Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 minute ago, Dangle said:

Interesting stats. I don't think this is true, but for the sake of argument: the gap between the fade and everything else is probably a lot smaller for exceptional QB-WR pairs than for the average. So for them the fade is a lot less obviously a bad play.

Why wouldn’t all the routes be better with a good combo, thereby maintaining the same relative differences?

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Haha 1
Posted
13 minutes ago, Dilligas said:

Quoted for entertainment 

Was that in response to something I wrote? I presume as much given your context. Regardless, the guy is a drug addled cuckhold, by his own admissions. I think keeping him off of ignore and putting him in situations where he becomes a punching bag, which he constantly does, is somewhat unethical. He’s got a room temperature IQ and he’s completely unstable. Just let him be, folks. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, Dangle said:

Interesting stats. I don't think this is true, but for the sake of argument: the gap between the fade and everything else is probably a lot smaller for exceptional QB-WR pairs than for the average. So for them the fade is a lot less obviously a bad play.

Then again, the exceptional duos presumably would have higher-than-average percentages on those other routes, too. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
6 minutes ago, Dangle said:

Interesting stats. I don't think this is true, but for the sake of argument: the gap between the fade and everything else is probably a lot smaller for exceptional QB-WR pairs than for the average. So for them the fade is a lot less obviously a bad play.

Hahahaha. This is an awesome response. 

“I don’t like this data, therefore, I reject it. “

4 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Why wouldn’t all the routes be better with a good combo, thereby maintaining the same relative differences?

Absolutely correct, never minding his data rejection absurdity. 

Posted
1 minute ago, closetojumping said:

Hahahaha. This is an awesome response. 

“I don’t like this data, therefore, I reject it. “

I said “I don’t think this is true…”

I didn’t reject the data. I was, “for the sake of argument,” trying to come up with a fact pattern that could make the stats correct but lead to a less obvious conclusion in certain circumstances. Of course PdM is correct.

Posted
55 minutes ago, Chooky said:

Fades to Xavier Worthy in close games made me want to shave my head and bite into a cocktail glass and chew it like popcorn. 

Only thing I could think of when you said that 

image.gif.cc0b79acf9014c0426722772c7a94a3c.gif

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Dbeasy said:

The only thing worse than this fade:

image.thumb.png.04ec6c6d67586a816d2836b3323b4de4.png

 

A bad throw on a fade route is (nearly) always just an incompletion. A bad throw on a quick out can easily be jumped and go the other way. 

Edited by satyanash
Posted
1 hour ago, Dangle said:

Interesting stats. I don't think this is true, but for the sake of argument: the gap between the fade and everything else is probably a lot smaller for exceptional QB-WR pairs than for the average. So for them the fade is a lot less obviously a bad play.

As indeterminate as your method may be, the percentage would still come down when I factor in QB/WR combos who lit their own flatulence while in the process of attempting a fade route. They had a dismal success rate. Inarguably. 

Posted
8 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I love the fact that you are arguing for tons of incompletions being a good thing because no matter what goes bad, life can always get worse. 
it’s a wonderful bit. 

Tons of incompletions but at least we aren't having our face sliced off by a Mexican cartel. My hat isn't made out of live hornets, which has been pretty nice. 

  • Like 1
Posted
25 minutes ago, satyanash said:

A bad throw on a fade route is (nearly) always just an incompletion. A bad throw on a quick out can easily be jumped and go the other way. 

Scared money don’t make none. 

Posted
2 hours ago, Chooky said:

Fades to Xavier Worthy in close games made me want to shave my head and bite into a cocktail glass and chew it like popcorn. 

Tim Rossovich approves of this message.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
3 hours ago, closetojumping said:

Not every OC throws the end zone fade at volume. And yes, most coaches are not very bright. Very few OCs are doing anything other than copying what the rest of the sheep are doing. 

image.gif.f1de37ea0b7d9e4348777379be022c9c.gif

 

Shit like this makes me miss Leech.. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Posted
22 minutes ago, Laxtonto said:

image.gif.f1de37ea0b7d9e4348777379be022c9c.gif

 

Shit like this makes me miss Leech.. 

