Maine Post Game Thoughts & Discussion

[NDSU2006]

Wow, there's still some people who are happy with what Roehl is doing? That's wild.

[BisonHorns]

Sdsu had a qb spy sit on qb runs for entire games because the qb runs 71% of the time. Predictable

[Kevin]

Sdsu had a qb spy sit on qb runs for entire games because the qb runs 71% of the time. Predictable

And we have zero wrinkles to keep them honest.

[heffray]

Wow, there's still some people who are happy with what Roehl is doing? That's wild.

Just look at the numbers, they don’t lie, 2006…

[GreenfieldBison]

Ok. When I have time I will put it together for you.

But you are right Tyler is the best OC we have ever had. He’s amazing!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did I say anything like that? If so, show me the post.

You made a claim, by inference, that QB runs for this coaching staff are not effective on 3rd and 4th down. I checked the data for a single game and that data disproved your assertion for that game. That throws the entire thesis into question. Does not say you are wrong, just means it is in doubt. Surely does not say anything at all about any one individual.
I never made any assertion about the quality of or my satisfaction with the performance of anyone. Don’t read what isn’t there.

[GreenfieldBison]

This is silly. Their runs were good when they were actually designed pass plays and they decided to run. That’s normally how it works. Most of the designed QB runs were not effective. They CAN BE EFFECTIVE if they are mixed in appropriately, but not effective when you do it 30 times per game.

I can’t tell from that box score play by play whether runs were designed or improvised. All I can tell is what the situation, play and result was. That’s it. Just data and no, it can not lie whether you like it or not.

What you say may be correct, incorrect or partially correct. I don’t know and neither do you. Proving its correctness would be impossible. Proving its incorrectness would be far more work than I care to do.

[reformedUNDfan]

I can’t tell from that box score play by play whether runs were designed or improvised. All I can tell is what the situation, play and result was. That’s it. Just data and no, it can not lie whether you like it or not.

What you say may be correct, incorrect or partially correct. I don’t know and neither do you. Proving its correctness would be impossible. Proving its incorrectness would be far more work than I care to do.

Data can absolutely lie. What a fucking rube statement that is.

[heffray]

I can’t tell from that box score play by play whether runs were designed or improvised. All I can tell is what the situation, play and result was. That’s it. Just data and no, it can not lie whether you like it or not.

What you say may be correct, incorrect or partially correct. I don’t know and neither do you. Proving its correctness would be impossible. Proving its incorrectness would be far more work than I care to do.

Greeny, you don’t strike me as someone who disingenuously argues to save face. It’s super frustrating to me when people do that. If I’m wrong I’m wrong and happily admit it, but not everyone is capable of doing that.

If the data can’t tell the difference between a designed QB run and a QB scramble on a pass play, then the data is literally useless (I won’t say “the data lies” since you seem to be averse to that phrasing). But that’s the point.

If you’re happy with 20-30 called QB runs per game when we have RBs and WRs and TEs who can also play football, then you’ve found your OC. I’m not. Many other people here aren’t. And we don’t think it will be an effective game plan against some Valley teams (one in particular)…

I feel like I’ve just described a perfectly reasonable position after that game, but you and others are making it seem like there’s nothing wrong with the playcalling.

[heffray]

Data can absolutely lie. What a fucking rube statement that is.

If data “can’t lie” that’s fine but it can be useless. Problem solved.

[GreenfieldBison]

Data can absolutely lie. What a fucking rube statement that is.

You might be confusing data with statistics. That’s your error, not mine.