QB

[HelenaHandBasket]

I'm confused one minute Stitt is inflexible and the next he is always tinkering with the offense?? Which is it 75????

You are confused. When the coach takes a winning set of circumstances and then keeps trying to change back to his "base strategy" and it doesn't work, that's tinkering, and also inflexible. It is possible to learn from your players by their successes.

Got it?

The winning set of circumstances were a subset of his "base strategy" and he tried to incorporate more of his 'base strategy" and Simis did not adjust so he simplified it once again. Sounds pretty flexible to me. When your QB has success with part of the offense, would it not make sense to give him more?

Thats kinda what I thought helena. But I see I was wrong as the know it all pri#k 75 explained.

It has become very apparent that 75 doesn't have a clue about football outside of looking at the stats.

 

[UMGriz75]

I'm confused one minute Stitt is inflexible and the next he is always tinkering with the offense?? Which is it 75????

You are confused. When the coach takes a winning set of circumstances and then keeps trying to change back to his "base strategy" and it doesn't work, that's tinkering, and also inflexible. It is possible to learn from your players by their successes.

Got it?

The winning set of circumstances were a subset of his "base strategy" and he tried to incorporate more of his 'base strategy" and Simis did not adjust so he simplified it once again. Sounds pretty flexible to me. When your QB has success with part of the offense, would it not make sense to give him more?

That's your opinion. The game statistics do not support it. Stitt was flexible enough to simplify his offense and abandon his high play, 4th Q strategy because he thought he had a 3rd string QB that couldn't "do" his strategy. His first string QB couldn't do it, so Stitt was undoubtedly correct.

But when that change turned out to be unbelievably successful, he then tried to turn back to his 4th Q strategy. It didn't work. He attempted to stick to it, however, at ISU where, frankly, it didn't work AGAIN, for the same reasons it didn't work against Cal Poly, Weber, and Portland State. ISU is a win that belongs to the quick-thinking players, not to the coach. For the coach, it is the 4th loss.

Makena currently has a 0.67 percent game success rate. That's equal to Stitt's ten year record at Mines. Brady, playing Stitt's game, has a 0.33 game success rate.

That is the "4th Q" strategy success metric, worse if you add PSU and ISU. If Brady couldn't execute it, and Stitt doesn't think anyone else can execute it, then why the hell keep trying it? It takes Henderson's and Jones's skills mostly out of the game, and we can't win games without those two.

I don't think those stats are particularly meaningful, at this point in time, but they don't support an argument that Brady is a better QB. As I have repeatedly said, the argument "could" be true, there is just no statistical support for it, and it is counter to the statistical argument against it.

As Stitt's tweets confirmed, all of Brady's games used the "base strategy." He has not tried a different strategy with Brady, whereas he did with Makena. The outcomes were different. You didn't need "stats" to see that.

 

[Mavman]

You are confused. When the coach takes a winning set of circumstances and then keeps trying to change back to his "base strategy" and it doesn't work, that's tinkering, and also inflexible. It is possible to learn from your players by their successes.

Got it?

The winning set of circumstances were a subset of his "base strategy" and he tried to incorporate more of his 'base strategy" and Simis did not adjust so he simplified it once again. Sounds pretty flexible to me. When your QB has success with part of the offense, would it not make sense to give him more?

Thats kinda what I thought helena. But I see I was wrong as the know it all pri#k 75 explained.

It has become very apparent that 75 doesn't have a clue about football outside of looking at the stats.

I have a real problem with stats and the game of football. If you could rely on stats picking games would be easy.
Comparing teams and players based on stats is BS too. Too many variables in each game to get hung up on stats.
EWU is a terrible defense however the Griz could make them look like world beaters this weekend, just like the way the Griz made a pretty damn good "statistical" defense in UND look crappy throwing 6 tds. Just my opinion :thumb:

 

[bgbigdog]

Big data is seemingly everywhere. Game day yet?

