Jump to content

Huckleberry

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    13867
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    21

Posts posted by Huckleberry

  1. 8 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:
    We did, but you have to admit, deep down, that it's a bit of fool's gold. 10-4 with a Sugar Bowl win is leaps and bounds better than 5-7 with no bowl. But, how impressive is it? We beat 2 teams that ended up in the final rankings, albeit, both in the Top 8. We lost to ou, who was the only other team worth a shit in the conference. We were 1-1 against the mediocre teams (WVU and ISU). And, of course, we lost to a 5-7 Maryland team (Without a coach) and a 7-6 OSU team. We barely survived teams like KSU, KU and Baylor. The only reason we had a shot at the Big 12 title was because of the Big 12 CCG, which almost everyone here has bemoaned the existence of. The only reason we played in the Sugar Bowl is because ou was so good that they made the CFP. Had the rules not changed, we may have gone 10-3 with a Peach Bowl win, which is good on paper but still has most of the above-mentioned issues. Now, we are losing 9 starters on defense, a good RB and possibly our best WR. 

    It feels good on an emotional level and it's progress, but I think a lot of people are crowning us prematurely. 

    This is an awful take.

    I guarantee 9-3 Texas with a win over Oklahoma goes to a NY6 bowl this year if the stupid CCG didn't exist.

    And if it didn't exist we also don't lose to Oklahoma but rather likely finish 10-3 with a NY6 win and end up ranked even higher. Peach Bowl, Sugar Bowl, who cares? So you're talking about how the rules changes are the only reason our season was as good as it was when in reality they are the only reason we ended up with an extra loss and didn't finish ranked #7 instead of #9.

    Now the one thing you're right about is that there are still question marks, but those apply to everyone.

    • Like 1
  2. 1 hour ago, Fozzz said:

    As much as some on this board like to point out certain offensive statistics for this team as being extreme outliers, it appears the biggest statistical outlier is the difference between the team's expected and actual winning percentages (334th in basketball), or in other words, its horrible luck.  

    2015-16: #118, +.022
    2016-17: #348, -.105
    2017-18: #263, -.030
    2018-19: #334, -.108

    I appreciate that you try to look at advanced statistics, but you need to be able to apply a discerning eye to them a bit more. That right there is a definite trend.

    56 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

    I would bet there is very little correlation between a team's winning % and their winning % in close games, with close games being more of a coin flip.   Shaka has had plenty of lucky and unlucky seasons as HC, so his teams do not demonstrate any kind of skill with respect to outperforming/underperforming their expected winning %s.  Most likely his team, which is actually pretty good, has just been unlucky this year.

    His Texas teams have demonstrated the skill of being unlucky, in your words. I think it's reasonable to expect some sort of regression toward the mean, but expecting Shaka Smart teams to average out at 0 in that metric seems like way overshooting the data we have.

  3. The Fields and Kendall odds prove that the Heisman is a farce. Those are based on their being the Ohio State and possibly being the Oklahoma quarterback next year. The fact they are listed with odds that high based purely on the position and program is basically proof that it's not about being the most outstanding player but is more about putting up the biggest stats and having the best teammates while playing a premium position.

    • Haha 1
  4. 28 minutes ago, SwanderedTalent said:

    I did a wee bit of digging. There's one other quarter as bad as the 2015 TCU game in our history (worse, actually, by one point) going back to 1960. The opponent wasn't OU believe it or not, nor was it Miami (91 Cotton Bowl), Houston (87-89), UCLA (97), or Baylor (thinking of the 1989 game-- they did ring us up 26-0 in the 3rd quarter of that one).

    The Freedom Bowl disaster against Iowa.

  5. On 1/11/2019 at 8:12 AM, NoName said:

    look man, he is taking full stories and condensing them down to like 2-3 sentences. the reason i put his name on it is because i want people to know 1) this isn't me condensing it and 2) this isn't direct info from the site in question (typically)

    it is important that people understand the source and context.

    it is the same reason when i share comments from IT that i include the person who said it (Boyd, Cook, Nahlin, Wells) - and when people tell us what is said at 24/7 i 100% want to know if the person doing a prospect eval is EJ or Mike Roach. 

    context matters. i spoiler it because i understand some people get worked up about how he does things and put zero value it. this way if you don't want to read it, you don't have to...it's easy, just don't click or put me on ignore. 

    That's my entire point, man, you're doing it wrong. Let's take your latest two posts in reverse order as an example.

