?
You really need to quit embarrassing yourself. - That's too damn funny. All I said is that if they didn't improve all around a winning season was not likely to happen.
You were the one who claimed that there are macro issues with the offense, which there are not. - Where did I do that? And there are obviously issues on offense, they have been capped at generating 24 points in regulation and don't run enough plays, for a couple of reinforcing reasons, to give themselves enough chances to score more points.
Go back and read the first page; you've had ample opportunities, since you resurrect this thead every couple of days, apparently to try to score "I told you so" points despite your initial premise being flawed and off target. - And what about the premise was flawed and off target, it's been spot on to date.
Our inconsistent offense is tied to inexperieince [that carries over to Lester, as well] and a subpar OL. I suppose that could be considered a systemic issue, but help is on the way as we've had two solid classes of OL in a row, almost all of whom have redshirted and project to be better than the current encumbents. - Not once did I say anything about next year.
The QB is better than what we've had here in a long time, and he's just scracthing the surface. The playmaking talent--while young--is better than it has been in a LONG time. The system also isn't the problem, as you insinuated. The entire premise of this thread was focused on the wrong issues. - I never insinuated there was a problem with the offensive system. But have fun making up.
The REAL issue plauging this team is poor defensive play, not offense--and no matter how many junk statistical analyses you produce, it won't change that fact. The main reason we aren't averaging more plays and more yards / points is that we aren't stopping people and getting the ball back into our offense's hands. Period. - The real problem is both. The weaknesses of each reinforce each other. If there weren't any issues with the offense then they'd be fine with the way the defense is playing. The offense isn't efficient enough to overcome the limited possession.
Everyone on this board except for you and a few others clearly understand that while we need to be better offensively, in the main the offense isn't the "macro" problem you made it out to be. - Here is a recent post where I used the word "macro",
"You're assuming nothing but upside and no downside. (Note- That was in reference to Dungey's very high Passer Efficiency rating at the time) IF he can keep playing like that, great. More like than not his performance will fall back instead of improve from that. (Note - Which it has)
Doesn't solve the macro problems of not running enough plays, doing better on third down, and the yards the defense has given up. (Note - nope nothing about that is accurate)
As pointed out in that other thread I wasn't trying to predict future state, I was pointing out that if there wasn't significant improvement more than 5 wins was not likely. I never said improvement couldn't or wouldn't happen."
Here is your response,
"Wrong again, Go--I'm not assuming anything of the sort. I suggest as much a couple of posts above. The macro problems you keep clinging to will all solved by having this kid under center full time, with a full compliment of weapons at his disposal. Moving the ball better and retaining possession more will also reduce the amount of time the defense is on the field.
For the record, I'm letting you know now that I was right about Dungey, and his impact on our offensive production. You're welcome."
How's the working so far. Nice use of the word "clinging", as if pointing out reality is spinning some grossly unfair attack.
So all things considered, this thread IS a good look for me. The vast majority of what I tried explaining to you on page 1 is correct.
Really - here are your posts on page 1.
"Too small of a data set. How might those offensive numbers look if Dungey hadn't gotten injured in the first half against CMU, and we'd tacked on say three more TDs?" , - Bigger data set, trends have gone down not up, historically equals less wins, not more.
"Same point applies. We didn't get one TD in the second half against CMU. Dungey amasses fairly pedestrian yardage in relief if Hunt against RI.
Not remotely worried.", - Maybe you should worry, haven't scored a second half TD in the last two games either.
"People who don't understand quantitative analysis should refrain from using data to sound the alarm.
Especially when they fail to account for contextual factors that put outlier data in context within a limited data subset.", - Yep, I was completely out of line
"Here's a lens to view that data through: Eric Dungey has only started 4 of the 8 halves of football we've played. LSU outcome aside, that has clearly had an impact on our yardage, scores, and TOP.
More Dungey = more offensive production. That's why the predictive validity of the data is low in this case.", - Uh, not so much.
"Don't get your panties in a bunch. You're the one ringing the alarm bell, while simultaneously failing to take into account the context of why the data is where it is, and then calling others out for not sharing your chicken little interpretive viewpoint.
By the end of the year, this thread is going to look as off-target as the PS "journo's" preseason predictions. Book it. The offense is fine, and the numbers will continue to improve provided Dungey stays healthy." - I should have taken that action.
I only got dismissive after you predictably started acting like a child every time someone has the audacity to express a different opinion than yours. That's what isn't a good look.
Now run along--isn't there a Marrone thread where you need to defend your hero to the death?
