** What did we learn **

[JTrain]

Look at Beck's output in the important games: UCLA, Minnesota, Northwestern, Michigan. Compare to the other opponents of those teams. Those are the stats. Those are the facts. To run away from them you will have to do a lot of interpretation, and apparently 3-4 mistakes per game by the players does the explaining. So anytime players make three mistakes in a game, the coordinator is no longer responsible. That is what you're implying. He can only be judged if his players execute flawlessly.

 

Because every team the opponent faced has a banged up offensive line, their senior quarterback on the sideline, and a couple of WR not at 100%.

 

Every team has injuries. Our senior quarterback is not that great. And every team has WR or other positions "not at 100%". Doesn't make Beck a good playcaller.

 

Also, what about UCLA and Minnesota when all those things weren't even the case?

 

You are missing the point. You are comparing Beck's output to how opponents have done, and that's not a fair comparison because every team isn't the same.

 

UCLA and Minnesota were bad days for Beck. But I don't think it's fair to say that today was a bad day for him.

 

If I can't compare stats then we have no objective grounds to argue. Do you see that point? So it just becomes a back and forth of interpretations based on several plays out of 50+. Which is why 99% of internet arguments like this never get anywhere.

 

Also, you say UCLA and Minnesota were bad days but where are your facts, interpretations, etc.?

[caveman99]

The containment on their fat QB with the stupid number was awesome.

 

#12 is not stupid

You do realize he is currently wearing 98 right?

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Look at Beck's output in the important games: UCLA, Minnesota, Northwestern, Michigan. Compare to the other opponents of those teams. Those are the stats. Those are the facts. To run away from them you will have to do a lot of interpretation, and apparently 3-4 mistakes per game by the players does the explaining. So anytime players make three mistakes in a game, the coordinator is no longer responsible. That is what you're implying. He can only be judged if his players execute flawlessly.

 

Because every team the opponent faced has a banged up offensive line, their senior quarterback on the sideline, and a couple of WR not at 100%.

 

Every team has injuries. Our senior quarterback is not that great. And every team has WR or other positions "not at 100%". Doesn't make Beck a good playcaller.

 

Also, what about UCLA and Minnesota when all those things weren't even the case?

 

You are missing the point. You are comparing Beck's output to how opponents have done, and that's not a fair comparison because every team isn't the same.

 

UCLA and Minnesota were bad days for Beck. But I don't think it's fair to say that today was a bad day for him.

 

If I can't compare stats then we have no objective grounds to argue.

 

Exactly. I'm glad you see it my way.

[Mavric]

You'll do just enough so you can attempt to make your point without actually having to defend it.

Your defense was basically two fumbles and a drop? Am I remembering that correctly?

No. I was pointing out that Beck didn't have very many opportunities to get things going because even when he was making good calls, the results weren't there. You made the assertion that his play calling was "atrocious". It's up to you to defend that assertion, which, 60 posts later, you still haven't even attempted to do.

[JTrain]

I give a narrative/interpretation and am told I need to present facts.

 

I present facts and am told they aren't sufficient to "tell the whole story" (narrative).

What facts have you presented? The only specific play you've talked about is one where you don't even know if Armstrong threw to the primary receiver. And you've made some vague reference to throwing out half the playbook on 2nd and 10. Then, after complaining about not running when it's our strength, you complain that it's too predictable when we run Cross in short yardage situations.

 

It's classic "it's bad because it didn't work" logic (and I use "logic" very loosely).

 

I presented the final output of the offense. That is as objective as you can get.

 

You have presented two fumbles and a drop. That is why Beck did well, in your presentation. That is your "logic".

[JTrain]

The containment on their fat QB with the stupid number was awesome.

 

#12 is not stupid

You do realize he is currently wearing 98 right?

 

Oh, he said the fat QB.

[Mavric]

I presented the final output of the offense. That is as objective as you can get.

 

You have presented two fumbles and a drop. That is why Beck did well, in your presentation. That is your "logic".

So now you're saying that the only variable in outcome is Beck's playcalling? That would even be contradicting yourself.

[JTrain]

You'll do just enough so you can attempt to make your point without actually having to defend it.

Your defense was basically two fumbles and a drop? Am I remembering that correctly?

No. I was pointing out that Beck didn't have very many opportunities to get things going because even when he was making good calls, the results weren't there. You made the assertion that his play calling was "atrocious". It's up to you to defend that assertion, which, 60 posts later, you still haven't even attempted to do.

 

Do you really want me to walk through 60+ play calls? Where is the time to drink and celebrate if I'm breaking down 60+ plays for you. I gave the statistical output, which, based on Michigan's mediocre defense, is pretty terrible.

 

I think I have presented more of an argument than you. I have presented actual stats. You have said that the offense didn't have a chance because of fumbles and drops. That is absurd. We had eleven drives. How is that not a chance?

 

Where are you getting 60 posts?

[JTrain]

I presented the final output of the offense. That is as objective as you can get.

 

You have presented two fumbles and a drop. That is why Beck did well, in your presentation. That is your "logic".

So now you're saying that the only variable in outcome is Beck's playcalling? That would even be contradicting yourself.

