Michigan State schedule - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Michigan State schedule (/thread-6371.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Michigan State schedule (/thread-6371.html)
Re: Michigan State schedule - stupac2 - 12-18-2013
(12-18-2013, 07:49 AM)Spartandawg link Wrote:Hmm. Let's look at the last five Super Bowl winners:
Flacco- 32 attempts, 0.7 yard average
E. Manning- 35, 0.4
Rodgers- 64, 4.0
Brees- 22, 1.5
Rothliesburger- 34, 3.0
Perhaps a trend is emerging. Thoughts?
![[Image: jiFfM.jpg]](http://i.stack.imgur.com/jiFfM.jpg)
Re: Michigan State schedule - Leftcoast - 12-18-2013
Perhaps an argument can be made that running QBs are tempted to rely on their legs in their formative years and don't develop the pocket passing instincts and skills of the best, less mobile QBs. Or at least develop them later.
In addition to the examples above add John Elway. Yes, I know the man had legs but he won his two Super Bowls at the less mobile portion of his career and has been quoted saying that being less mobile forced him to improve his pocket discipline and progressions.
As a counter example look at Randal Cunningham, Michael Vick. Et al. All talented QBs who were first team fantasy selections but never developed into first tier QB talents.
Yeah, you want the savvy QB who can move around when he has to but also has the patience to find his third read under pressure. The WHOLE NFL wants that guy even if SpartanDawg doesn't. There just aren't that many Andrew Luck's out there and when push comes to shove the NFL (and John Elway's Broncos) will take a Payton Manning over a Tim Teebow every time.
Michigan State recruiting approach: An inside look - Hulk01 - 12-18-2013
MSU QB Coach Salem:Â So coach, what did you think of that kid QB's tape?
Head coach Deantonio: Good arm, but crap he can move. Those kids can just kill you. . .(thoughtful pause) No stiffs out there this year?
Salem: Theres that kid from West Texas who doesnt move for s#it.
Deantonio:Â We got his tape?
Salem: Got the whole seasons on Hudl now, remember? I can call it up for you.
Deantonio: Hes really inert, right? Like a sloth on Valium as Warner calls em?
Salem:Â Damn close.
Deantonio: Yeah, lets take a look. Could be our guy.
Re: Michigan State schedule - Leftcoast - 12-18-2013
"Sloth on Valium." Hah, that was funny! Hope you stick around, Hulk.
Re: Michigan State schedule - stupac2 - 12-18-2013
(12-18-2013, 10:49 AM)Leftcoast link Wrote:Perhaps an argument can be made that running QBs are tempted to rely on their legs in their formative years and don't develop the pocket passing instincts and skills of the best, less mobile QBs. Or at least develop them later.
In addition to the examples above add John Elway. Yes, I know the man had legs but he won his two Super Bowls at the less mobile portion of his career and has been quoted saying that being less mobile forced him to improve his pocket discipline and progressions.
As a counter example look at Randal Cunningham, Michael Vick. Et al. All talented QBs who were first team fantasy selections but never developed into first tier QB talents.
Yeah, you want the savvy QB who can move around when he has to but also has the patience to find his third read under pressure. The WHOLE NFL wants that guy even if SpartanDawg doesn't. There just aren't that many Andrew Luck's out there and when push comes to shove the NFL (and John Elway's Broncos) will take a Payton Manning over a Tim Teebow every time.
I think part of the problem is that the rushing QBs who came into the league were mostly like Michael Vick, where they're nowhere near the pocket passer the other guys are. They rely on their legs because they can't just rely on their arm. But that's clearly not true of, say, Russel Wilson (the jury is out on Kaep and RG3 for now). Is it possible that the trend in the past has been that running QBs weren't as good in the NFL because they relied too heavily on their legs to bail them out, which doesn't work as well in the NFL? Yeah, sure, maybe. But that doesn't imply that the pattern will be true going forward, and it definitely doesn't imply that ceteris paribus you'd rather have someone who's not mobile.
And this is all sort of beside the point. A good mobile QB is very clearly an asset in college, where defenders aren't all very fast and very disciplined. Even a good defense like Stanford or MSU can get burned by a mobile QB on occasion. Is Hogan going to put up 200 yards against MSU? Almost certainly not. Could he put up 50 and pick up a few key first downs? Yes, he most certainly could. That's why his legs are an asset.
Re: Michigan State schedule - washingtonismoney - 12-18-2013
Chris Brown -- not the woman-beater, the football writer -- has argued that QBs are progressively becoming more athletic. I think that's inarguable. If you look at the top young QBs in the NFL -- Newton, Kaep, RGIII, Luck, Wilson, Foles, among others -- the only minus athlete there is Foles. All the rest are plus athletes.
