Mad Son's Ramblings: Year Three is Prove-It Time for Petersen

Glad to see this is back. Good stuff

Jake's deep ball isn't a MAYBE. He was throwing dimes. Even the Ross incompletion.

Paragraphs need to be broken up into smaller segments

I'll read 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.

Upvoted for being right regarding hype.

Tempted to give abuse for the picture

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.

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.

"But the hype can be a good thing, 'cause if they underperform that (unearned) hype, questions will be asked." Give me a fucking break.

as you say

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.

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.

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.

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

Ok, I read it.

Too much is being analyzed about the offense in a game that was over after the first 15 minutes.

Sample sizes of one suck...ask Ohio State 2 years ago.

It looks a lot like last year which is what worries me. Sure, we did see the mentioned upside in Browning's deep ball, we are early in the season, and weird things can happen week 1 with all the concealing the playbook, etc aside, but I just didn't see anything to indicate we've fundamentally changed. I hope as the season goes on this will just be one anomalous data point. I know some people give the running game a pass, citing the Rutgers DL as being stout and them selling out to stop the run. That would be a logical game plan based on last year for them and in those cases I'd like to see us air it out more. I just didn't see anything indicating we can impose our will on opposing defenses though which is my concern there.

Fundamentally we have been on a great upward trajectory, but it still remains to be seen if the same problems that haven't been fixed are being addressed. This game is only one data point (or really, one limited dataset) but anything that has been neglected thus far in Petersen's tenure will have to be shown to be different. Year three is time to show it. Benefit of the doubt is over.

Pressing. The big plays happened not due to luck but execution, talent advantage, and taking advantage of what the D gives you. Improvement in all these areas will lead to success this year. In the first quarter Gaskin went for 39 Yds in 6 carries and Jake threw for 150.

The only conclusions I'm drawing on the O is we have more speed and game breaking ability, and Jake looks to have improved one part of his game year-over-year, a part where he was universally critiqued. Everything else is TBD.

I love the hype. Puts expectations on our morbid program and helps in recruiting.

wtf'd for using coach effect.

AEB said:

The only conclusions I'm drawing on the O is we have more speed and game breaking ability, and Jake looks to have improved one part of his game year-over-year, a part where he was universally critiqued. Everything else is TBD.

I already said John Ross is back and mentioned the deep balls

FremontTroll said:

Mad_Son said:

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.

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.

All coach effect does is compare recruiting rankings to results.

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.

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.

The problem with some of these new dangled metrics is that they assume conditions and variables are constant and fail to account for circumstance or situation.

For example, if a team scores the same amount as they give up, the expectation is that this is a .500 team. And perhaps when this data is populated it is normally distributed. But there are still plenty of examples where there are teams that are 1-2 deviations outside the mean.

The question that you have to ask at that point is what drives those instances where teams are outside the norm? Luck? Bad coaching? Injuries? Youth? Turnovers?