Then perhaps you can help me:
I've been doing this since the 2005 ever since that handful of idiots (I wish I could remember their screen names, but at the same time, I don't want to) were running their mouths off about how Greg Robinson and Dick Tomey were responsible for the 2004 loss to OU.
Ever since that time, about 95-98% of all critiques regarding the metrics are argued on the grounds that there should be additional positive grades. In other words, they say I'm being "too harsh." The other 2-5% have to do with obvious errors on my part in computation, almost always dealing with the "field all fieldable punts" because that's not a stat one can find on a stat sheet and I don't always see every opponent punt, so I naturally assume we accomplished it unless proven wrong after I post this.
So, first question: why is this? Why is it that the near consensus reasons for bitching about metrics relates to giving more positive marks than I gave? Why, for example, was I not told by anyone to give a red box to the offense for "Win" in say the 2009 OU game? We only scored 16 points, looked like ****, etc. I would agree that the defense carried the day, but no one here at all even remotely came close to saying anything to the effect of "you need to not give credit to the offense for a win." Seriously, no one does that...ever. They only do the opposite (and it's overwhelmingly argued in favor of the defense). So is it that I'm being a big meanie bear, or is it that a handful of posters have a serious issue with confirmation bias?I watched the game with 2 people who haven't coached a day of football in their lives and they saw the exact same things I did, and I didn't need to point it out to them. I don't need to tell these 2 very obviously lay-football fans that our corners were getting pushed out of the play on WR screen after WR screen. I didn't need to tell them that the DL was relatively absent from the pocket in any meaningful vicinity of Darnold. I didn't need to tell them that those 2 scores at the end of each half were absolutely devastating. I didn't need to tell them any of that because they knew. Obtuse and stupid? No. Stubborn and of the belief that this whole thing is about making us feel good about the team? Yes. As Angus King recently stated in a congressional hearing, "what you feel isn't relevant here."Same reason when I first started. See, it's not that there's two types of people that watch football (coaches and fans). It's that there's 4 types: those that know, those that aren't sure they know, those that really don't know, and those that really don't know but have convinced themselves in their tiny little minds that they do. It's the last person that concerns me the most because those middle two people can be easily swayed by that kind of a person if there isn't someone to call them out for being the utter ******* frauds that they are. When someone says "Texas' defense lost the 2004 Oklahoma game," that's not just an instance of some-person-has-an-opinion-and-we-have-to-respect-everyone's-opinion-because-we-have-to-make-everyone-feel-good-about-themselves. That's an instance of dishonesty and fakery. Again, one needn't be a football coach to know that if you get beat and the other team scored 12, your offense lost the ******* game. But people can be easily persuaded by ******* liars and idiots that peddle that **** and I'm not ok with that. I don't either, but one doesn't need to be a pilot to know there's something wrong with either the plane or the pilots when it's going into an uncontrolled vertical dive. No one says "oh but I have an opinion and I'm special and I say that the plane went into a dive because it's a perfect plane and the pilots are perfect, but the plane just didn't execute!" Regarding karate, I don't need to know the precise mechanics of an offensive kick to know that some when a guy gets hit in the temple and isn't responsive, he got the piss knocked out of him. What questions?
"giving the defense a ten out of twenty score is harsh," isn't a question.
"To me as well. That was no mediocre/average performance" isn't a question.
"I do think just a little bit of offense in the first 3 quarters would have kept the ball out of the USC's offense hands more and would have changed the numbers" isn't a question. It's an opinion (which I happen to share), but it's not a question.
The only person who asked a question was Stat (only after he had already stated an opinion, not the other way around), and I answered it in the affirmative. So when you say "people," to whom are you referring other than him?
Click to expand...