Re: Michigan State schedule - stupac2 - 12-18-2013
(12-18-2013, 11:33 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Chris Brown -- not the woman-beater, the football writer -- has argued that QBs are progressively becoming more athletic. I think that's inarguable. If you look at the top young QBs in the NFL -- Newton, Kaep, RGIII, Luck, Wilson, Foles, among others -- the only minus athlete there is Foles. All the rest are plus athletes.
It's even more clear if you look at the crop of QBs entering the league in the next few years, Winston, Hundley, Manziel, Mariota, Bridgewater, hell even Carr has a few rushing TDs. Fales is the only guy I can think of who's a real pro prospect that can't run. (Does anyone think McCarron has a shot in the NFL?)
Re: Michigan State schedule - Spartandawg - 12-18-2013
(12-18-2013, 10:49 AM)Leftcoast link Wrote:Perhaps an argument can be made that running QBs are tempted to rely on their legs in their formative years and don't develop the pocket passing instincts and skills of the best, less mobile QBs. Or at least develop them later.
In addition to the examples above add John Elway. Yes, I know the man had legs but he won his two Super Bowls at the less mobile portion of his career and has been quoted saying that being less mobile forced him to improve his pocket discipline and progressions.
As a counter example look at Randal Cunningham, Michael Vick. Et al. All talented QBs who were first team fantasy selections but never developed into first tier QB talents.
Yeah, you want the savvy QB who can move around when he has to but also has the patience to find his third read under pressure. The WHOLE NFL wants that guy even if SpartanDawg doesn't. There just aren't that many Andrew Luck's out there and when push comes to shove the NFL (and John Elway's Broncos) will take a Payton Manning over a Tim Teebow every time.
Bingo. And I wouldn't consider the Stanford QB a "mobile" one. He's simply opportunistic and has good pocket awareness. My original argument, which happens to be backed up with overwhelming evidence, is that QBs of the RG3/Tebow variety are more of a liability than an asset. This is due to longevity issues, as well as the ability of good defenses to neutralize the running threat (see MSU v. Braxton Miller, LSU v. Oregon, Stanford v. Oregon, etc.).
  Â
Re: Michigan State schedule - terry - 12-18-2013
(12-18-2013, 12:06 PM)Spartandawg link Wrote:I wouldn't consider the Stanford QB a "mobile" one.Â
I hope MSU's coaching staff agrees with you and plans accordingly.
Re: Michigan State schedule - stupac2 - 12-18-2013
(12-18-2013, 12:06 PM)Spartandawg link Wrote:Bingo. And I wouldn't consider the Stanford QB a "mobile" one. He's simply opportunistic and has good pocket awareness. My original argument, which happens to be backed up with overwhelming evidence, is that QBs of the RG3/Tebow variety are more of a liability than an asset. This is due to longevity issues, as well as the ability of good defenses to neutralize the running threat (see MSU v. Braxton Miller, LSU v. Oregon, Stanford v. Oregon, etc.).
Lumping Tebow in with RG3 isn't really fair, since Tebow isn't just a bad passer, he's a horrendous passer. RG3 is actually pretty good when he's healthy, and I'm not sure that Tom Brady would look good behind that OL.
Anyway, any definition of "mobile QB" that doesn't include Hogan is asinine and useless. He's a mobile quarterback.
Re: Michigan State schedule - george - 12-18-2013
(12-17-2013, 09:12 AM)MSUFAN4320 link Wrote:But if you read analysts around the country, they'll tell you MSU passes the eye test.
Can someone clarify what the "eye test" is? Is it the same eye test that picked USC to win it all last year? Or the same eye test that says how every year is going to be Georgia's year to win the SEC? It seems to me to largely be used in the case when there's no argument to be made based on results but the speaker still feels "in their gut" that the team deserves the benefit of the doubt. In a lot of cases this keeps perennial powers in the top 25 even when they don't deserve it. For example, when Pac 12 AP #22 loses to Pac 12 AP #12 the results end with 12=>12 and 22=>NR. But make those teams from the SEC and suddenly 12=>6 and 22=21 because both teams pass the eye test.
To be clear -- I think MSU is a very good team. But I don't think it's because of some eye test. It's because they only lost one game all year. Sure, we can argue about strength of schedule, but as we know, it is not easy to win day in and day out no matter who your opponent is. I'm no fan of the BCS, but in this case they got it right. The Pac12 winner is meeting the B1G winner in the rose bowl. I think that MSU deserves to be ranked higher because they have a better record. But at the end of the day, we'll know which team is better (unless of course the losing QB pulls a Matt Leinart in the post-game interview.)
Re: Michigan State schedule - Extra Point - 12-18-2013
(12-18-2013, 12:46 PM)george link Wrote:Can someone clarify what the "eye test" is?
This is when someone has a clear view of everything he wants to see.