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

h

I'm confused one minute Stitt is inflexible and the next he is always tinkering with the offense?? Which is it 75????

You are confused. When the coach takes a winning set of circumstances and then keeps trying to change back to his "base strategy" and it doesn't work, that's tinkering, and also inflexible. It is possible to learn from your players by their successes.

Got it?

The winning set of circumstances were a subset of his "base strategy" and he tried to incorporate more of his 'base strategy" and Simis did not adjust so he simplified it once again. Sounds pretty flexible to me. When your QB has success with part of the offense, would it not make sense to give him more?

That's your opinion. The game statistics do not support it. Stitt was flexible enough to simplify his offense and abandon his high play, 4th Q strategy because he thought he had a 3rd string QB that couldn't "do" his strategy. When it turned out to be unbelievably successful, he then tried to turn back to his 4th Q strategy. It didn't work. He attempted to stick to it, however, at ISU where, frankly, it didn't work AGAIN, for the same reasons it didn't work against Cal Poly, Weber, and Portland State. ISU is a win that belongs to the quick-thinking players, not to the coach. For the coach, it is the 4th loss.

Makena currently has a 0.67 percent game success rate. That's equal to Stitt's ten year record at Mines. Brady, playing Stitt's game, has a 0.33 game success rate.

That is the "4th Q" strategy success metric, worse if you add PSU and ISU. If Brady couldn't execute it, and Stitt doesn't think anyone else can execute it, then why the hell keep trying it?

I don't think those stats are particularly meaningful, at this point in time, but they don't support an argument that Brady is a better QB. As I have repeatedly said, the argument "could" be true, there is just no statistical support for it, and it is counter to the statistical argument against it.

How do you account for the opponents defense within your metric?

 

[UMGriz75]

How do you account for the opponents defense within your metric?

You're repeating yourself. We talked about that, in detail.

We lost, at home, with our best QB, against the Conference's worst pass defense, who have not managed to win a game since, and as Stitt confirmed, it was his textbook application of his "base strategy."

Presumably except for the part about losing in the 4th Q using a 4th Q strategy.

Is it the most humiliating loss at home for the Griz since the new stadium was built?

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

How do you account for the opponents defense within your metric?

You're repeating yourself. We talked about that, in detail.

Please, enlighten me again with the specifics.

 

[tgreseth]

UMGriz75, you've said several times that you've coached this sport for 40 years, are writing a book...yadda yadda yadda. I assume you've said this to establish your credibility on the subject?

How about posting your win/loss record as a coach? How about your first year win/loss with new teams (unless, of course, you coached at the same institution for your whole career).

As the Rumsfeld quote was designed to illuminate for you, "I" don't really matter, but the measurements do. That's why I rely on stats, as confirmed by what I see on the field. If my opinion differs from what the stats show, then my opinion doesn't matter. If my opinion is derived from the stats, then my opinion doesn't matter either, because that's simply what the stats show.

But, FYI, I didn't say I coached "this" sport.

Are we going to play the guessing game?

Was it something close to football like rugby or something further away like badminton? What sport, pray tell, does a man with your mind for statistics, coach??? Baseball maybe?

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

How do you account for the opponents defense within your metric?

You're repeating yourself. We talked about that, in detail.

We lost, at home, with our best QB, against the Conference's worst pass defense, who have not managed to win a game since, and as Stitt confirmed, it was his textbook application of his "base strategy."

Presumably except for the part about losing in the 4th Q using a 4th Q strategy.

You do realize that football is based on specific matchups? It is not as easy as saying they have the worst pass defense so they should do really well throwing the ball. If your team can not take advantage of the matchups it doesn't matter how poor that their pass defense is. I will give you a NFL example, the St Louis Rams. Over the past several seasons they have been average or worse as a team, but they have caused nothing but fits for the Seattle Seahawks because they can exploit specific matchups and have success. This is what your metric does not account for. Another Seahawk example is defensively they have given up 1 passing TD to a WR, but have given up 5 TD passes to TE's, a specific metric because not all teams have a TE that can take advantage of that matchup. Your metrics are flawed, but I know that you will not admit it because you are in too deep trying to validate your argument.