    23 minutes ago, NoName said:

    Wiltfong on Catalon

      Reveal hidden contents

    I'm still hearing Arkansas for Mansfield (Texas) Legacy Top247 safety Jalen Catalon who announced this afternoon he'd be making his college commitment on Friday.

    My 247Sports Crystal Ball has been with the Razorbacks since October and two sources reiterated they think it will be Arkansas when he makes his choice. Texas is also still swinging at Catalon who also strongly considered TCU and Oklahoma among others.

    The industry-generated 247Sports Composite ranks Catalon as the nation's No. 20 safety and No. 225 prospect overall. He is a two-way standout on Friday nights excelling under center and in the secondary. He’s a game-changer with the ball in his hands on offense and he is rangy, smart and a playmaker as a defensive back.

    As a junior, Catalon racked up 101 tackles, picked off three passes, forced four fumbles, recovered four more and on offense added 1,145 yards passing and 15 touchdowns with another 1,031 yards rushing and 13 more scores. He ran a punt back for a score and is no question one of the best high school football players in the Lone Star State. He racked up 196 tackles, nine interceptions and three fumbles as a sophomore. Injury cut Catalon's senior campaign short.

    Catalon plans to play both football and baseball in college.

    Arkansas currently has the nation's No. 20 recruiting class per the 247Sports Composite.

     

     

    This post does have information about Catalon and Wiltfong is indeed the source of the information. This is properly attributed.

    40 minutes ago, NoName said:

    TFloss on Juco OL and Lakita Henry OV (from 24/7)

      Reveal hidden contents

     

    Per 24/7, Coach Hand will be seeing JUCO OL Bamidele Olaseni of Garden City, KS this week.

    He has been completely silent with the media, but Texas is still recruiting him and he has three officials left.

    https://247sports.com/Player/Bamidele-Olaseni-46053088/

    ///

    On JUCO LB Lakia Henry...24/7 is hearing that he won't be in Austin until January 25th.

    It's been reported that he will be in this weekend, but they're hearing no official visitors are scheduled and the staff is going to use this weekend to bring more underclassmen in.

    The headliner is 2020 RB Zach Evans.

     

     

    This is incorrectly attributed. This is actually 24/7 on Juco OL and Lakia Henry (via TFloss). TFloss is not the source of the information, he is a conduit through which the information got from 24/7 to us, the wonderful surly readers.

    Now to be clear, this doesn't actually bother me that much, just pointing out that you're doing it wrong. As plenty of people around here will confirm, I am perfectly willing to neg people for mundane and trivial shit if it bothers me. Hell, I think I've negged kopp0e multiple times for his ridiculous post formatting. If you're as concerned about proper attribution as your post above implies, then you should want to do it correctly, but I doubt the fact you're not doing so will ever motivate me enough to click twice.

  6. Good work putting the important part of that post in bold so we could focus on the highlights. Someone needs to deactivate the bold function for you. With all due respect, I'm just sayin', etc.

  7. Yeah, Love is more of an argument to leave early for the draft if your stock is high at the running back position. Coming back puts more wear on your body and might not work out if your numbers go down which could happen even if you play as well. Injuries, teammates play worse, etc.

  8. 5 minutes ago, Moby Ric said:

    Great derail fellas.  Take this crap to the CR.

    Back on track, KK is a wait and see.  I say he is way over his head, but I could be wrong.  His hire is due to Pat Mahomes success and AZ is thinking KK will be the next Andy Reid.  I see that logic.  But still think Kliff is in too deep.  He had no success at Tech, how would that transfer to success in the NFL?

    He's been hired now, you could start a 2019 Arizona Cardinals thread. The ongoing public discourse regarding Kingsbury's ability to get an NFL job is fair game for this thread.

  9. 16 minutes ago, Gene Parmesan said:

    I don't think it's necessarily a thinking of the better the player the better the coach, but pretty much every coach plays their sport at a higher level than high school, so if that's the pool for potential coaches I'm assuming the demographics would be different than the general population.

    Pointing out that front offices have a terrible track record of hiring coaches isn't that instructive, though. Why has pretty much every coach played after high school? It's not because there aren't people who stopped after high school who would make great coaches. My entire question is about the illogical shrinking of the candidate pool to those who played at the highest level. You've essentially just rephrased the issue I'm asking about - why is that assumed to be the candidate pool? Look at the best coach in the recent era of football, Bill Belichick. He played small college ball, never even sniffed the NFL. And playing for Wesleyan for a couple of years barely rates as playing college ball.