Re: Michigan State schedule - fullmetal - 12-18-2013
"Eye test," aka "I test," which is short for "I-think-it-is-so test."
Yeah, no one wants a mobile QB - Mick - 12-18-2013
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9O5fXUOAvoY
Especially Bill Walsh. Why all this chucklehead did was...win a Super Bowl. And he has the third highest QB rating in the history of the NFL.
The eyeball test - Hulk01 - 12-18-2013
The eyeball test is so arrogant and asinine that it finally drove me away from another fan site.
One of its failings is obvious, youd think: Every argument over perceptions devolves to stalemate. One persons eye sees one thing and anothers sees another.
And ask any trial lawyer or any judge who handles criminal trials about the value of eyeballs and the accuracy of eyewitness testimony.Â
Ask Jon Krakauer (Into Thin Air) if any two eyewitnesses to the disaster on Everest agreed on what they saw.
.
The eyeball test convinced former pro quarterback Jim Harbaugh that Dayne Crist and Landry Jones would be better quarterbacks than Andrew Luck, and that all three would be far better than Robert Griffin. The eyeball test convinced JH that Griffin is not athletic enough. (Coach H said this while sober, btw)
The eyeball test convinced the Green Bay Packers to draft Tony Mandarich first, and in turn convinced the eyeballs at Sports Illustrated to proclaim Mandarich the NFLs dominant offensive lineman.
The eyeball test once could not distinguish Peyton Manning from Ryan Leaf.
The eyeball test proves that Jeff George should be in the Hall of Fame.
Its bizarre that we are even encouraging eyeball tests in the era of Moneyball, when eyeballs have been so thoroughly discredited that you're nuts to reveal that you own a pair.
We all know this; Eyes they see what we want them to see and what we expect to see. There are few things that humans do as poorly as look and see, but my eyes tell me is the ultimate resort of the man who also favors the famous any objective observer will tell you argument.Â
What do you eyes tell you? I don't care and you shouldn't either. Like mine, yours arent worth a damn.
Re: Michigan State schedule - Bruce Wang - 12-18-2013
YES! Hogan is no longer "surprisingly fast". He is officially a mobile quarterback.
My two cents is that it's certainly a great asset especially in college. The problem in the NFL is the mobile guys let their legs take over so they don't develop their passing game, get injured (RG3), or both (Vick). Steve Young and Andrew Luck are the ideal. Use your legs as a last resort and in critical situations.
Re: Michigan State schedule - washingtonismoney - 12-18-2013
It's time to play contrarian -- the eye test actually is useful in certain circumstances, generally in life. I'd prefer pure computer/statistics to the "eye test" as applied by most in college football -- which generally seems to be defined as "motivated reasoning to back up whatever result I've previously determined is correct -- but it's not the optimal approach.
What is the optimal approach? Before answering the question, let's define what I mean by eye test. I think it's the idea that, "perception using human senses, intuition and cognition is superior than machine- or statistically-based approaches." Well, oftentimes, a combination of computer/statistical approaches plus expertise (that is, the eye test) will prove superior to a mere computer. A computer is better at chess than a human, but a well-trained human and a computer is better than both. Similarly, if you're traveling to the Rose Bowl by plane, most of your trip will be on autopilot -- that is, by computer -- but the human pilot will go ahead and land the plan for you. If you get injured and get a scan, odds are your radiologist will be doing some computer-aided diagnosis.
Humans, of course, are biased -- predictably so. The question often is whether you're able to detect under what circumstances you're just letting your "fast" thinking substitute for correct thinking -- that is, whether you're meta-rational or not. Most people (Dunning-Kruger Effect) are not, which is sad, as they'd be well-served by letting the computer take control. However some aren't and those philosopher-kings should be ruling in tandem with computers.
The problem is that computers often take population-based approaches and sand over the quirks inherent in any piece of data. In general, that's fine; many of the things we think of as errors are actually just motivated reasoning, meant to convince us that This Time Is Different. But oftentimes there are flaws in the model. For example, looking back to the last time we saw Stanford take the field, I'm convinced part of the reason computer models were so bullish on the Sun Devils was their twenty-point victory over SC. The computers believe SC is one of the best teams in the country; it's not hard to disagree about a team with Lee, Agholor, Williams, Allen, etc. But what the computers didn't know is that K. was fired directly after that game, Orgeron took over, and (unfortunately for us) SC began to play much better. Someone who appreciates the flaws in the model can therefore correct a bit for its error.
(Of course, sometimes both models and humans suffer from the same errors, i.e. the "black swan" events. There's no real cure for this.)
Anyway, I guess the real solution here is to be smarter, or at least be smarter about your own faults.
Re: Michigan State schedule - BostonCard - 12-18-2013
(12-18-2013, 04:26 PM)Hulk01 link Wrote:The eyeball test is so arrogant and asinine that it finally drove me away from another fan site.
