Poor Practice Player Shines During Game | Page 2 | The Boneyard

Poor Practice Player Shines During Game

Status
Not open for further replies.
Srqhusky said:
Guys arguing post firing or prefiring huskies is like arguing if Roseanne bar or Melissa McCarthy looks better in a thong. Sorry if anyone conjured up images
Expand ...

Says the last guy who was pro Pasqualoni.
 
Palatine said:
It's simple. I am using the NASA numbers of actual measurements.

He is using NASA speculation about 50 years from now.

And he doesn't know the difference. It's frustrating but I'm a teacher at heart.
Expand ...

If you want to stay off topic let us know when you get the chance take the time to learn the difference between income and wealth.
 
whaler11 said:
If you want to stay off topic let us know when you get the chance take the time to learn the difference between income and wealth.
Expand ...
Bizzarro world alert!
 
Palatine said:
Bizzarro world alert!
Expand ...

LOL I did you a favor by not linking to your foolishness. I give up you are seriously too stupid to engage. But feel free to answer the question how coach's know when to put in players in games who don't perform in practice at some point.
 
Palatine said:
It's simple. I am using the NASA numbers of actual measurements.

He is using NASA speculation about 50 years from now.

And he doesn't know the difference. It's frustrating but I'm a teacher at heart.
Expand ...

I don't know who is right - Palatine or NASA.

The NASA scientists undergo years of advanced math studies, peer reviewed papers and rigorous questioning by other scientists.

Palatine watches BOTH Hannity and O'Reilly.

How I am supposed to know whose opinions are right??? They completely contradict each other.

So, I include quotes from both. Every person can figure out who is right. ANd who is a douce&bag. I don't have a dog in this fight.
 
.-.
sdhusky said:
I don't know who is right - Palatine or NASA.

The NASA scientists undergo years of advanced math studies, peer reviewed papers and rigorous questioning by other scientists.

Palatine watches BOTH Hannity and O'Reilly.

How I am supposed to know whose opinions are right??? They completely contradict each other.

So, I include quotes from both. Every person can figure out who is right. ANd who is a douce&bag. I don't have a dog in this fight.
Expand ...
If you keep repeating the lie maybe someone will think it's true. You just make up fantasies. Do you believe them?
 
Last edited:
Chezy said:
Whaler. Why all the hating ? U ok ?
Expand ...

On Pal? It's all in good fun he's nuts.

Mets and I don't even disagree in this thread. SRQ I like to poke fun at his prior love of PP.

So no hating just nobody actually comes up with a reason why CC should have played sooner and that continues to annoy me. I should give up on the idea that people understand context and spots, but people constantly complain about 'names' and then assume that having a big day against RUTGERS means something because they don't realize how bad Rutgers was.
 
Well here's what the coach said. Not playing Casey had nothing to do with his weight. It had everything to do with his poor practice play. I can't comment on whether seeing a poor practice player who is also overweight might double the odds against playing in a game, but just as necessity is the mother of invention, the ineffectiveness of Chandler (due to lots of PP/GDL mistakes) and the earlier than ready promotion of Tim (due to lots of PP media announcements) presented Weist with "no other choice". Make no mistake, Casey's performance during the games was a surprise to the coaches. A pleasant one for sure, but nothing he displayed during practice predicted his game performance. So in the end, both Whaler and Pal are accurate in their statements. No coach, barring desperation, would reward poor practice play with a game assignment ---and any coach, expecting a different result while playing the same ineffective player without changing the system around him, is ratifying the textbook definition of insanity.
 
.-.
Palatine said:
If you keep repeating the lie maybe someone will think it's true. You just make up fantasies. Do you believe them?
Expand ...

What is the lie? I just have quotes from both of you. People can decide who to believe. I'm not putting any judgement, just the competing quotes.

Palatine
"Just to be clear, Antarctica is NOT melting, this is according to the evidence from NASA satellites that show Antarctica is actually cooling" -- Palatine

It's simple. I am using the NASA numbers of actual measurements. He is using NASA speculation about 50 years from now.

And he doesn't know the difference. It's frustrating but I'm a teacher at heart.

NASA:
"The southernmost reach of global warming was believed to be limited to this narrow strip of land, while the rest of the continent was presumed to be cooling or stable.

Not so, according to a new analysis involving NASA data. In fact, the study has confirmed a trend suspected by some climate scientists.

"Everyone knows it has been warming on the Antarctic Peninsula, where there are lots of weather stations collecting data," said Eric Steig, a climate researcher at the University of Washington in Seattle, and lead author of the study. "Our analysis told us that it is also warming in West Antarctica."