 

[grizindabox]

All along I have been trying to tell 75 that his metric is poor. He fails to break it down by situation, by play, by defensive scheme, by individual match up. He wants to use blanket stats which don't tell the complete picture.

 

[UMGriz75]

How do you account for the opponents defense within your metric?

You're repeating yourself. We talked about that, in detail.

Please, enlighten me again with the specifics.

Is this that hard? Let me add some notes to the previous comments.

1. We lost at home to the team with the worst passing defense in the conference. (Brady, QB)

2. We lost on the road by throwing 18% (!) third down conversions, against a team that has a .50 conference record, and has lost half its games since we played them. (Brady, QB)

3. We lost again at home against a team that scores near the bottom on its offense in the conference (11/13), which didn't score a single point in the blow-out with Southern Utah, eeked out a single point win over the UND team that we blew up, and lost decisively to the same NAU team that we beat.

Historically we win 89% of our games at home. And when we have lost, there was something to be said about who we lost to.

That has fallen, for the first time, to just 50%, and there's not much to be said about the teams we lost to. As Bob Stitt himself famously said, "We don't lose in our own house." Well .... hopefully that will change for the better tomorrow.

Go Griz!

 

[UMGriz75]

All along I have been trying to tell 75 that his metric is poor. He fails to break it down by situation, by play, by defensive scheme, by individual match up. He wants to use blanket stats which don't tell the complete picture.

In other words, if there are stats you don't like, you want to talk about other ones, and then not actually talk about them either. If you want to, go ahead. The fact is, you don't have anything to say credibly about the "stats" I look at, but you don't offer anything substantive of your own, just vague comments that "if we talked about something else, it might offer a different perspective, but since we haven't, we don't actually know that either."

Nobody stopped you. You just didn't do it.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

How do you account for the opponents defense within your metric?

You're repeating yourself. We talked about that, in detail.

Please, enlighten me again with the specifics.

Is this that hard? Let me add some notes to the previous comments.

1. We lost at home to the team with the worst passing defense in the conference. (Brady, QB)

2. We lost on the road by throwing 18% (!) third down conversions, against a team that has a .50 conference record, and has lost half its games since we played them. (Brady, QB)

3. We lost again at home against a team that scores near the bottom on its offense in the conference (11/13), which didn't score a single point in the blow-out with Southern Utah, eeked out a single point win over the UND team that we blew up, and lost decisively to the same NAU team that we beat.

Historically we win 89% of our games at home. And when we have lost, there was something to be said about who we lost to.

That has fallen, for the first time, to just 50%, and there's not much to be said about the teams we lost to. As Bob Stitt himself famously said, "We don't lose in our own house." Well .... hopefully that will change for the better tomorrow.

Go Griz!

In other words, you really never broke down and evaluated the opponents defense to determine a good metric.

 

[UMGriz75]

Your metrics are flawed, but I know that you will not admit it because you are in too deep trying to validate your argument.

The "metrics" match up pretty well with who won and who lost. And the third down conversion rate not only describes "pretty well" what I see in the play-by-plays, it has to. You seem to be the one arguing that things like the third down conversion rate doesn't actually mean that the QB isn't seeing his receivers, or isn't getting the ball to them, or that the rushing isn't working. It means something far more complex, indeed, mystical.

You continue to argue that the better QB is the one who lost the most, using the coach's favored scheme. You claim it is because your knowledge of football is so advanced, that metrics actually prove nothing, that scores no longer even matter, indeed, that the scores actually are the opposite of the truth.

Thanks for that interesting point of view.

 

[tgreseth]

Bo-taoshi?
Ga-ga ball?
Roller derby?
Bossaball?