One of its failings is obvious, youd think: Every argument over perceptions devolves to stalemate. One persons eye sees one thing and anothers sees another.
And ask any trial lawyer or any judge who handles criminal trials about the value of eyeballs and the accuracy of eyewitness testimony.Â
Ask Jon Krakauer (Into Thin Air) if any two eyewitnesses to the disaster on Everest agreed on what they saw.
.
The eyeball test convinced former pro quarterback Jim Harbaugh that Dayne Crist and Landry Jones would be better quarterbacks than Andrew Luck, and that all three would be far better than Robert Griffin. The eyeball test convinced JH that Griffin is not athletic enough. (Coach H said this while sober, btw)
The eyeball test convinced the Green Bay Packers to draft Tony Mandarich first, and in turn convinced the eyeballs at Sports Illustrated to proclaim Mandarich the NFLs dominant offensive lineman.
The eyeball test once could not distinguish Peyton Manning from Ryan Leaf.
The eyeball test proves that Jeff George should be in the Hall of Fame.
Its bizarre that we are even encouraging eyeball tests in the era of Moneyball, when eyeballs have been so thoroughly discredited that you're nut reveal that you own a pair.
Eyes have no minds of their own. And we all know this; Eyes they see what they want them to see and what they expect to see. There are few things that humans do as poorly as look and see, but my eyes tell me is the ultimate resort of the man who also favors the famous any objective observer will tell you argument.Â
What do you eyes tell you? I don't care and you shouldn't either. Like mine, yours arent worth a damn.
Well, stats would have told you that Robert Griffin III was a better QB prospect than Andrew Luck. This seems to be one case where the "eyeball test" worked.
BC
Re: Michigan State schedule - BostonCard - 12-18-2013
(12-18-2013, 07:49 AM)Spartandawg link Wrote:[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=9160.msg78629#msg78629 date=1387313571]
[quote author=Spartandawg link=topic=9160.msg78625#msg78625 date=1387312938]
![[Image: gty_tom_brady_jef_120126_wg.jpg]](http://a.abcnews.com/images/Health/gty_tom_brady_jef_120126_wg.jpg)
![[Image: g229242_u77479_peyton_manningMTEyOQ==.jpg]](http://www.myhero.com/images/guest/g229242/hero66533/g229242_u77479_peyton_manningMTEyOQ==.jpg)
...At this point I'm honestly about 50-50 that you're trolling or really think that's a legitimate, non-fallacious response. Just in case it's the latter, I'll go with it.
"The best QBs aren't mobile" is not logically incompatible with "a mobile QB is an asset". In fact, it has absolutely nothing to do with the question. Would Tom Brady be better if he didn't run like a drunk toddler? I think the answer to that question is undoubtedly yes. If you think it's not, you'd better have a good way to explain it.
Of course, you could be arguing that (for some reason) being mobile makes one less likely to be a good QB, which seems pretty obviously false (ever heard of John Elway?), especially if you look at the league right now. Andrew Luck, Cam Newton, and Russel Wilson are both playing very well, both as pocket passers and when forced to run. We could end up with a Super Bowl where both QBs are good runners pretty easily, in fact.
[/quote]
Hmm. Let's look at the last five Super Bowl winners:
Flacco- 32 attempts, 0.7 yard average
E. Manning- 35, 0.4
Rodgers- 64, 4.0
Brees- 22, 1.5
Rothliesburger- 34, 3.0
Perhaps a trend is emerging. Thoughts?
[/quote]
Remember that Rich Gannon won a SuperBowl at Tampa Bay while Dan Marino never won one at Miami. Which is to say that I don't think winning a SuperBowl is necessarily a metric of a good quarterback (and yes, I realize that Marino is the epitome of "non-mobile".
Re: Michigan State schedule - sarcyspice - 12-19-2013
(12-18-2013, 09:27 AM)MSUFAN4320 link Wrote:Well, after facing Braxton Miller, I'm not sure MSU's defense will be too concerned with Hogan's mobility. However, if defenses aren't keying in on him as a runner, I could see them getting burnt here and there if Stanford is smart with their play-calling and catches them off guard.
Mobility is defined in different ways. It can be a guy who's looking to pick up yards with his legs or it can be a guy who's mobile in the pocket, can move around, and extend the play. That's Cook. His mobility is more in the mold of a Ben Roethlisberger.
I think this is the point being made by MSU fans.... your QB may be mobile..... but is he as mobile as Braxton at Ohio State, Or Gardiner at Michigan, Or Armstrong at Nebraska....
in which case he is not going to be something that this D haven't seen before....
Â
the teams that have given the D some issues this year have been ones where both the QB and RB are elite runners.....
I am more interested to see how our DL copes with your OL, and your all american WR goes up against our all american and Jim Thorpe award winning CB