The finding is the result of a novel combination of historical temperature data from ground-based weather stations and more recent data from satellites. Steig and colleagues used data from each record to fill in gaps in the other and to reconstruct a 50-year history of surface temperatures across Antarctica.

----------------------------------------------
Now, lets consider credentials

Palatine: You already know all about him. Gets confused about the difference between history and speculation about the future (see above quote)

Eric Steig - completed his PhD in Geological Sciences at UW in 1995, was Research Associate at the University of Colorado and Assistant Professor at the University of Pennsylvania before returning to UW in 2001. He directed the Quaternary Research Center from 2008-2013 and Chairs the currentFuture of Ice Initiative. He is the founding co-director of ISOLAB, a state-of-the art isotope geochemistry facility involving research ranging from climate and atmospheric chemistry to geobiology.
 
whaler11 said:
Yes because making changes really fixed things when Weist took over. They went from run of the mill beatings to not being competitive.
Expand ...

Level of competition played a large role in this. The level of beatings also played a role in TJ not being considered for the job.


Also, while it's possible for a player who does not practice well to excel in games, but what coach would take that approach? Not exactly a high percentage play. Of course in P's case, when the guy playing in the games is a complete train wreck, it's just a dumb to not play someone else.
 
I'm not claiming that any one of our returning QB's is better or worse than the other two but I would like to point out that a) Whitmer never had the opportunity of operating behind an OL coached by Foley b) Boyle was less than six months removed from HS when (after a close loss to a less than quality USF squad) he had to play at Cincinnati and at UCF back to back weeks before a hone game against (preseason top ten) Louisville.

I'm rooting for Casey (as well as Whitmer and Boyle) and will not have any issues if he ends up being our starting QB for the entire season (in a perfect world Boyle redshirts this upcoming season) with Whitmer as backup (ideally getting 4th quarter action in many blowout wins). I do not believe however that we've seen enough of Cochrane to anoint him the next Joe Namath or Joe Montana.
 
This thread. The BY is starting to get in playing shape.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    46 KB · Views: 43
sdhusky said:
What is the lie? I just have quotes from both of you. People can decide who to believe. I'm not putting any judgement, just the competing quotes.

Palatine
"Just to be clear, Antarctica is NOT melting, this is according to the evidence from NASA satellites that show Antarctica is actually cooling" -- Palatine

It's simple. I am using the NASA numbers of actual measurements. He is using NASA speculation about 50 years from now.

And he doesn't know the difference. It's frustrating but I'm a teacher at heart.

NASA:
"The southernmost reach of global warming was believed to be limited to this narrow strip of land, while the rest of the continent was presumed to be cooling or stable.

Not so, according to a new analysis involving NASA data. In fact, the study has confirmed a trend suspected by some climate scientists.

"Everyone knows it has been warming on the Antarctic Peninsula, where there are lots of weather stations collecting data," said Eric Steig, a climate researcher at the University of Washington in Seattle, and lead author of the study. "Our analysis told us that it is also warming in West Antarctica."

The finding is the result of a novel combination of historical temperature data from ground-based weather stations and more recent data from satellites. Steig and colleagues used data from each record to fill in gaps in the other and to reconstruct a 50-year history of surface temperatures across Antarctica.

----------------------------------------------
Now, lets consider credentials

Palatine: You already know all about him. Gets confused about the difference between history and speculation about the future (see above quote)

Eric Steig - completed his PhD in Geological Sciences at UW in 1995, was Research Associate at the University of Colorado and Assistant Professor at the University of Pennsylvania before returning to UW in 2001. He directed the Quaternary Research Center from 2008-2013 and Chairs the currentFuture of Ice Initiative. He is the founding co-director of ISOLAB, a state-of-the art isotope geochemistry facility involving research ranging from climate and atmospheric chemistry to geobiology.
Expand ...

Appealing to authority is not science, it is another way for SDhusky to avoid arguing the actual observed evidence. And Steig, a notorious alarmist. has screwed up his math, it is well documented, he has smeared the peninsula data across the entire continent. He like SDH is arguing the thermometers wrong.

Here's the actual satellite data. I have no doubt you will just deny and lie, but hope springs eternal.


uah_antarctica_temperature_anomalies1.png
 
.-.
Make no mistake Diaco will judge guys based on practice performance. While true some guys have the El Amin game swagger and maybe that's Casey. For potential it's probably Boyle due to size, arm strength and contrary to what some have posted he runs well but did not have the green light to do that from Coach P & D - hence his hesitation last year to run when pressured.
 
sdhusky said:
What is the lie? I just have quotes from both of you. People can decide who to believe. I'm not putting any judgement, just the competing quotes.

