Illinois Hokie's Recent Comments

Trying to think who would be Skyler in this metaphor.

I say no.

I don't think our problem is scheme. I don't think it's having bad position coaches. In general I don't think it's that we have an overall lack of talent.

I think the problem is that we have a fundamental lack of fire, and I think that stems from having a coach in his 70s with medical problems.

I think we need a vein-popping, fire-breathing paradigm shift that will light a fire under the asses of players and coaches alike. I believe that our fundamental problem is that our stock response to the issues we face as a program is to sit down together and says, "Well, let's talk about it."

We need a coach who is going to make Bucky Hodges run steps until he pukes for quitting on a route against Duke. We need a coach who is going to make the seat under our DL coach very warm when a much-hyped DL gets dismantled my any QB who can run.

To be clear, I think we need to maintain a coaching philosophy that promotes a sense of family. But to right this ship, I think we need a head coach who understands sometimes you have to take Fredo on a fishing trip.

To be fair, that hundred yards against Pitt was inexcusable. But it was also such aa monumental outlier that it is skewing the stats like a black hole. You can't throw that game out, because it happened. I get that. But its also a full 220 yards below our next lowest effort.

The Pitt game is the sole difference between us averaging the 385.5 yards per game that we're averaging, and instead averaging 426.3. If you want to counterbalance and throw out the upper outlier against Furman, were averaging 400.2. And that's actually a pretty good baseline for how we've done this season. We aren't really an up and down offense. We're usually good for 400+/-40 yards per game.

We're only inconsistent in the sense that we've had one extreme lower outlier against Pitt and one extreme upper outlier against Furman. Outside of those, we've been a pretty dependable offense.

Question of design. We're built to be a defense-oriented football team, and having an average defense is killing us. It would basically be like giving Baylor a 60th ranked offense.

It's myopic in the sense that you're basically shoehorning Loeffler into Stiney's job. Love him or hate him, the offense Loeffler runs is a different animal than the "offense" Stinespring ran. Lots more to learn, lots to install.

The comparison you were making would have been valid if you're talking about changing the OC at a program like Ohio State. The Buckeyes are going to run Meyer's offense regardless of who the OC is. So if you have a new OC in year three in Columbus who is underperforming the last year of his predecessor, yes, he's a downgrade. But that's not what happened here.

Your assertion wasn't faulty in principle, it was just ignoring the scope of the change Loeffler was charged with bringing to the offense.

We could have titles for level of giving, with absolutely no context for what they mean. No one would have any idea if "Triple Platinum Diamond Adamantium Hokie" has given more than "Mithril Unobtanium Emerald Hokie."

The TKP member who has given the most could earn the elusive "Expired Hardee's Coupon Bagman" flair.

Doesn't have to be a winning record, just 6 wins. You can count a win against an FCS opponent toward those six wins. And I remember the NCAA said a while back they would grant exemptions for 5-7 teams to fill open bowl spots if it ever came to that. It has not so far.

I think I'm at a point where I like Loeffler as a person a lot. He has the work ethic and intelligence I want in our OC. Stiney had the work ethic but lacked the schematic awareness to implement anything effective. Now I think we've gone to the other extreme. I think Scot knows football inside and out, and I think he's so young and enthusiastic that he doesn't appreciate the inherent limitations of a college offense.

I will say this, though, in regards to both this comment of yours and the one above it, regarding Baylor being "famously simple." Someone posted this article from the Wall Street Journal in another comment on another thread somewhere:

Since the dawn of the NFL, head coaches and general managers have been calling top college quarterback prospects into conference rooms to pepper them with rudimentary questions: how to attack a certain defense, for instance, or what to do when a play breaks down. The answers were sometimes dull and sometimes brilliant, but there were always answers.

This year, according to separate interviews with dozens of NFL coaches and executives, something disturbing happened in these pre-draft quiz sessions. When asked the same basic questions, many quarterback prospects responded with something NFL insiders said they have never seen before: blank stares.

I think it's the famously simple offenses like Baylor, as well as the type of offense Stiney ran, which relied too much on a gifted QB making shit up on the fly, that's contributing to those blank stares. I do think Loeffler's type of system would prepare QBs for a career in the NFL, just by virtue of the fact that they're going to understand this shit inside and out by the time they graduate.

Basically, I see Scot being the kind of guy whose biggest obstacle in his career is the ideal offense inside his head. If he can ever dumb it down enough to work at a P5 level, I think he's gonna be great. Let him age a couple more years, let him mellow, let him realize exactly what's attainable at this level of football, and if he puts it all together I think he'll be great.

He's not great now. But I think he's good. I think whoever gets him next if he's released here is getting some value for their investment.

There's a difference between a complex offense and a complicated one, and it seems we have the latter...

Voting buttons drop to the next line on handheld devices.

Well, I think then here ends the discourse. I think you've set an unattainable burden of proof.

I have no idea what statistical metric you would consider valid to measure 1 and 2, or what threshold within that metric would need to be met.

3 is a purely subjective metric, and I have no idea on whose opinion your are basing itz, be it fan, coach or someone else.

4 requires access to the playbook and passing tree, which I don't have.

I'd imagine 5 might be gleaned through analyzing how many third down conversions a TE is credited with, in proportion to the number of passes he received, but I have no idea where to find third down conversions credited by receiver.

In general, your definition of a receiving tight end seems similar to Justice Potter Stewart's definition of pornography: you know it when you see it. There's nothing wrong with that, but there's also no need discussing it further, because your definition isn't grounded in empirical statistics. I don't think I could post any combination of stats that would sway you.

Something something there's a chance.