Stitt was right about punting

[UMGriz75]

Don't over complicate it. The more Stitt gets his personnel in place, the more he'll go with his philosophy. At this point, he still has to compromise with the reality he's been dealt.

What compromise? Is there any disagreement that, collectively, these are the best athletes he's ever coached?

Are you trying to say that all athletes fit all systems?

If I was "trying" to say it, I would have. I didn't.

 

[horribilisfan8184]

The article doesn't say go for it on every fourth down. There is a yardage distance guide. What's so damn funny is even if Stitt did go against the guide in the StFU game, he is doing what dUMb75 has criticized him for not doing in the past, punting.

I've discussed that guide, both the NFL and NCAA versions in some detail in the past, as an interesting statistical guide.

On the other hand, I have never commented on Stitt's specific punting strategy before. Other than what he has said at the outset, I haven't noted a "particular" strategy. Thanks for the fabrication though. Indeed, rather than call it an outright lie, I'll merely suggest you have mistaken my comments for those made by someone else. But, the error is so typical of you, it does seem to fit an "agenda."

And I have offered no opinion on it either way this time either, just that it is a conservative strategy, somewhat at odds with his own prior statements. Me, I probably would favor the more conservative strategies. The excitement around Stitt at the outset was to try some new and non-conservative approaches. I'd still like to see them.

Your implications are there. We can read the posts you cite. And no need to search your past posts for the smoking gun because this entire community has seen how you criticize every move, every word, every failure to speak, every glance, every eyebrow raise, every voice inflection, every pregame interview, every post game interview, every tweet, every picture, every tee-shirt and every hat worn, every piss and every dump Coach Stitt has made since his hire. If you haven't "noted" a punting philosophy/strategy of Stitt you haven't paid attention to his interview responses on the subject (not to mention this would seem to be the only football philosophy/strategy of Stitt you haven't noted and criticized. ) I hate to ask the question, as it will only lengthen the self-serving diatribe you will puke up in response, but finding this out is my only agenda, WHAT THE HELL DID STITT EVER DO TO YOU?

 

[AZGrizFan]

Don't over complicate it. The more Stitt gets his personnel in place, the more he'll go with his philosophy. At this point, he still has to compromise with the reality he's been dealt.

What compromise? Is there any disagreement that, collectively, these are the best athletes he's ever coached?

These may be, but relative to the level of competition, maybe not.

Still think it's a "feel" thing, though.

 

[garizzalies]

I'm still laughing about the Simis/Ash post. :lol:
Both were fired from their position because they sucked so bad, but darn it, 75 knows better

Actually, the post was about Bob Stitt's comments about the game, which were interesting because 1) they acknowledged key facts about the first half, and 2) they detailed his own change of strategy for the second half. They were interesting because Stitt acknowledged that he likely goofed by shifting to the passing strategy, that the OL was then collapsing and the ball was getting stripped, and by going "conservative" to protect ... THE LEAD! An approach we likely were not led to expect from Stitt. And we damn near lost the game to ISU because of it. It's not about Simis. It's about Stitt.

The reference to Simis' rushing yardage was simply a fact, but a key fact underlying Stitt's comments.

Those fact-thingys are tough for you, aren't they?

But, hey, with your brown-nose agenda, those are the last things you want to talk about, aren't they?

Facts? What facts? Simis rushing is soooo irrelevant to this thread that it's laughable. And it seems like you're trying to blame stitt for everything, including "the ball getting stripped." Yet you accuse me of having some agenda? WTF? I'm curious to hear what you think my agenda is? I will be the first to admit I'm no insider, so whose ass do you think I'm trying to kiss?
I also love how you're critical of stitt for not being more transparent and holding more press conferences, but when he opens up and admits he "goofed" you jump on him. Agenda much? :roll:

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

Don't over complicate it. The more Stitt gets his personnel in place, the more he'll go with his philosophy. At this point, he still has to compromise with the reality he's been dealt.

What compromise? Is there any disagreement that, collectively, these are the best athletes he's ever coached?

Are you trying to say that all athletes fit all systems?

If I was "trying" to say it, I would have. I didn't.

Are you implying that all athletes fit all systems? I mean, if these are the best athletes he's ever coached, they must fit the change of system from that they were recruited for.

 

[Eriul]

75 is either straight troll or actually 75 years old and that stupid.

 

[UMGriz75]

Don't over complicate it. The more Stitt gets his personnel in place, the more he'll go with his philosophy.

That generally has not been true at UM. Insofar as conference records are concerned, relying primarily on predecessor's recruiting,
Don Read's first year was his best.
Mick Dennehy's first year was his best.
Joe Glenn's first year was his best.
Robin Pflugrad's second year was hard to beat.
The exception to that was Bobby Hauck, who definitely got better with his own recruits.
Delaney got into the playoffs his second and third years.

As far as their overall records (conference and non-conference), since Larry Donovan, of seven coaches only Mick Delaney had a worse first year record than Bob Stitt.

While it is a very plausible "truism" that coaches get better results with their "own" recruits, there really isn't a strong basis in UM's program history to argue that. I couldn't argue any logic to that record, just that it is the record.

 

[UMGriz75]

Facts? What facts? Simis rushing is soooo irrelevant to this thread that it's laughable. And it seems like you're trying to blame stitt for everything, including "the ball getting stripped." Yet you accuse me of having some agenda? WTF? I'm curious to hear what you think my agenda is? I will be the first to admit I'm no insider, so whose ass do you think I'm trying to kiss?
I also love how you're critical of stitt for not being more transparent and holding more press conferences, but when he opens up and admits he "goofed" you jump on him. Agenda much? :roll:

Damn, your wife must be tolerant.