 

Oh dear. No. But that is as objective as you can get. And he is responsible for the output in the long term.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

You'll do just enough so you can attempt to make your point without actually having to defend it.

Your defense was basically two fumbles and a drop? Am I remembering that correctly?

No. I was pointing out that Beck didn't have very many opportunities to get things going because even when he was making good calls, the results weren't there. You made the assertion that his play calling was "atrocious". It's up to you to defend that assertion, which, 60 posts later, you still haven't even attempted to do.

 

Do you really want me to walk through 60+ play calls? Where is the time to drink and celebrate if I'm breaking down 60+ plays for you. I gave the statistical output, which, based on Michigan's mediocre defense, is pretty terrible.

 

I think I have presented more of an argument than you. I have presented actual stats without considering context. You have said that the offense didn't have a chance because of fumbles and drops. That is absurd. We had eleven drives. How is that not a chance?

 

Where are you getting 60 posts?

 

FIFY

[JTrain]

I considered context in my original posts. I was told that I was adding my own narrative so I presented objective stats. See page one.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

I considered context in my original posts. I was told that was adding my own narrative so I presented objective stats. See page one.

 

Ain't nobody got time for that.

[3rd and long]

I give a narrative/interpretation and am told I need to present facts.

 

I present facts and am told they aren't sufficient to "tell the whole story" (narrative).

What facts have you presented? The only specific play you've talked about is one where you don't even know if Armstrong threw to the primary receiver. And you've made some vague reference to throwing out half the playbook on 2nd and 10. Then, after complaining about not running when it's our strength, you complain that it's too predictable when we run Cross in short yardage situations.

 

It's classic "it's bad because it didn't work" logic (and I use "logic" very loosely).

 

I presented the final output of the offense. That is as objective as you can get.

 

You have presented two fumbles and a drop. That is why Beck did well, in your presentation. That is your "logic".

 

OK, Quincy doesn't fumble--we drive down for a touchdown. Seven more points and 50 more yards. Kenny makes that catch--say we get 25 or 30 more yards out of the possession and a field goal for three more points. Westerkamp doesn't fumble the punt--we get another possession, even if we go three and out, maybe we add another eight yards. All of sudden you're at the average numbers, 27 points and 360 yards. While the possible yards and points are subjective and pure speculation, the drop and two fumbles are also as objective as you can get, and they essentially took away three new sets of downs. If I recall what someone said, we had five possesions in the second half, should have been six without the punt fumble, so half of our opportunities with the ball were cut short. I'm still trying to get my head around how those are Beck's fault. I've never said Beck called the perfect game, far from it, but his calls put our offense in a position to succeed and mistakes were made which stopped it from happening. (Sorry for the long paragraph, apparently the return key has stopped working, so no text breaks for me).

[JTrain]

The only specific play you've talked about is one where you don't even know if Armstrong threw to the primary receiver.

 

Watch the play. He looks immediately to the left after the play fake. But either way, are you contending that pass was a good call?

 

If we can't judge calls by results then it becomes tough to discuss anything at all about their quality. Would you agree? Because if we are judging them on how they could or should have turned out, well... we can interpret that and argue that in any way we want to meet our conclusions. Right? It's tough. Ultimately coaches will be judged on results. Even if they can go back and show reasons for why every call should have been perfect in theory. And of course we can always go back and build such a story.

[JTrain]

I give a narrative/interpretation and am told I need to present facts.

 

I present facts and am told they aren't sufficient to "tell the whole story" (narrative).

What facts have you presented? The only specific play you've talked about is one where you don't even know if Armstrong threw to the primary receiver. And you've made some vague reference to throwing out half the playbook on 2nd and 10. Then, after complaining about not running when it's our strength, you complain that it's too predictable when we run Cross in short yardage situations.

 

It's classic "it's bad because it didn't work" logic (and I use "logic" very loosely).

 

I presented the final output of the offense. That is as objective as you can get.

 

You have presented two fumbles and a drop. That is why Beck did well, in your presentation. That is your "logic".

 

OK, Quincy doesn't fumble--we drive down for a touchdown. Seven more points and 50 more yards. Kenny makes that catch--say we get 25 or 30 more yards out of the possession and a field goal for three more points. Westerkamp doesn't fumble the punt--we get another possession, even if we go three and out, maybe we add another eight yards. All of sudden you're at the average numbers, 27 points and 360 yards. While the possible yards and points are subjective and pure speculation, the drop and two fumbles are also as objective as you can get, and they essentially took away three new sets of downs. If I recall what someone said, we had five possesions in the second half, should have been six without the punt fumble, so half of our opportunities with the ball were cut short. I'm still trying to get my head around how those are Beck's fault. I've never said Beck called the perfect game, far from it, but his calls put our offense in a position to succeed and mistakes were made which stopped it from happening. (Sorry for the long paragraph, apparently the return key has stopped working, so no text breaks for me).

 

I hear you, my friend. Don't get me wrong, I had some choice words for the receivers throughout this game. They didn't play well at all. I am not arguing that we would not have been much better off without those mistakes.