there are multiple ways stats can be accumulated and you need to analyze more of those specifics.

And I agreed, but I also argued you can't disregard the statistical record. When I asked you to analyze more of "those specifics," apparently your keyboard broke.

That was the sum total of that conversation.

Why are you trying to resurrect it here? To argue points you failed to argue there?

No one said to disregard stats. Also, there were multiple posters that listed multiple basic things to look at....from defensive alignments, to how a cb played the wr, to what the safeties did in certain situations, to if the QB was able to locate a secondary receiver, etc. But you wanted to disregard all of this information. And I am done, because no matter how many times anyone tries to explain it....you just don't get it....and all I did in this post is summarize....

 

[UMGriz75]

So since your statistical metric based on stats that summarize what happened did not prove what several others believed on analyzing the play of the QB's, it must be incorrect.....how about now that Gus has 2 more games under his belt.....

Are you an adult? Seriously?

I specifically said that each quarterback had their strong points, and one had lost six quarters of play after his first four quarters of success. I also said that the overall data did not give me enough information to know who was the "better quarterback." Your objection was to the presentation of the data. Well, tough bunnies, the data is the data. You wanted to change the subject to your perceptions. Fine. You are perfectly free to talk about what you want to talk about. But, when I asked you to support a case that "you knew better" than something that I said the data could not predict at the time, you failed to offer a single reason why. I did say you could be right, but that there was little support in the data either way, and I repeated that several times, "it could be true, there just was no statistical validation for it at that time."

Why are you still struggling with what obviously was an unhappy conversation for you on another thread?

 

[UMGriz75]

Also, there were multiple posters that listed multiple basic things to look at....from defensive alignments, to how a cb played the wr, to what the safeties did in certain situations, to if the QB was able to locate a secondary receiver, etc. But you wanted to disregard all of this information.

That's the slick lie here. "Multiple basic things to look at" was a nice generality. There was no "specific information." None whatsoever. It was all hot air. When I asked you to be specific, you went silent. I can also say there are "multiple basic things to look at." There. See how that works? I used actual data, which did, in fact, exist in the real world. You relied on platitudes.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

75 thinks a coach selects his starting QB based on stats that summarizes his accomplishments. There is never a reason to evaluate film, it just wastes a day he could be marketing his line of shirts on national sports radio.

 

[UMGriz75]

75 thinks a coach selects his starting QB based on stats that summarizes his accomplishments. There is never a reason to evaluate film, it just wastes a day he could be marketing his line of shirts on national sports radio.

Never said any of that. Thanks for the nice lie. Coaches don't rely on logical fallacies to choose their starting QBs. I can say that with some conviction. But you needed to, because like the other thread, you actually had nothing to say when challenged on specifics.

 

[grizindabox]

Also, there were multiple posters that listed multiple basic things to look at....from defensive alignments, to how a cb played the wr, to what the safeties did in certain situations, to if the QB was able to locate a secondary receiver, etc. But you wanted to disregard all of this information.

That's the slick lie here. "Multiple basic things to look at" was a nice generality. There was no "specific information." None whatsoever. It was all hot air. When I asked you to be specific, you went silent. I can also say there are "multiple basic things to look at." There. See how that works? I used actual data, which did, in fact, exist in the real world. You relied on platitudes.

And based on your real world espn game summary that was available at the time, who would you have started at QB the last 2 games.....and don't say Gus because you would be full of shit....because we all know that statistically Simis had a better good game and a not as terrible bad game...so he was statistically the better choice....does this sum it up...

 

[Sam A. Blitz]

Gus has shown to be the best QB on the team. That is apparent by him being named as the clear cut QB1 at the beginning of the season and from the ability he has shown. Simis is more athletic and has a strong arm but he doesn't have the grasp of the offense, which makes a huge difference in the flow of this offense. Gus also shows more touch and can make almost all the throws needed.

Frankly, it is extremely impressive that Gus has been able to be as poised and as successful running a newly learned offense as he has given that this is his first year with any meaningful playing time. Very few QBs are capable of doing that and I think that has a large part of why Stitt is so high on him.

I think many will point to the North Dakota game to make an argument of why Simis can be in the argument as the answer at QB, but you also have to consider that North Dakota did not match up well with the simplified scheme for the Griz and really didn't have much to prepare for that simplified scheme. The offense that the Griz ran againt ND was very different from the O that they have ran throughout the season and that really made it more difficult in ND's defensive gameplan, expesially with the matchups presented in that game.

 

[UMGriz75]

Also, there were multiple posters that listed multiple basic things to look at....from defensive alignments, to how a cb played the wr, to what the safeties did in certain situations, to if the QB was able to locate a secondary receiver, etc. But you wanted to disregard all of this information.

That's the slick lie here. "Multiple basic things to look at" was a nice generality. There was no "specific information." None whatsoever. It was all hot air. When I asked you to be specific, you went silent. I can also say there are "multiple basic things to look at." There. See how that works? I used actual data, which did, in fact, exist in the real world. You relied on platitudes.

And based on your real world espn game summary that was available at the time, who would you have started at QB the last 2 games.....and don't say Gus because you would be full of shit....because we all know that statistically Simis had a better good game and a not as terrible bad game...so he was statistically the better choice....does this sum it up...

Why don't you resurrect the other thread, where you whined and complained at length that the stats were invalid because of football's "complexity." Why are you on this thread? Trolling? You did a good job of it there, but as I said there, the statistical data did not provide a clear picture. You seem to have a problem with that. It's probably self-inflicted. When I asked you 'how" your analysis of "complexity" offered any actual information, you went silent, unable to support your contentions. That's trolling. And you're doing it again.