Palatine
"Just to be clear, Antarctica is NOT melting, this is according to the evidence from NASA satellites that show Antarctica is actually cooling" -- Palatine

It's simple. I am using the NASA numbers of actual measurements. He is using NASA speculation about 50 years from now.

And he doesn't know the difference. It's frustrating but I'm a teacher at heart.

NASA:
"The southernmost reach of global warming was believed to be limited to this narrow strip of land, while the rest of the continent was presumed to be cooling or stable.

Not so, according to a new analysis involving NASA data. In fact, the study has confirmed a trend suspected by some climate scientists.

"Everyone knows it has been warming on the Antarctic Peninsula, where there are lots of weather stations collecting data," said Eric Steig, a climate researcher at the University of Washington in Seattle, and lead author of the study. "Our analysis told us that it is also warming in West Antarctica."

The finding is the result of a novel combination of historical temperature data from ground-based weather stations and more recent data from satellites. Steig and colleagues used data from each record to fill in gaps in the other and to reconstruct a 50-year history of surface temperatures across Antarctica.

----------------------------------------------
Now, lets consider credentials

Palatine: You already know all about him. Gets confused about the difference between history and speculation about the future (see above quote)

Eric Steig - completed his PhD in Geological Sciences at UW in 1995, was Research Associate at the University of Colorado and Assistant Professor at the University of Pennsylvania before returning to UW in 2001. He directed the Quaternary Research Center from 2008-2013 and Chairs the currentFuture of Ice Initiative. He is the founding co-director of ISOLAB, a state-of-the art isotope geochemistry facility involving research ranging from climate and atmospheric chemistry to geobiology.
Expand ...
But it seems like Steig might have been at UW at the same time that Emmert was there, so that's a point for Palatine is it not?
 
I think it is fair to say that unless the guys at NASA start practicing better and gettting in shape than Whaler is never putting them in a game.

It is odd that 2 of the best O players we have had in the past few years were both benchwarmers based on their practice habits until the bench was completely empty - Easley and CC. Easley apparently perfected the art of poor practice over a 4 year period while young Casey had done so for only a year and a half.
 
SubbaBub said:
Level of competition played a large role in this. The level of beatings also played a role in TJ not being considered for the job.


Also, while it's possible for a player who does not practice well to excel in games, but what coach would take that approach? Not exactly a high percentage play. Of course in P's case, when the guy playing in the games is a complete train wreck, it's just a dumb to not play someone else.
Expand ...
Did you guys not watch the games. it wasn't level of competition nor was it the line. Cochran was simply a better player. Would we have beaten UCF or Louisville with Cochran? I have serious doubts about that. they were much better teams. But when he came into a game, even when it was late in blowout losses, it was just so clear that he had a wholly different effect on the team. He was in control. He was accurate with his passes, he got rid of the football when he should have, he didn't take senseless sacks. In other words he did all the things a quarterback is supposed to do. You could see the difference in the way players reacted, you could feel the difference. Boyle was a publicity move first by a desperate head coach then by his equally desperate AD.That the decision to play Boyle wasn't over-ridden by the acting head coach ought to tell you something. He was no more ready to play D1 football than my 80 year old Aunt Agnes is. He really should not have even been in there. And he should have been replaced much sooner once it was clear he was so ill prepared.
 
freescooter said:
Did you guys not watch the games. it wasn't level of competition nor was it the line. Cochran was simply a better player. Would we have beaten UCF or Louisville with Cochran? I have serious doubts about that. they were much better teams. But when he came into a game, even when it was late in blowout losses, it was just so clear that he had a wholly different effect on the team. He was in control. He was accurate with his passes, he got rid of the football when he should have, he didn't take senseless sacks. In other words he did all the things a quarterback is supposed to do. You could see the difference in the way players reacted, you could feel the difference. Boyle was a publicity move first by a desperate head coach then by his equally desperate AD.That the decision to play Boyle wasn't over-ridden by the acting head coach ought to tell you something. He was no more ready to play D1 football than my 80 year old Aunt Agnes is. He really should not have even been in there. And he should have been replaced much sooner once it was clear he was so ill prepared.
Expand ...

