Koon tried to imply that the passing game got worse under Rees, but he was wrong.
We can move on lol
Dude just drink the kool-aid and go sit in the corner. It will all be over soon (Rees is getting the job).False. Why are you pedaling this too? You're better than that.
Lucci said it got significantly better based on YPA. I said it didn't, it was the same or worse.
Numbers don't lie.
Koon is Koonja. He changed his name hoping we wouldn't realize he was the same guy, but we still love him.
False. Why are you pedaling this too? You're better than that.
Lucci said it got significantly better based on YPA. I said it didn't, it was the same or worse.
Numbers don't lie.
Dude just drink the kool-aid and go sit in the corner. It will all be over soon (Rees is getting the job).
If true, does it concern anyone we averaged 273 passing yards per game on the year.. And only eclipsed that average ONCE in the final 5 games?
Against the easiest part of the schedule? Yikes.
I've seen the mods spin false narratives and if you "don't like it get lost" too often.
More people should have the balls to challenge the perceptions being pushed im certain cases.
If true, does it concern anyone we averaged 273 passing yards per game on the year.. And only eclipsed that average ONCE in the final 5 games?
Against the easiest part of the schedule? Yikes.
Passing average in first 7 games (Long): 215
Passing average in last 6 games (Rees): 257
Even if you took out the scUM game, the team still averaged better passing numbers under Rees. #TommyThaGawd
You said "yikes, they only passed above the season average once under Rees"
I then showed you that their passing average was significantly better under Rees.
That was your first metric, and you were wrong.
I rest my case.
There is no perception. It's fine if you think there are better options. I agree with that.
But you implied that the passing game got worse under Rees in the post that started this all, and you were wrong:
When measuring passing yards per attempt, yes, I used defensive rankings based on passing yards allowed... Keep in mind this isn't required to prove Lucci's statement of YPA "seeing a significant increase" false, but it's an appropriate benchmark to include.
Plus you don't even have it filtered correctly. #4 is ND, #6 is Missouri, etc.
So any updates on oc position?
Funny enough if you remove the tomato cans (BG & NM) from the first half of the schedule, Y/A is only 5.97 vs the second half of 7.64...
You're right. I was wrong about that because I forgot to include the bowl game.
I quickly acknowledged my calculation mistake.
Will a mod do the same? I suppose you could just clean it up for him.
So any updates on oc position?
Based on inferences I made from II pod yesterday
#1 choice is Moorhead (all 3 guys say home run and far and away best option)
#2 choice is Monken
If both fall through, consolation prize is Rees or combo of Rees and Taylor.
You argued that the passing game got worse because ND failed to exceed their average yards per game an acceptable number of times. When your statistical claim was demonstrated to be objectively false did you reexamine your conclusion? No, the proper measure for passing game quality changed from passing yards per game to passing yards per attempt (except we still measure defensive quality by unadjusted passing yards allowed per game because that gave you the conclusion you already settled on).
Is your conclusion actually derived from the arguments you're making? Or is it based on something else that you don't want to put forward as an argument?
You argued that the passing game got worse because ND failed to exceed their average yards per game an acceptable number of times. When your statistical claim was demonstrated to be objectively false did you reexamine your conclusion? No, the proper measure for passing game quality changed from passing yards per game to passing yards per attempt (except we still measure defensive quality by unadjusted passing yards allowed per game because that gave you the conclusion you already settled on).
Is your conclusion actually derived from the arguments you're making? Or is it based on something else that you don't want to put forward as an argument?
So you found an alternative source that has the rankings adjusted like 1 spot.
Again, what's the point? I didn't need to include defensive rankings to show Lucci was misstating a fact, but it's the most relevant metric to the measure so I included it.
Take it out if you don't like it. My point remains.
Text “GoIrish” to 239485 to be entered in to the drawing to become the next OC at Notre Dame.
I agree with Lion. Moorhead or Monken would be great hires. If not, ride with TR.
I know you're on the mods back because that's the culture enforced here -- but can you just admit when you were wrong like I did?
Every time I text that number, it just sends me 2019 passing game stats. Excluding the bowl game.
Books stats via ESPN: https://www.espn.com/college-football/player/_/id/4046678/ian-book
Books stats via Sports Reference: https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/players/ian-book-1.html
Same numbers outside of 5 yards on the season. But if I had to guess, Koon is going to include pass attempts by QB’s that aren’t Ian Book because those are extremely relevant. Haha.
Nailed it. Koon including garbage times stats with 2nd and 3rd stringers to ‘prove his point’. That’s too bad.
You claimed "if you look at YPA, we saw a significant increase in that". It's 2 pages back, untouched.
You didn't qualify your statement at all.
It dropped from 8.3 to 7.6, I included the defensive rankings as an ancillary data point (showing a slight drop as well).
This is a weak, weak response. Just say you were wrong. I was wrong about passing yards and it took me 1 second to admit that.