MPClinton22
Well-known member
- Messages
- 907
- Reaction score
- 1,180
I don't mind opinions in sports writing, even far out ones. That's the name of the game. I did mind the writing itself. It's rather amateur. It's the kind of quality you expect from Chat Sports or a Bleacher Report slideshow.
On top of that, if you want to have an opinion and say "I think Michigan wins because Hoke is fat and I always go with the more obese coach" or "Michigan always catches every break imaginable and they'll have Big Ten refs, so..." or even "I just have a hunch that Gardner has a big year" I'm fine with it.
But instead she pretends that she's using facts/stats/information/logic to come to her conclusion... and at the same time, many of the reasons she gives on the surface don't even make sense. Here's a blow-by-blow of where her "article" trips over itself:
-First she says that Michigan will win because they want to make a statement. She says the emotion will be "huge" for Michigan. Is the implication that Notre Dame WON'T want to make a statement? This doesn't make any sense.
-She says to expect Gardner to show up big because he does in all rivalry games. She says that with the exception of MSU in '13 he has exceeded expectations in all rivalry games... well, even with the clever phrasing, that's not true. He's quarterbacked 4 total rivalry games: OSU '12, ND '13, MSU '13, OSU '13. He had horrible games in two of them (OSU '12, MSU '13) where his average raw QBR was a 30.1 and a 8.5. In the other two, he put up QBRs of 87.9 and 85.7. So half the time he totally sucks, the other half the time he performs like a top QB. The epitome of inconsistency, but she implies the very opposite. 0 for 2 at this point in logic.
-She says that where ND is replacing players relative to where Michigan is replacing players, that it is good that offenses are further ahead than defenses early in the season. This, again, doesn't track. The premises in no way support this conclusion. 0 for 3.
-She then states that ND is thin at DL and LB. Thumbs up. She then touts two players who had a combined 387 yards on 3.5 YPC with only 2 TDs as strengths. Strike 1, for comparison Folston had 470 on 5.3 YPC and 3 TDs himself... and McDaniel had 705 on 4.6... Michigan's "strength" makes Cam McDaniel look like freaking Adrian Peterson. She also doesn't talk about Michigan's OL that is replacing Taylor Lewan at all, which is actually what matches up the front 7. Strike 2. For those keeping score at home she's now 1 for 6 on facts/logic passing even the most generous sniff test.
-She notes that ND allowed 168 on 4.2 last year... so then those unproven backs that averaged 3.5 + Gardner that will be running behind a bad OL should "easily" get 200+ at 4.5. There's a lot wrong here, but most of all she is not appreciating that ND was actually very solid against the run versus "normal" teams, and that those vanilla stats are GROSSLY skewed by Air Force (290) and Navy (331). Is Michigan going to run the option with Nuss? 1 for 7.
-She says ND has a "weakness in experience" at WR. DaVaris Daniels, if he returns, will be coming into his 3rd year as a starter. And there are a multitude of other guys who got limited successful reps last season while playing behind TJ Jones (a combined 1,647 yards and 13 TDs returns). Michigan, by contrast, returns only roughly 1200 yards receiving and 8 TDs. So that's 1 for 8.
-She then notes that ND has a good QB and RBs, but they will have to run against a much more stout front 7 led by Frank Clark on the DL backed by the one of the best LB corps in the conference. +1 for no logical contradictions, -1 for not appreciating that no one is scared of a player with 43 total tackles and 5 sacks and is projected as a late round pick. To mention him as a strength and include someone like Jaylon Smith in a "weakness" group is absurd. 2 for 10.
-She then talks about the yards allowed by Michigan but says don't worry there are lots of players returning and there's a shift in defensive philosophy that will lead to improvement. Yet she dedicated half her article to talking about how ND vanilla stats from last year are telltale without ever once mentioning a complete change in defensive philosophy with a new DC. 2 for 11.
-She talks about a "secondary advantage" for Notre Dame... and while Russel is quite good... most people regard CB/S some of the bigger question marks on the team. Then she talks about Funchess getting mismatches on LBs even though Smith might be one of the best cover LBs in the game this year. So she closes 2 for 13 by my scorecard.
Even for ESPN, a blog post that appears with the writing quality of a high school text message that is devoid of nuance or logical interpretation of information is pretty bad.
Reps, couldn't have said it better myself. Her utter lack of understanding or logic is remarkable. Let me just say, I hope that Hoke has a similar understanding of the ins and outs of next year's matchup.