    I get that it relates to the number of people who are actively trying to be coaches, but that also assumes that the same percentage of black players try to get into coaching as white players. Is that the case?

  10. Why do people think the percentage of black coaches should approximate the percentage of black players in a league moreso than the percentage of black people who follow the sport? Do they believe that being a good player generally means you're a good coach? That's been pretty roundly debunked by reality going all the way back to Ted Williams's disastrous managing career and even further.

    This is something that routinely happens, of course. There was a recent article that said the increase in black quarterbacks is still happening way too slowly because it has moved from 18 to 19 percent. Why is that viewed as underrepresentation when it's a higher percentage than they hold of the overall population? It's compared to the higher number, that being the percentage of black players overall in the NFL.

    This argument and debate is absolutely never going to go away because nobody has any idea what the right number should be. That includes me, of course. If a completely unbiased and blind computer selected the best 32 possible candidates for the position of NFL head coach out of the entire American population, how many do people think would be black? My instinctive guess would be 4, because that is roughly their population percentage. Right now there is one Latino head coach in the NFL, despite the fact that Latinos make up 17% of the American population (the USA is about 13% black). I would expect the computer to come up with 5 Latino head coaches. But that's not a big deal PR wise. Obviously the answer is that, yes, people instinctively compare the coaching and front office position percentages to the player percentages. Why is that simply accepted as the correct percentage that it should be compared to?

    Female referees are now a thing, and that seems reasonable as there is no reason they can't inherently officiate as well as men. So there's a disconnect there somewhere when the apparent assumption is that playing a game makes you better at coaching it but not officiating it. Are we trying to get the non-player position demographics to match the player demographics or not? The NBA has had some female assistant coaches come into the league recently, I believe. Why is that acceptable if the premise is that playing in the league should correlate to coaching in it?

    • Like 5
  11. 36 minutes ago, NoName said:

    For what it's worth the TFloss poll ended up at 94% Yes keep posting / 6% No don't post

    I won't copy/past everything but will if relevant?

    TFloss with 2 more names on OL - both are probably backup backup plans but...

      Hide contents

     

    24/7 saying Texas has recently been in contact with JUCO OL Maisen Knight from Ventura College.

    He is originally from Salt Lake City.

    https://247sports.com/Player/Maisen-Knight-46040609/

    http://www.hudl.com/profile/2966791/Maisen-Knight

    ///

    Another JUCO OL to know is Jimmy Price of Tyler J.C.

    24/7 mentioned Coach Warehime went to see him before the dead period.

    https://247sports.com/Player/James-Price-91393/

    http://www.hudl.com/profile/9323565/Jimmy-Price

     


     

    lulz, sharing the info wasn't the point, it was the stupid insistence on crediting TFloss when he's just pasting other people's information on some other message board. 

    • Like 3
    • Haha 1
  12. Just now, Vic Mackey said:

    Even if he is the last pick of the 1st rd (he won't be because that would be a Super Bowl team), he will make a lot more more in the next 5 years than he would in baseball. Where he would be riding buses to podunk towns playing for peanuts.

    That's not guaranteed if he has to give his baseball signing bonus back. Does he? Haven't really followed his situation that closely, but giving back $4.5M that is already yours changes the calculation considerably.

  13. 5 minutes ago, Burt Macklin said:

    Agree on people writing a player off who redshirts, but Green's redshirt wasn't due to not being physically ready. He was more physically ready this year than Cook, but Green has to be taught technique. He played QB full time in HS and played corner only part time.  He was extremely raw coming out of HS, but he's unbelievably physically gifted. The real question for next year is will he be able to get his technique down enough that he doesn't lose it when he sees in-game reps and will he have the mental aspect of playing corner down enough to be a reliable starting corner in the Big 12? It certainly seems like the staff thinks he will, and I hope they're right. 

    Since we're all about the comparisons here on the recruiting thread, you seem to be saying that Green is doing to be our Dre Bly. Redshirt(ish) CB who dominates. YOU CAN'T BACK DOWN NOW! You've been marked down as saying Green will have double digit interceptions next season.

    Bly played wingback and safety in high school. Don't think he played corner, then he redshirted under Mack Brown in Chapel Hill.

×
×
  • Create New...