Over their shared dislike of GB4L, AunBear and BlueBlood might be able to reconcile their differences. Maybe he was brought here for a purpose - to strengthen and unify the community.
Texas State 2020 = Cal 2016
6,844 Views |
63 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by txwharfrat
Sigh...Pigskin Pete said:We didn't beat one good team this year (and no, Washington does not count).LunchTime said:He has a one track mind. His opinion is irrelevant because it's comically predictable. Why bother? If you didn't quote him, I'd never know he said anything.Cave Bear said:The win over Washington doesn't qualify as an upset in your mind?GBear4Life said:Dude, Cal hasn't been over .500 in conference. Their one upset was Wash last year and Wash St in 2017?LunchTime said:The major reason I like Wilcox is that he can, and has, beat teams top to bottom. Consistently. Year in and out. Dykes miracled a couple wins (like the goal line stand against Utah), but largely only beat the worst teams, sometimes in absurdly close games (like Colorado). Rarely did Dykes special offense deliver against top teams, including that Utah game.FremontBear said:Wilcox has already beaten all the California schools, and everyone else in the Pac-North. That's something Dykes and his so-called high-power offense couldn't do. Indications are, with an outstanding defense, and just an average Pac-12 offense, Cal could be a force in the Pac-North.oskirules said:
The problem with our bear raid offense was it struggled against good Pac-12 defenses.Don't remember putting up 40+ against Furd, USC, or Utah, maybe Oregon once?
The thing I don't like about Wilcox is he will lose to any team, top to bottom, year in year out. Dykes would nearly always win those games.
Depends on what you are after. For me the "any given Saturday" matters more than knowing the outcome for 90% of games but having a high scoring offense sometimes.
But, FWIW, the facts are facts. Dykes beat good teams very rarely and lost to bad teams very rarely. Wilcox beats good teams and loses to bad teams.
The best conference team Wilcox has beat was Washington State in 2017 (9-4/6-3). The second best team we beat that year was a 6-6 Ole Miss team.
In 2018, the best team we beat was Washington (10-4/7-2). The second best team we beat that year was 7-6 BYU, USC, much as people want to believe otherwise, was not a good team. They had a losing record overall and a losing conference record.
In 2019, the best team we beat was Washington (7-5/4-5). The second best team we beat was whichever team you think was better between Washington State (6-6, but only 3-6 in conference) or UCLA (Only 4-8, but 4-5 in conference).
We have two wins against genuinely good teams in the entirety of Wilcox's tenure. You people would know that if you ever bothered to look things up to balance them against your preconceived notions, but you're so intellectual lazy and overly sure of yourselves when you shouldn't be that you continue to post stupid crap like this year after year and people just swallow it up.
Look, dude. You dont know what you are talking about. I hate to do this, because I generally like people here, but you and the other guy are just too simple to understand quality of opponent.
I'll use Sagarin end of season ranking to make this super simple:
Dykes LITERALLY never beat a top 20 team, in 14 attempts. He beat a #25 team once. He beat 2 top 40 teams in 26 tries.
Wilcox, OTOH, Has beaten a top 10 team. He has beaten 2 top 20 teams. He only has played 14 games against top 40 teams, and has beaten 3.
Here is the records in picture form. Wilcox ABSOLUTLEY is the better top end coach, Dykes is better at winning those middling teams, and both consistently beat the very bad teams.
(edit to change chart colors)
I have posted the data before, here. I dont know why people like you keep arguing false narratives, or claiming Wilcox never beats good teams. Its bull****, and you should be smarter than to argue something so easily disprovable.
The best teams we have beat in each of the last 7 years:Quote:
In 2018, the best team we beat was Washington (10-4/7-2). The second best team we beat that year was 7-6 BYU, USC, much as people want to believe otherwise, was not a good team. They had a losing record overall and a losing conference record.