Uh oh. I'm with Freescooter again. :)
 
freescooter said:
Did you guys not watch the games. it wasn't level of competition nor was it the line. Cochran was simply a better player. Would we have beaten UCF or Louisville with Cochran? I have serious doubts about that. they were much better teams. But when he came into a game, even when it was late in blowout losses, it was just so clear that he had a wholly different effect on the team. He was in control. He was accurate with his passes, he got rid of the football when he should have, he didn't take senseless sacks. In other words he did all the things a quarterback is supposed to do. You could see the difference in the way players reacted, you could feel the difference. Boyle was a publicity move first by a desperate head coach then by his equally desperate AD.That the decision to play Boyle wasn't over-ridden by the acting head coach ought to tell you something. He was no more ready to play D1 football than my 80 year old Aunt Agnes is. He really should not have even been in there. And he should have been replaced much sooner once it was clear he was so ill prepared.
Expand ...
Why are you incapable of seeing that this is the epitome of hindsight being 20/20?

A year ago, BEFORE any games, there was practice. No matter how much you insist otherwise, the pecking order based on the info available at the time was Whitmer, Boyle, then CC. You looking back now, in 2014, and saying CC was the better choice proves you smarter than no one. Whitmer and Boyle had earned the right to stumble before being pulled. Casey, to his everlasting credit, made the most of his opportunity when he got it. But there is no evidence to show he should have had it sooner- other than revisionist history. And blind hatred for Warde Manuel.
 
.-.
freescooter said:
Did you guys not watch the games. it wasn't level of competition nor was it the line. Cochran was simply a better player. Would we have beaten UCF or Louisville with Cochran? I have serious doubts about that. they were much better teams. But when he came into a game, even when it was late in blowout losses, it was just so clear that he had a wholly different effect on the team. He was in control. He was accurate with his passes, he got rid of the football when he should have, he didn't take senseless sacks. In other words he did all the things a quarterback is supposed to do. You could see the difference in the way players reacted, you could feel the difference. Boyle was a publicity move first by a desperate head coach then by his equally desperate AD.That the decision to play Boyle wasn't over-ridden by the acting head coach ought to tell you something. He was no more ready to play D1 football than my 80 year old Aunt Agnes is. He really should not have even been in there. And he should have been replaced much sooner once it was clear he was so ill prepared.
Expand ...
I am not the best qualified person to speak about how CW and TB performed in person. I wasn't at any of those games but I did watch most of them on TV. However, I was at the SMU game, on the 50 yd line, just a few rows behind the Husky bench. And I still remember watching Casey closely both on the field and on the sidelines. It was clear to me from that one game that Casey was in much more control of himself, the team, and the game than I had seen from the QBs in the prior 6 games.

I actually took a few notes that I had planned to share on this board. Here's my first note to self: "1st quarter with 9:15 to go on the clock. 3rd and 12. CC under pressure, stays in the pocket and makes a tough throw to Shakim for a 1st down and keeps the drive alive! you can feel it, we have the momentum back!"

CC did this kind of thing several times that day and I can still remember thinking his play was so much better (more control, poise, decision making, accuracy, limited mistakes, leadership) than what I'd seen from the other two QBs in the first 6 games. Unless thinks change dramatically in fall practice, I think CC has earned the starting slot for BYU.
 
CTMike said:
Why are you incapable of seeing that this is the epitome of hindsight being 20/20?

A year ago, BEFORE any games, there was practice. No matter how much you insist otherwise, the pecking order based on the info available at the time was Whitmer, Boyle, then CC. You looking back now, in 2014, and saying CC was the better choice proves you smarter than no one. Whitmer and Boyle had earned the right to stumble before being pulled. Casey, to his everlasting credit, made the most of his opportunity when he got it. But there is no evidence to show he should have had it sooner- other than revisionist history. And blind hatred for Warde Manuel.
Expand ...
I'm not criticizing starting Whitmer. While he wasn't great, and had a tendency to throw picks his first year, I thought he also showed an upside at times. But by the Buffalo game it was pretty clear that he wasn't getting it done. Time to move on. I'd have gone to Cochran at that point and tried mightily to save Boyle's redshirt because A. he was being sold as the future of the program and B. a redshirt Senior is usually better than a true freshman at quarterback. And it had to have been clear that he had little command of the offense, regardless of his raw talent. That was a huge miss by Pasqualoni, and by his offensive coordinator and quarterbacks coach. They basically wasted a year on a kid who was not ready in a desperate attempt to save their jobs. But even if you do decide to go with him, it was also clear to anyone who watched the USF game that Boyle was completely unprepared to play at that level. The defense held USF to 2 field goals. They scored on a run back of a Boyle fumble, too. Boyle was 15/43 149 yards against a team that gave up a 68% completion rate. UConn's touchdown was on a long McCombs run. Other than the first drive he was incapable of moving the team against a bad football team. He followed that mess up at Cincy. He was sacked 8 times against Cincinatti and threw 3 picks. By the end of next week surely he had had his fair chance...14/29/3, 5 sacks. still zero td passes. The experiment should have ended right there at the latest. