Mad Son's Ramblings: Year Three is Prove-It Time for Petersen
Comments
-
This post actually does not suck.Tequilla said: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
We all see Peterman underachieving, just look at his record. -
The other thing about the article is that the initial perception of the article is this bias that Pete isn't the guy and looking for evidence that confirms your conclusion ...
There is NOTHING out of the first (or really first 3) games of the season that will confirm or not. At best we will know the answer if he isn't by the bye or have an idea that he is by the end of November. -
In response to your prior post, I am glad you clearly see Petersen is underachieving, I don't think everyone realizes that. I don't think mentioning coach effect was superfluous.Tequilla said:The other thing about the article is that the initial perception of the article is this bias that Pete isn't the guy and looking for evidence that confirms your conclusion ...
There is NOTHING out of the first (or really first 3) games of the season that will confirm or not. At best we will know the answer if he isn't by the bye or have an idea that he is by the end of November.
So I actually went into the season optimistic that he was the guy. The top thing I look for in a first game of the season is how the lines play. Things go weird on the first game but I expect to see a good team control the lines. Sure, as the season goes on they will assuredly improve (as will everyone across the country) but I want to see an indication that this is a team that can run the ball. I already mentioned that maybe we schemed the way we did because it was the first game and we were taking the path of least resistance. The thing is I haven't seen any improvement. Maybe there is change but I haven't seen it.
I guess a way to talk about this in the way you want to is: what is your null hypothesis? For any given team, do you assume they have gone from a 7-6 team to a conference champion or do you assume they are still a 7-6 team?
I have shown that Petersen has been deficient, (for two primary reasons I identified) as the head coach at UW, and that there has been little indication that there has been any improvement. The possibility that it is too early to tell was included because it is the beginning of the season, but everything I mentioned about judgement is that it occurs based on the end of season win total... -
To say that a coach lost 3 games in a season is high end and better be supported with CLEAR examples of how that was the case. Taking Stanford out of the equation, that leaves 5 games from which to pin 3 losses directly on Pete (Boise, Cal, Oregon, Utah, ASU) ...
Your premise of wanting to see good line play is based on the eye of the beholder ...
If you just look at the stats you would say the OL and running game was brutal and hopeless ... if you watched the game/tape it becomes very clear that Rutgers sold out to stop the run and force Browning to beat them deep ... also looking at the OL play requires looking at how the protection was and in the case of a vertical passing game, something had to be going right there
With all due respect, the right decision on Saturday was to take what Rutgers was giving us and it was even better to see that we were capable of hitting the big play when teams sell out to stop the run.
I know that the narrative with Smith is that he throws too much for the liking on this board. Smith surely has much to prove as the year progresses. I'd argue though that there was a lot more done right on Saturday with regards to play calling than not. -
Gladstone said:
Win. Period. Anything else after fifteen years of wandering the desert is a pretty tough sell.
-
A/S/L?Dennis_DeYoung said: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. -
14/F/LatviaCokeGreaterThanPepsi said:
A/S/L?Dennis_DeYoung said: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. -
meh, pass.Dennis_DeYoung said:
14/F/LatviaCokeGreaterThanPepsi said:
A/S/L?Dennis_DeYoung said: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. -
I feel like a broken record. I know Rutgers was keying on the run and giving us the pass. That doesn't change that I didn't see the results I needed to see that something had changed. Null hypothesis is that things are the same until shown otherwise.
-
THIS!Mad_Son said:I feel like a broken record. I know Rutgers was keying on the run and giving us the pass. That doesn't change that I didn't see the results I needed to see that something had changed. Null hypothesis is that things are the same until shown otherwise.