2013: 1. Portland State (162), 2. NA, 3. NA
2014: 1. Northwestern (66), 2. WSU (81), 3. OSU (82)
2015: 1. Washington (25) (<-only top 25 win), 2. ASU (41), WSU (43)
2016: 1. Utah (37), 2. Texas (60), 3. UCLA (70)
2017: 1. WSU (38), 2. Ole Miss (57), 3. UNC (71)
2018: 1. Washington (9), 2. USC (51), BYU (63)
2019: 1. Washington (current 19), 2. WSU (current 42), 3. Ole Miss (current 56)
The relevancy and success of the Air Raid cannot be argued.
Relative success vs. Top Tier competition just comes down to personnel.
To beat those top teams you can either a) play turtle ball, and keep the margins close and win based on execution and luck or b) go full guns blazing and try to win in a shootout based also on execution and luck.
The Air Raid is a philosophy more than a scheme -- its a rep driven, concept driven, and tempo driven approach to offensive football. The concepts utilized are streamlined and borrowed from some of the best passing games out there -- quick game is entirely west coast, the vertical game is run and shoot, etc.
The route concepts, splits and spacing of skill positions, and QB progressions utilize space and grass -- from an raw game theory and spatial geometry standpoint the Air Raid is solid.
As stated earlier, variance in success comes from personnel -- particulary:
Run Success -- Ability of OL to work vs 5-6 man boxes -- Run Threat @ QB simplifies this significantly.
Pass Pro Pressure Threshold -- can those 5 OL protect 3 seconds to allow for both the dropback and quick game routes to bloom.
Skill Position Success -- do the 5 skills matchup against the defense from a speed / size / physicality standpoint. Can they block on edge for screen / run, can they win contested iso matchups?
QB Execution -- Can the QB process information and distribute the ball to space without forcing it, or being subject to pressure that would negatively impact performance...
Well damn, the above just looks the same as any other offense doesn't it?
Running the ball out of 10 personnel is the same physical problem as running it out of 21 -- just the box count is different and the spacing is better.
Why do you think even the NFL has moved to exclusively 11 personnel spread formations? A league with less margin for matchup delta...
Look, you can play ball control out of any personnel grouping or any scheme, it all comes down to packaging and delivery.
Relative success vs. Top Tier competition just comes down to personnel.
To beat those top teams you can either a) play turtle ball, and keep the margins close and win based on execution and luck or b) go full guns blazing and try to win in a shootout based also on execution and luck.
The Air Raid is a philosophy more than a scheme -- its a rep driven, concept driven, and tempo driven approach to offensive football. The concepts utilized are streamlined and borrowed from some of the best passing games out there -- quick game is entirely west coast, the vertical game is run and shoot, etc.
The route concepts, splits and spacing of skill positions, and QB progressions utilize space and grass -- from an raw game theory and spatial geometry standpoint the Air Raid is solid.
As stated earlier, variance in success comes from personnel -- particulary:
Run Success -- Ability of OL to work vs 5-6 man boxes -- Run Threat @ QB simplifies this significantly.
Pass Pro Pressure Threshold -- can those 5 OL protect 3 seconds to allow for both the dropback and quick game routes to bloom.
Skill Position Success -- do the 5 skills matchup against the defense from a speed / size / physicality standpoint. Can they block on edge for screen / run, can they win contested iso matchups?
QB Execution -- Can the QB process information and distribute the ball to space without forcing it, or being subject to pressure that would negatively impact performance...
Well damn, the above just looks the same as any other offense doesn't it?
Running the ball out of 10 personnel is the same physical problem as running it out of 21 -- just the box count is different and the spacing is better.
Why do you think even the NFL has moved to exclusively 11 personnel spread formations? A league with less margin for matchup delta...
Look, you can play ball control out of any personnel grouping or any scheme, it all comes down to packaging and delivery.
You know, I actually missed this part, because I just went straight to data I have been collecting on these topics, but what the hell are you on about with this comment?Pigskin Pete said:
You people would know that if you ever bothered to look things up to balance them against your preconceived notions, but you're so intellectual lazy and overly sure of yourselves when you shouldn't be that you continue to post stupid crap like this year after year and people just swallow it up.
>if you ever bothered to look things up to balance them against your preconceived notions
>but you're so intellectual lazy and overly sure of yourselves
>We didn't beat one good team this year (and no, Washington does not count).
Are you so far up your own ahole that you dont see the irony in your post?
YOU are too damn lazy to look things up. I am not. I have looked it up. I have, several times, posted the data to back up the claim. You are even too lazy to look up Washington's strength THIS YEAR (probably the easiest data point to track down of the whole megillah). Yet you insist on posting your "preconceived notions" for all to see. Your intellectual bankruptcy rivals Enron. Just a quick look under the hood and your entire being is found wanting.
LT,LunchTime said:You know, I actually missed this part, because I just went straight to data I have been collecting on these topics, but what the hell are you on about with this comment?Pigskin Pete said:
You people would know that if you ever bothered to look things up to balance them against your preconceived notions, but you're so intellectual lazy and overly sure of yourselves when you shouldn't be that you continue to post stupid crap like this year after year and people just swallow it up.
>if you ever bothered to look things up to balance them against your preconceived notions
>but you're so intellectual lazy and overly sure of yourselves
>We didn't beat one good team this year (and no, Washington does not count).
Are you so far up your own ahole that you dont see the irony in your post?
YOU are too damn lazy to look things up. I am not. I have looked it up. I have, several times, posted the data to back up the claim. You are even too lazy to look up Washington's strength THIS YEAR (probably the easiest data point to track down of the whole megillah). Yet you insist on posting your "preconceived notions" for all to see. Your intellectual bankruptcy rivals Enron. Just a quick look under the hood and your entire being is found wanting.
My response to PP is on the first page and is below (please read). He is using a different metric for "good"=>
the record of opponents at the end of the season. I haven't checked, but I believe your data is based on the ranking of opponents at the time CAL played them???
FWIW: I and others have tried to discourage PP from taking such shots. I fear that's a lost cause at this point...
but I hold tight to some hope.
bearup
In reply to Pigskin Pete 2:26a, 12/13/19
I want to be in a galaxy far, far away when you post things like the stuff in bold.Quote:
Pigskin said:
repo
We have two wins against genuinely good teams in the entirety of Wilcox's tenure. You people would know that if you ever bothered to look things up to balance them against your preconceived notions, but you're so intellectual lazy and overly sure of yourselves when you shouldn't be that you continue to post stupid crap like this year after year and people just swallow it up.
BUT, I did look up (it isn't all that difficult...with some experience) what you say about the lack of wins over good teams in the Wilcox era...so far:
and
although, I suppose, the definition of "good team" can be debated a bit, IMO.....you are correct.
Cave Bear said:Obviously. Some Cal fans somehow still defend Sonny.Bobodeluxe said:
We beat one team with a winning record. Sonny's defensive recruits are graduating.
There is no limit to Cal fan delusion.
SD' s staff recruited the defensive personnel that this team is now based on. Wilcox has won with the players recruited by SD
No SD no weaver no JK no Hawkins no Davis no Paul
Tell someone you love them and try to have a good day
If Top Tier competition just comes down to personnel then it doesn't matter what offense you run, does it? If it does just come down to personnel, why were the Tedford 02-05 offenses so much more effective against better defenses than the Dykes offenses? The relevancy and success of the Air Raid can be argued. I argued it using empirical data that you haven't addressed at all. The Air Raid tends to crush weak defensive competition but struggle vs strong defensive competition relative to pro style offenses. The exception is if you have super-elite talent like Oklahoma, in which case it shouldn't matter what offense you run.killa22 said:
The relevancy and success of the Air Raid cannot be argued.
Relative success vs. Top Tier competition just comes down to personnel.
To beat those top teams you can either a) play turtle ball, and keep the margins close and win based on execution and luck or b) go full guns blazing and try to win in a shootout based also on execution and luck.
The Air Raid is a philosophy more than a scheme -- its a rep driven, concept driven, and tempo driven approach to offensive football. The concepts utilized are streamlined and borrowed from some of the best passing games out there -- quick game is entirely west coast, the vertical game is run and shoot, etc.
The route concepts, splits and spacing of skill positions, and QB progressions utilize space and grass -- from an raw game theory and spatial geometry standpoint the Air Raid is solid.
As stated earlier, variance in success comes from personnel -- particulary:
Run Success -- Ability of OL to work vs 5-6 man boxes -- Run Threat @ QB simplifies this significantly.
Pass Pro Pressure Threshold -- can those 5 OL protect 3 seconds to allow for both the dropback and quick game routes to bloom.
Skill Position Success -- do the 5 skills matchup against the defense from a speed / size / physicality standpoint. Can they block on edge for screen / run, can they win contested iso matchups?
QB Execution -- Can the QB process information and distribute the ball to space without forcing it, or being subject to pressure that would negatively impact performance...
Well damn, the above just looks the same as any other offense doesn't it?
Running the ball out of 10 personnel is the same physical problem as running it out of 21 -- just the box count is different and the spacing is better.
Why do you think even the NFL has moved to exclusively 11 personnel spread formations? A league with less margin for matchup delta...
Look, you can play ball control out of any personnel grouping or any scheme, it all comes down to packaging and delivery.
Running the ball out of 10 personnel is not the same physical problem as running it out of 21. If it were, spread running concepts wouldn't rely on spacing defenders out of the box to run the ball as opposed to targeting defenders and winning blocks against defenders in the box relied upon by heavy formation power running. We're talking about completely different kinds of blocking schemes leveraging different techniques and designed for execution with players of differing physical profiles.
And you're wrong about the NFL having moved to "exclusively 11 personnel spread formations". It's an absurd assertion that only a completely ignorant person can make.
Patriots vs Bills (WK4 2019):
Note that in the very first play of this clip the Pats are under center in a 21 personnel formation (aka Regular/21). The next play they're in shotgun 20 personnel. The next play is the Bills' first and they also are in Regular/21. Throughout this clip you'll see formations using practically every personnel grouping: 21, 12, 20, 11, 10, 00. Line splits are usually tight and both under center and shotgun are frequently used, with the latter used more often on long distance downs, hurry up downs and 3rd downs. When under center, the line is typically in 3pt stance.
11 personnel is the most common NFL personnel group but is still only used in 60% of plays -- FAR from "exclusively", and is only that frequent because it is the standard "pass down" formation throughout the league. The league as a whole is truly multiple, with almost every team using a huge array of packages. The Niners use 11 only 42% of the time compared to 55% for 21, 12 and 22. The Ravens used 11 45% of plays and 21/12/22 in 44% of plays. The Vikings use 11 only 19% of plays compared to 72% for 21/12/22. The Eagles used 11 (53%) and 12 (45%) almost equally.
https://www.sharpfootballstats.com/personnel-grouping-frequency.html
Look, personnel groupings are tailored to scheme, which itself is designed around specific offensive philosophies. "Ball control" cannot really be done out of any personnel or scheme, or at least it cannot be done equally well. Ball control is done best through heavier formations. That is practically axiomatic.
Every college coach who takes over a program uses the personnel recruited by the previous staff. If the next staff is successful, you will always be able to say they won with the players recruited by the previous staff. That by itself means nothing. If you think Weaver, JK, Hawkins, Davis, Paul, etc would have had this success if Dykes had been retained you're out of your mind. If you think Dykes left this program well stocked with talent -- on either side of the ball -- you're out of your mind.going4roses said:SD' s staff recruited the defensive personnel that this team is now based on. Wilcox has won with the players recruited by SDCave Bear said:Obviously. Some Cal fans somehow still defend Sonny.Bobodeluxe said:
We beat one team with a winning record. Sonny's defensive recruits are graduating.
There is no limit to Cal fan delusion.
No SD no weaver no JK no Hawkins no Davis no Paul
I clearly stated sagarin ranking at the end of the season (or current ranking for 2019).bearup said:LT,LunchTime said:You know, I actually missed this part, because I just went straight to data I have been collecting on these topics, but what the hell are you on about with this comment?Pigskin Pete said:
You people would know that if you ever bothered to look things up to balance them against your preconceived notions, but you're so intellectual lazy and overly sure of yourselves when you shouldn't be that you continue to post stupid crap like this year after year and people just swallow it up.
>if you ever bothered to look things up to balance them against your preconceived notions
>but you're so intellectual lazy and overly sure of yourselves
>We didn't beat one good team this year (and no, Washington does not count).
Are you so far up your own ahole that you dont see the irony in your post?
YOU are too damn lazy to look things up. I am not. I have looked it up. I have, several times, posted the data to back up the claim. You are even too lazy to look up Washington's strength THIS YEAR (probably the easiest data point to track down of the whole megillah). Yet you insist on posting your "preconceived notions" for all to see. Your intellectual bankruptcy rivals Enron. Just a quick look under the hood and your entire being is found wanting.
My response to PP is on the first page and is below (please read). He is using a different metric for "good"=>
the record of opponents at the end of the season. I haven't checked, but I believe your data is based on the ranking of opponents at the time CAL played them???
FWIW: I and others have tried to discourage PP from taking such shots. I fear that's a lost cause at this point...
but I hold tight to some hope.
bearup
In reply to Pigskin Pete 2:26a, 12/13/19I want to be in a galaxy far, far away when you post things like the stuff in bold.Quote:
Pigskin said:
repo
We have two wins against genuinely good teams in the entirety of Wilcox's tenure. You people would know that if you ever bothered to look things up to balance them against your preconceived notions, but you're so intellectual lazy and overly sure of yourselves when you shouldn't be that you continue to post stupid crap like this year after year and people just swallow it up.
BUT, I did look up (it isn't all that difficult...with some experience) what you say about the lack of wins over good teams in the Wilcox era...so far:
and
although, I suppose, the definition of "good team" can be debated a bit, IMO.....you are correct.
I also have data myself. But that goes two teams deep (our opponents, their opponents, and their opponents) going back to the Tedford era. It's not as deep as Sagarin, but I use it for things like points for, against, and averages against quality of opponents opponents.
Either way, calling out some for not "looking things up" when the deepest he goes to "look it up" is W-L is absolutely ridiculous. My original response was written with some respect in mind. After rereading his response, I have none left for him.
WHat he says about "Good teams" is absolutely incorrect in the context of what he was responding to:
Wilcox vs good teams against Dykes vs good teams.
Here is the graph of Dykes year 2-4 (three years excluding the 2013 rebuild to be fair to him), and Wilcox and Tedford's first 3 years.
One of them literally never beat a top 20 team, and one of them managed only a single win against a top 30 team.
Here is the distribution of quality of opponent for that period.
I think you can clearly see that Wilcox and Tedford have similar top end ability. Dykes has literally zero top end. Tedford and Dykes both win in the middle (31-80) while Wilcox is more prone to lose those games.
Tedford did fairly well through the course. Dykes absolutely stank at the high end. Wilcox inexplicably cant close in the middle.
This isnt hyperbole. It isnt wishful thinking or "preconceived notion." It is a pure data translation of why Tedford was good, and why Dykes and Wilcox share similar records, despite Wilcox teams ability to beat high level teams.
The idea that Wilcox doesnt beat good teams is horse***** The idea that Dykes did is pure fantasy.