Stitt made some comments that gave insight into his coaching. I cited them. You make some weird issue out of a straightforward discussion of what he said and that, by referring to them, THERE MUST BE AN AGENDA!!!!

It's called "discussing football." Obviously it overloads your delicate system.

Clean off your nose and calm down.

 

[UMGriz75]

Your implications are there. We can read the posts you cite. And no need to search your past posts for the smoking gun because this entire community has seen how you criticize every move, every word, every failure to speak, every glance, every eyebrow raise, every voice inflection, every pregame interview, every post game interview, every tweet, every picture, every tee-shirt and every hat worn, every piss and every dump Coach Stitt has made since his hire. If you haven't "noted" a punting philosophy/strategy of Stitt you haven't paid attention to his interview responses on the subject (not to mention this would seem to be the only football philosophy/strategy of Stitt you haven't noted and criticized. ) I hate to ask the question, as it will only lengthen the self-serving diatribe you will puke up in response, but finding this out is my only agenda, WHAT THE HELL DID STITT EVER DO TO YOU?

It's an interesting psychoanalysis, that as usual has nothing to do with this thread, or my actual comments.

The usual derailment by "the usual suspects."

Are you going to charge me rent?

 

[UMGriz75]

If you haven't "noted" a punting philosophy/strategy of Stitt you haven't paid attention to his interview responses on the subject (not to mention this would seem to be the only football philosophy/strategy of Stitt you haven't noted and criticized. )

While you recover from your seizure, you will note that I expressed enthusiasm for his "non-punting" strategy as he seemed to outline it early last season. I didn't, and don't, offer an opinion on it either way, just agreeing with others that I'm surprised he seems to have become more conservative about it. The ISU game was an example of him becoming more "conservative" and using his statement there, post-game, that that is exactly what he had done in the second half.

However, you need congratulations on what is an extraordinary imagination of accusing me of nearly the opposite of what I actually said. Isn't that what actual trolls do? Is that because of your own "agenda?"

 

[grizindabox]

not that anyone cares....but my take on Stitt's....."go for it, no punting strategy"......have to punt....when you don't have complete confidence in your offense.......

 

[UMGriz75]

Are you implying that all athletes fit all systems? I mean, if these are the best athletes he's ever coached, they must fit the change of system from that they were recruited for.

Are you "implying" that athletes have certain natural skillsets that are not modifiable by coaching? These are 17 year old kids. That's what makes "recruiting" at best a "hope" and not a "guarantee." Look at Stitt's recruiting of Dalton Daum.

 

[Bscwatcher]

Are you implying that all athletes fit all systems? I mean, if these are the best athletes he's ever coached, they must fit the change of system from that they were recruited for.

Are you "implying" that athletes have certain natural skillsets that are not modifiable by coaching? These are 17 year old kids. That's what makes "recruiting" at best a "hope" and not a "guarantee."

I don't care what side of the fence you are on, you have to agree with that.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

Are you implying that all athletes fit all systems? I mean, if these are the best athletes he's ever coached, they must fit the change of system from that they were recruited for.

Are you "implying" that athletes have certain natural skillsets that are not modifiable by coaching? These are 17 year old kids. That's what makes "recruiting" at best a "hope" and not a "guarantee."

I am stating, not implying, that not all athletes have the same types of skill sets, and therefore not all athletes will fit every system. This is why, kids recruited by MD might not have skill sets that will thrive in the changed philosophy brought by Stitt. As for your "best athletes" statement, it is true that the kids at UM are most likely better athletes than at CSM, but how they are compared to the opponent is all relative.

 

[UMGriz75]

For those who vote against the usual thread trolls, here's some actual comments relevant to the thread.

By his own nature, Stitt is a bit of a reactionary himself. He likes to go with his gut, but it so happens that his instincts tend to be supported by statistical probability, making for a nice synergy at a school that recruits strictly math and science masterminds. He has read statistical analyses that suggest going for it on fourth down is always the right call. Though he doesn’t follow the numbers blindly, his team has gone for it 33 times this year — the third most attempts in Division II. The Orediggers have converted 20 of those tries.

“When we get to the minus-40, we’re four downs,” he said. “There’s not too many guys that are going to do that because they’re afraid of what the media is going to say, what the fans are going to say.”

http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/stitt-happens-get-to-know-colorado-school-of-mines-coach-bob-stitt-102913

 

[tgreseth]

Did you read that article?

 

[UMGriz75]

This is why, kids recruited by MD might not have skill sets that will thrive in the changed philosophy brought by Stitt. As for your "best athletes" statement, it is true that the kids at UM are most likely better athletes than at CSM, but how they are compared to the opponent is all relative.

That's why I noted that even kids recruited by Bob Stitt may not "thrive" in the "changed philosophy" brought about, such as Daum. As a student of Jud Heathcote, I learned early on from the Master himself, recruiting is its own special risk.

 

[UMGriz75]

Did you read that article?

As I said, "on cue."

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

This is why, kids recruited by MD might not have skill sets that will thrive in the changed philosophy brought by Stitt. As for your "best athletes" statement, it is true that the kids at UM are most likely better athletes than at CSM, but how they are compared to the opponent is all relative.

That's why I noted that even kids recruited by Bob Stitt may not "thrive" in the "changed philosophy" brought about, such as Daum. As a student of Jud Heathcote, I learned early on from the Master himself, recruiting is its own special risk.

No, but you would hope that the percentages were in your favor if you recruit a kid with the skill set you covet.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

Did you read that article?

As I said, "on cue."

On cue, someone has the gall to call a post by 75 into question, and he instantly labels them as "troll" or accuses them of "hijacking" or "derailing" the thread.