Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Mad Son's Ramblings: Year Three is Prove-It Time for Petersen
Comments
-
Here's the only metric that matters:BlowItUp said:
coaching effect is a stupid metric and you guys only use it cause it makes petersen look bad and ignore all the ones that make him look fine. bash petersen all you want for the '14 AZ game, the two minute (lol) drill against oregon, the 2nd half vs ASU, etc. i don't give a fuck. i'll just be over here scared of that coach that has a Apple cup record of 1-3 and been outscored by an average of 15 points a game.
8-10 -
You are the ring leader when it comes to saying pre season polls and rankings are bullshit.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
God forbid we ever have standards.HuskyInAZ said:
This is beyond stupid. The right answer is the hype is meaningless. The coaches and players have done nothing to ask for the hype, nor have they done anything to deserve it.Gladstone said:Also take slight issue with your point about the hype being negative. The hype can only be a good thing IMO, light shines ever brighter if we* fall short. Questions will be asked etc.
"But the hype can be a good thing, 'cause if they underperform that (unearned) hype, questions will be asked." Give me a fucking break.
I don't know why they even bother to keep score.
If Petersen wins only 8 (or even 9) games this season i am pretty sure most everyone (except for PLSS maybe) will be door.ass.out with Pete. It won't be because he failed to live up to the bullshit media hype. It will be because he failed to have a great season with a talented roster.
All people are saying is Petersen hasn't done shit to ask for his team to be hyped up (He's actually had been swatting down the hype whenever asked about it because he knows he hasn't done anything to this point to earn it). Not sure why this is so hard to understand.
The hype is irrelevant. Win or LEAVE! -
Your logic is flawed.Mad_Son said:
Yes, so my logic is that if everything other than game mangement and the offense is good then those are what is costing us three games as per CFBMCE. Realistically if we are overachieving in say defense and off-season stuff then those two bad aspects are potentially costing us more than three wins. I acknowledged I did a poor job of showing game management and offense were linked concepts in the context of CFBMCE. I shouldn't have made offense a separate paragraph or I should have separated out game management into the offense paragraph.FremontTroll said:
All coach effect does is compare recruiting rankings to results.Mad_Son said:
Game management is wrapped up in there. It is a much larger term that encompasses nearly every aspect of the team, as I tried to acknowledge. I maybe wasn't as explicit in mentioning the offense there as I had intended to be. Basically those are the areas where we are under-performing and it is costing us games.FremontTroll said:Coach effect does not equal game management.
You'd have to be regularly punting on third down to cost your team three wins in one season via game management.
So, assuming the recruiting rankings are unbiased, coach effect attempts to measure every single aspect of coaching from identifying underrated talent to development to roster management to motivation to team-building to game management, etc.
Game management is the most visible aspect of coaching but also the most overrated. A lot of awful fourth down decision makers have won Super Bowls and crystal footballs.
Once again- a monkey picking plays using a random play generator wouldn't cost his team three full wins in a season. It's ludicrous
Take CP's most derided decision - to hand off to Cooper. An overly generous estimation would be that UW's win probability decreased from 99.5% to 95%.
In other terms that decision, as fucktarded as it was, cost UW less than .05 wins in expectation. -
The pussy punt against Oregon was much worse.FremontTroll said:
Your logic is flawed.Mad_Son said:
Yes, so my logic is that if everything other than game mangement and the offense is good then those are what is costing us three games as per CFBMCE. Realistically if we are overachieving in say defense and off-season stuff then those two bad aspects are potentially costing us more than three wins. I acknowledged I did a poor job of showing game management and offense were linked concepts in the context of CFBMCE. I shouldn't have made offense a separate paragraph or I should have separated out game management into the offense paragraph.FremontTroll said:
All coach effect does is compare recruiting rankings to results.Mad_Son said:
Game management is wrapped up in there. It is a much larger term that encompasses nearly every aspect of the team, as I tried to acknowledge. I maybe wasn't as explicit in mentioning the offense there as I had intended to be. Basically those are the areas where we are under-performing and it is costing us games.FremontTroll said:Coach effect does not equal game management.
You'd have to be regularly punting on third down to cost your team three wins in one season via game management.
So, assuming the recruiting rankings are unbiased, coach effect attempts to measure every single aspect of coaching from identifying underrated talent to development to roster management to motivation to team-building to game management, etc.
Game management is the most visible aspect of coaching but also the most overrated. A lot of awful fourth down decision makers have won Super Bowls and crystal footballs.
Once again- a monkey picking plays using a random play generator wouldn't cost his team three full wins in a season. It's ludicrous
Take CP's most derided decision - to hand off to Cooper. An overly generous estimation would be that UW's win probability decreased from 99.5% to 95%.
In other terms that decision, as fucktarded as it was, cost UW less than .05 wins in expectation. -
Yeah probably.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
The pussy punt against Oregon was much worse.FremontTroll said:
Your logic is flawed.Mad_Son said:
Yes, so my logic is that if everything other than game mangement and the offense is good then those are what is costing us three games as per CFBMCE. Realistically if we are overachieving in say defense and off-season stuff then those two bad aspects are potentially costing us more than three wins. I acknowledged I did a poor job of showing game management and offense were linked concepts in the context of CFBMCE. I shouldn't have made offense a separate paragraph or I should have separated out game management into the offense paragraph.FremontTroll said:
All coach effect does is compare recruiting rankings to results.Mad_Son said:
Game management is wrapped up in there. It is a much larger term that encompasses nearly every aspect of the team, as I tried to acknowledge. I maybe wasn't as explicit in mentioning the offense there as I had intended to be. Basically those are the areas where we are under-performing and it is costing us games.FremontTroll said:Coach effect does not equal game management.
You'd have to be regularly punting on third down to cost your team three wins in one season via game management.
So, assuming the recruiting rankings are unbiased, coach effect attempts to measure every single aspect of coaching from identifying underrated talent to development to roster management to motivation to team-building to game management, etc.
Game management is the most visible aspect of coaching but also the most overrated. A lot of awful fourth down decision makers have won Super Bowls and crystal footballs.
Once again- a monkey picking plays using a random play generator wouldn't cost his team three full wins in a season. It's ludicrous
Take CP's most derided decision - to hand off to Cooper. An overly generous estimation would be that UW's win probability decreased from 99.5% to 95%.
In other terms that decision, as fucktarded as it was, cost UW less than .05 wins in expectation.
Also as far as the design of the offense goes there is no way to accurately quantify any negative or positive coordinator effect IMO. There is no way to accurately control for all other variables as Mad_Son wants to do. Bartoo does have a coordinator effect ranking though so I guess you could try starting there instead of with the broader coach effect. -
Why worry about the hype? Either we'll live up to it or we won't. If we do, it will help us build recruiting momentum. If not, it won't make any difference.
I am sick of unrealized potential. That's what I don't like. Let's fucking live up to our potential as a team.
Hype? Who fucking cares? That's sports radio bullshit. It's all fucking hype. You know what's not hype? Orphan's dying of starvation, women getting raped as instruments of war, people dying slow deaths of diseases alone. That's real shit. Literally everything to do with college football is bullshit. It's all just us fucking around.
Any taking it seriously makes you a fucking moron in my book. So, I am not fucking worried that ESPN is talking about us. It's all bullshit, who cares? I'll just enjoy it on whatever level.
What I *am* sick of, though, is our fucking fag ass Doog fans that want not to be disappointed so much that they scorn top ratings and accolades.
Who gives a fucking shit?
What I care about is wins. Win or GTFO. Care about wins or GTFO. -
Win. Period. Anything else after fifteen years of wandering the desert is a pretty tough sell.
-
Petersen is responsible for the coordinators. That is part of the coach effect.FremontTroll said:
Yeah probably.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
The pussy punt against Oregon was much worse.FremontTroll said:
Your logic is flawed.Mad_Son said:
Yes, so my logic is that if everything other than game mangement and the offense is good then those are what is costing us three games as per CFBMCE. Realistically if we are overachieving in say defense and off-season stuff then those two bad aspects are potentially costing us more than three wins. I acknowledged I did a poor job of showing game management and offense were linked concepts in the context of CFBMCE. I shouldn't have made offense a separate paragraph or I should have separated out game management into the offense paragraph.FremontTroll said:
All coach effect does is compare recruiting rankings to results.Mad_Son said:
Game management is wrapped up in there. It is a much larger term that encompasses nearly every aspect of the team, as I tried to acknowledge. I maybe wasn't as explicit in mentioning the offense there as I had intended to be. Basically those are the areas where we are under-performing and it is costing us games.FremontTroll said:Coach effect does not equal game management.
You'd have to be regularly punting on third down to cost your team three wins in one season via game management.
So, assuming the recruiting rankings are unbiased, coach effect attempts to measure every single aspect of coaching from identifying underrated talent to development to roster management to motivation to team-building to game management, etc.
Game management is the most visible aspect of coaching but also the most overrated. A lot of awful fourth down decision makers have won Super Bowls and crystal footballs.
Once again- a monkey picking plays using a random play generator wouldn't cost his team three full wins in a season. It's ludicrous
Take CP's most derided decision - to hand off to Cooper. An overly generous estimation would be that UW's win probability decreased from 99.5% to 95%.
In other terms that decision, as fucktarded as it was, cost UW less than .05 wins in expectation.
Also as far as the design of the offense goes there is no way to accurately quantify any negative or positive coordinator effect IMO. There is no way to accurately control for all other variables as Mad_Son wants to do. Bartoo does have a coordinator effect ranking though so I guess you could try starting there instead of with the broader coach effect.
So this is an article about Petersen because everything is on the head coach. It was like trying to blame Kent Baer for Willingham's problems. If Smith is a failure (which Bartoo gives him a C+, adjusted to D when compensated for talent) then that is Petersen's fault for having him. The over all coach effect should be the sum total of all aspects of the program, which it is in effect once you normalize for talent.FremontTroll said:
Yeah probably.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
The pussy punt against Oregon was much worse.FremontTroll said:
Your logic is flawed.Mad_Son said:
Yes, so my logic is that if everything other than game mangement and the offense is good then those are what is costing us three games as per CFBMCE. Realistically if we are overachieving in say defense and off-season stuff then those two bad aspects are potentially costing us more than three wins. I acknowledged I did a poor job of showing game management and offense were linked concepts in the context of CFBMCE. I shouldn't have made offense a separate paragraph or I should have separated out game management into the offense paragraph.FremontTroll said:
All coach effect does is compare recruiting rankings to results.Mad_Son said:
Game management is wrapped up in there. It is a much larger term that encompasses nearly every aspect of the team, as I tried to acknowledge. I maybe wasn't as explicit in mentioning the offense there as I had intended to be. Basically those are the areas where we are under-performing and it is costing us games.FremontTroll said:Coach effect does not equal game management.
You'd have to be regularly punting on third down to cost your team three wins in one season via game management.
So, assuming the recruiting rankings are unbiased, coach effect attempts to measure every single aspect of coaching from identifying underrated talent to development to roster management to motivation to team-building to game management, etc.
Game management is the most visible aspect of coaching but also the most overrated. A lot of awful fourth down decision makers have won Super Bowls and crystal footballs.
Once again- a monkey picking plays using a random play generator wouldn't cost his team three full wins in a season. It's ludicrous
Take CP's most derided decision - to hand off to Cooper. An overly generous estimation would be that UW's win probability decreased from 99.5% to 95%.
In other terms that decision, as fucktarded as it was, cost UW less than .05 wins in expectation.
Also as far as the design of the offense goes there is no way to accurately quantify any negative or positive coordinator effect IMO. There is no way to accurately control for all other variables as Mad_Son wants to do. Bartoo does have a coordinator effect ranking though so I guess you could try starting there instead of with the broader coach effect.
I am not sure why you don't think play calling matters and that running random plays would not have a detriment on a team... When we start playing with house money I'll ask Petersen to try that as an experiment. -
Also when you start typing on your phone and it saves a draft and then you come to your computer to respond that last post is apparently the outcome...
-
1) Stats/Data is great at trying to frame the unobservable or when needed to isolate information ... where I get bent out of shape is when trying to get data to explain information that you can see with your own eyes
2) when it comes to evaluating what Pete has done the first two years, you don't need some kind of advanced data to back up any conclusions ... using the advanced data if anything makes you sound less educated than not