Because no matter how many fancy passing offenses people come up with, no offense will ever beat a team with a dominant offensive line that can physically dominate the other line and get 5 yards a pop. It's the most reliable thing in football and it always will be and it works on any part of the field, while Dykes offenses struggle more in the red zone because they don't have the option of power running.Cave Bear said:
If Top Tier competition just comes down to personnel then it doesn't matter what offense you run, does it? If it does just come down to personnel, why were the Tedford 02-05 offenses so much more effective against better defenses than the Dykes offenses?
Blah blah blah same ole story
Tell someone you love them and try to have a good day
I'll accept that as your concession, graceless as it is.going4roses said:
Blah blah blah same ole story
Cave Bear said:I'll accept that as your concession, graceless as it is.going4roses said:
Blah blah blah same ole story
Off you go...
Tell someone you love them and try to have a good day
Some day, I look forward to when they put the top 8 Sagarin rated teams in something, as opposed to measuring them by some bull**** measure like wins.going4roses said:
Blah blah blah same ole story
I truly believe that.KenBurnski said:
Over their shared dislike of GB4L, AunBear and BlueBlood might be able to reconcile their differences. Maybe he was brought here for a purpose - to strengthen and unify the community.
This thread deteriorates even more the further down we go.......
Here's what I want to know:
What does Paris Austin have to do with all of this?
Keep in mind though, Patton wanted to blow the Russians off the map right after they dealt with the Nazi's. Detente can only last so long.KenBurnski said:
Over their shared dislike of GB4L, AunBear and BlueBlood might be able to reconcile their differences. Maybe he was brought here for a purpose - to strengthen and unify the community.
I hate you for making me look and see if he'd somehow gotten mixed up in all of this.bearup said:I truly believe that.KenBurnski said:
Over their shared dislike of GB4L, AunBear and BlueBlood might be able to reconcile their differences. Maybe he was brought here for a purpose - to strengthen and unify the community.
This thread deteriorates even more the further down we go.......
Here's what I want to know:
What does Paris Austin have to do with all of this?
A universal statement...Cave Bear said:
tends to crush weak defensive competition but struggle vs strong defensive competition
LOL......Pigskin Pete said:I hate you for making me look and see if he'd somehow gotten mixed up in all of this.bearup said:I truly believe that.KenBurnski said:
Over their shared dislike of GB4L, AunBear and BlueBlood might be able to reconcile their differences. Maybe he was brought here for a purpose - to strengthen and unify the community.
This thread deteriorates even more the further down we go.......
Here's what I want to know:
What does Paris Austin have to do with all of this?
Remember
We'll always have Paris
Who is arguing Dykes beat good teams (or more good teams than JW)?
Wilcox has made the Bears more competitive in games that they lose. Pigskin pointed out the wins vs good teams for JW. It's not good (which again is not necessarily to blame JW)
Wilcox has made the Bears more competitive in games that they lose. Pigskin pointed out the wins vs good teams for JW. It's not good (which again is not necessarily to blame JW)
JMHO, but Sonny-ball was mostly about who had the ball last. Alright. that's a slight exaggeration, butGBear4Life said:
Who is arguing Dykes beat good teams (or more good teams than JW)?
Wilcox has made the Bears more competitive in games that they lose. Pigskin pointed out the wins vs good teams for JW. It's not good (which again is not necessarily to blame JW)
Replying to GB4L. I wouldnt have seen the post except you quoted him.bearup said:JMHO, but Sonny-ball was mostly about who had the ball last. Alright. that's a slight exaggeration, butGBear4Life said:
Who is arguing Dykes beat good teams (or more good teams than JW)?
Wilcox has made the Bears more competitive in games that they lose. Pigskin pointed out the wins vs good teams for JW. It's not good (which again is not necessarily to blame JW)
PP was arguing that I didnt have data to back up that Wilcox beat good teams and Dykes did not.
PP then called me intellectually lazy for making a claim and not looking it up. That I was relying on "preconceived notions"
So, PP is making the argument and PP is probably in the running for the dumbest person on the internet. I mean, people troll, but he is serious.
Only if you cut off the quote for some odd reason (the reason being you're full of dung). Here's the full quote you edited:GBear4Life said:A universal statement...Cave Bear said:
tends to crush weak defensive competition but struggle vs strong defensive competition
See, NOT a universal statement, and my observation is completely validated in my reply to Big C at 10:06 PM yesterday comparing Dykes' Air Raid and Tedford (02-05) pro-style.Quote:
The Air Raid tends to crush weak defensive competition but struggle vs strong defensive competition relative to pro style offenses.
LT,
I apologize. I was engrossed in calling out PP for once again personally dissing another poster. I mischaractized your database. I'm long-time fan of Sagarin. FWIW....I now understand what you're doing.
I apologize. I was engrossed in calling out PP for once again personally dissing another poster. I mischaractized your database. I'm long-time fan of Sagarin. FWIW....I now understand what you're doing.
You didn't intend it, but you were making a universal statement. Offenses will tend to struggle more as the quality of their defensive opponent increases, and vice versa. Air raid can exacerbate that variance due to uptempo and number of plays (lot of incomplete passes = clock stoppage = more plays)Cave Bear said:Only if you cut off the quote for some odd reason (the reason being you're full of dung). Here's the full quote you edited:GBear4Life said:A universal statement...Cave Bear said:
tends to crush weak defensive competition but struggle vs strong defensive competitionSee, NOT a universal statement, and my observation is completely validated in my reply to Big C at 10:06 PM yesterday comparing Dykes' Air Raid and Tedford (02-05) pro-style.Quote:
The Air Raid tends to crush weak defensive competition but struggle vs strong defensive competition relative to pro style offenses.
How is it a universal statement when I differentiated between Air Raid vs Pro Style and then gave a specific example of each validating my assessment?GBear4Life said:You didn't intend it, but you were making a universal statement. Offenses will tend to struggle more as the quality of their defensive opponent increases, and vice versa. Air raid can exacerbate that variance due to uptempo and number of plays (lot of incomplete passes = clock stoppage = more plays)Cave Bear said:Only if you cut off the quote for some odd reason (the reason being you're full of dung). Here's the full quote you edited:GBear4Life said:A universal statement...Cave Bear said:
tends to crush weak defensive competition but struggle vs strong defensive competitionSee, NOT a universal statement, and my observation is completely validated in my reply to Big C at 10:06 PM yesterday comparing Dykes' Air Raid and Tedford (02-05) pro-style.Quote:
The Air Raid tends to crush weak defensive competition but struggle vs strong defensive competition relative to pro style offenses.
I just said it. things get harder as your competition gets better. It's not profound.Cave Bear said:How is it a universal statement when I differentiated between Air Raid vs Pro Style and then gave a specific example of each validating my assessment?GBear4Life said:You didn't intend it, but you were making a universal statement. Offenses will tend to struggle more as the quality of their defensive opponent increases, and vice versa. Air raid can exacerbate that variance due to uptempo and number of plays (lot of incomplete passes = clock stoppage = more plays)Cave Bear said:Only if you cut off the quote for some odd reason (the reason being you're full of dung). Here's the full quote you edited:GBear4Life said:A universal statement...Cave Bear said:
tends to crush weak defensive competition but struggle vs strong defensive competitionSee, NOT a universal statement, and my observation is completely validated in my reply to Big C at 10:06 PM yesterday comparing Dykes' Air Raid and Tedford (02-05) pro-style.Quote:
The Air Raid tends to crush weak defensive competition but struggle vs strong defensive competition relative to pro style offenses.