Quidditch?

Come on '75, don't leave me hangin'! What sport did you coach?

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

Your metrics are flawed, but I know that you will not admit it because you are in too deep trying to validate your argument.

The "metrics" match up pretty well with who won and who lost. And the third down conversion rate not only describes "pretty well" what I see in the play-by-plays, it has to. You seem to be the one arguing that things like the third down conversion rate doesn't actually mean that the QB isn't seeing his receivers, or isn't getting the ball to them, or that the rushing isn't working. It means something far more complex, indeed, mystical.

You continue to argue that the better QB is the one who lost the most, using the coach's favored scheme. You claim it is because your knowledge of football is so advanced, that metrics actually prove nothing, that scores no longer even matter, indeed, that the scores actually are the opposite of the truth.

Thanks for that interesting point of view.

Don't ever remember saying who was the better QB, what I did say is that I feel Gus gives the Griz a better chance at winning, which you disagree with.

So let me ask you this, on third down, how many were 0-3 yards to go? How about 4-8 or greater than 8? What type of defense was the opponent playing in each different situation? What play did the Griz call? Did they convert by run or pass? If by run, was it a called run or a scramble after the pass play broke down? This is why determining what a QB did in certain situations, against different defensive schemes is important and why a blanket number does not tell the entire story when comparing the different QB's. I don't expect you to understand, but your metrics don't tell the whole story. Whatever though, I am done.

 

[UMGriz75]

In other words, you really never broke down and evaluated the opponents defense to determine a good metric.

No, those aren't the words, or you wouldn't try to use "other" words.

"A" good metric is the final score. An examination of play metrics do a good job usually of explaining why.

Not always. Sometimes you see someone like Brady throw a hell of game, 459 yards.

Then you wonder why we lost. I've gone over those "metrics." Nothing magical. They show why we lost.

Very high number of plays, more complexity, faster plays, 65 pass attempts, and just as I pointed out to you previously: 33% third down conversions, 0% fourth down conversions, three fumbles, three interceptions to the worst pass defense team in the conference.

You seem to think you can explain a loss, at home, to a team that has lost every game since by something that "doesn't" appear in the "metrics."

I think that's just BS.

 

[UMGriz75]

So let me ask you this, on third down, how many were 0-3 yards to go? How about 4-8 or greater than 8? What type of defense was the opponent playing in each different situation? What play did the Griz call? Did they convert by run or pass? If by run, was it a called run or a scramble after the pass play broke down? This is why determining what a QB did in certain situations, against different defensive schemes is important and why a blanket number does not tell the entire story when comparing the different QB's. I don't expect you to understand, but your metrics don't tell the whole story. Whatever though, I am done.

You don't understand. Everything you describe, and in the overall proportions of occurrence during a game, adds up to the cumulative performance of a team during a game and "in a general sort of way" defines the final scores. That's the whole fricking idea of a football game!

When did you miss that part of "football?"

Geez.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

In other words, you really never broke down and evaluated the opponents defense to determine a good metric.

No, those aren't the words, or you wouldn't try to use "other" words.

"A" good metric is the final score. An examination of play metrics do a good job usually of explaining why.

Not always. Sometimes you see someone like Brady throw a hell of game, 459 yards.

Then you wonder why we lost. I've gone over those "metrics." Nothing magical. They show why we lost.

Very high number of plays, more complexity, faster plays, 65 pass attempts, and just as I pointed out to you previously: 33% third down conversions, 0% fourth down conversions, three fumbles, three interceptions to the worst pass defense team in the conference.

You seem to think you can explain a loss, at home, to a team that has lost every game since by something that "doesn't" appear in the "metrics."

I think that's just BS.

And the bolded statement is exactly how I know that you don't really understand the complexities of football.

By the way, where does the Griz defense come into play with your "win-loss" based metrics. Or are all wins and losses based solely on QB performance, on offensive performance.

 

[get'em_griz]