Hal Mumme should get a lot of the credit there. Not that Mike Leach wasn't a bit of a mad scientist, because he was, but Mumme is the one who came up with something radically different. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
Posted
21 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

Hal Mumme should get a lot of the credit there. Not that Mike Leach wasn't a bit of a mad scientist, because he was, but Mumme is the one who came up with something radically different. 

Did not know this. Pretty cool to learn.  

Posted
52 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

Hal Mumme should get a lot of the credit there. Not that Mike Leach wasn't a bit of a mad scientist, because he was, but Mumme is the one who came up with something radically different. 

Mumme started as a Texas HS coach and claimed to have been influenced by LaVell Edwards, who supposedly was offered the UT job in '84, and who retired 4 years after one of his last great quarterbacks graduated, that QB heading to the CFL. Before making UT the theventh different program of his coaching career, he was Saskatchewan Steve. The more you know.

Posted
10 minutes ago, Magus Ossis said:

Mumme started as a Texas HS coach and claimed to have been influenced by LaVell Edwards, who supposedly was offered the UT job in '84, and who retired 4 years after one of his last great quarterbacks graduated, that QB heading to the CFL. Before making UT the theventh different program of his coaching career, he was Saskatchewan Steve. The more you know.

As early as 84?

Or was it 86?

Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, BornOrange said:

As early as 84?

Or was it 86?

You are right that it was not 84. It might have been 85 though. I think that was right after their MNC. Though of course we did not pull the trigger on Akers until 86.

Edited by Magus Ossis
Posted
2 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I love the fact that you are arguing for tons of incompletions being a good thing because no matter what goes bad, life can always get worse. 
it’s a wonderful bit. 

Three things can happen when you pass the ball. Two of them are bad.

Posted
2 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Mike Leach, the most overrated coach ever

dude

pirate was 9-4 v. aggy (at tceh + 2 games w/ klan aggy)

69.23%

tceh were 28-28-1 v. aggy sans pirate

the *only* time i've felt concern about what aggy might or might not do was the morning after 27-25

if aggy had hired pirate instead of rumlin they might have been a contender

Posted
5 hours ago, satyanash said:

A bad throw on a fade route is (nearly) always just an incompletion. A bad throw on a quick out can easily be jumped and go the other way. 

I've always assumed your Eeyore attitude was real, but this makes me think it has to be shtick.

Posted
3 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Mike Leach, the most overrated coach ever

Curt Cignetti is getting up there if he keeps getting blown out by real teams. At least Leach beat both Texas and ou, so he has that going for him. Cignetti is all talk. 

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Mike Leach, the most overrated coach ever

 

3 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

He never won shit

The fun thing about this site to me is the characters. Once you kind of get a handle on who is who, everything kind of clicks onto place. The dumb shits consistency and reliability say dumb shit, but in a way it’s sort of nice. Kind of comforting in a strange way. 

Edited by UncleSonny
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 hour ago, UncleSonny said:

 

The fun thing about this site to me is the characters. Once you kind of get a handle on who is who, everything kind of clicks onto place. The dumb shits consistency and reliability say dumb shit, but in a way it’s sort of nice. Kind of comforting in a strange way. 

Sometimes you don’t even have to look at who posted said dumb shit

  • Haha 2
Posted
11 hours ago, Dangle said:

Interesting stats. I don't think this is true, but for the sake of argument: the gap between the fade and everything else is probably a lot smaller for exceptional QB-WR pairs than for the average. So for them the fade is a lot less obviously a bad play.

Now, re-do the odds, using an exceptionally talented offensive pairing, but against a highly talented defense, in a high stakes game where the capable defense has prepared for it. 
 
Are we back to the baseline success rate?

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...