I charted the performance against qualify of competition for both Dykes' offense and Tedford's. It's not the same. Relatively, Dykes performs better against weaker competition and Tedford performs better against better competition.GBear4Life said:I just said it. things get harder as your competition gets better. It's not profound.Cave Bear said:How is it a universal statement when I differentiated between Air Raid vs Pro Style and then gave a specific example of each validating my assessment?GBear4Life said:You didn't intend it, but you were making a universal statement. Offenses will tend to struggle more as the quality of their defensive opponent increases, and vice versa. Air raid can exacerbate that variance due to uptempo and number of plays (lot of incomplete passes = clock stoppage = more plays)Cave Bear said:Only if you cut off the quote for some odd reason (the reason being you're full of dung). Here's the full quote you edited:GBear4Life said:A universal statement...Cave Bear said:
tends to crush weak defensive competition but struggle vs strong defensive competitionSee, NOT a universal statement, and my observation is completely validated in my reply to Big C at 10:06 PM yesterday comparing Dykes' Air Raid and Tedford (02-05) pro-style.Quote:
The Air Raid tends to crush weak defensive competition but struggle vs strong defensive competition relative to pro style offenses.
Why do you keep trying to avoid addressing this? Do you think your avoidance is not noticeable?
Methodology**: The schedule is separated into BAD and GOOD opponents, with BAD including all non-P5 OOC teams. All G5 teams are put in the BAD category along with the half of the P5 opponents below the median of PPG allowed in each sample. Opponents above the median are placed in the GOOD category. Then the DIFF is calculated as the avg points the offense scored above the defense's avg PPG allowed.GBear4Life said:I just said it. things get harder as your competition gets better. It's not profound.Cave Bear said:How is it a universal statement when I differentiated between Air Raid vs Pro Style and then gave a specific example of each validating my assessment?GBear4Life said:You didn't intend it, but you were making a universal statement. Offenses will tend to struggle more as the quality of their defensive opponent increases, and vice versa. Air raid can exacerbate that variance due to uptempo and number of plays (lot of incomplete passes = clock stoppage = more plays)Cave Bear said:Only if you cut off the quote for some odd reason (the reason being you're full of dung). Here's the full quote you edited:GBear4Life said:A universal statement...Cave Bear said:
tends to crush weak defensive competition but struggle vs strong defensive competitionSee, NOT a universal statement, and my observation is completely validated in my reply to Big C at 10:06 PM yesterday comparing Dykes' Air Raid and Tedford (02-05) pro-style.Quote:
The Air Raid tends to crush weak defensive competition but struggle vs strong defensive competition relative to pro style offenses.
TEDFORD (02-05) [P5 median opponent def rank = 65th]
Average PPG: 34.4 [national avg = 26.7]
DIFF vs BAD: +8.1
DIFF vs GOOD: +6.5
Margin BAD - GOOD = 1.6
DYKES (14-16) [P5 median opponent def rank = 50th]
Average PPG: 37.8 [national avg = 29.4]
DIFF vs BAD: +13.9
DIFF vs GOOD: +2.6
Margin BAD - GOOD = 11.3
**There are simplifications in this analysis that are practically unavoidable without a much more intense methodology, but as the simplifications are uniformly applied to both of the offenses, I think the impact must be very small.
The results could not be more clear. Both coaches' offenses were very high scoring in raw PPG relative to the national average, but Tedford's offenses performed almost equally well by differential vs GOOD teams and BAD whereas Dykes' offenses were enormously more effective vs BAD defenses than GOOD. How do you explain this?
Bobodeluxe said:
We beat one team with a winning record. Sonny's defensive recruits are graduating.
There is no limit to Cal fan delusion.
Honestly, this is one thing I am waiting to see ... how Wilcox does with 100% of his own recruits ... so many of our stars on Defense the last two years were not actually recruited by his staff. I'm sure they will do well with the outstanding coaching they have on D - but it will be important to see how the team does with essentially all Wilcox recruits.
Featured Stories
See All
Bears Add Portal Edge Defender Deamontae Diggs
by Jim McGill
NFL Draft results and their relation to Collegiate success
by Bear Insider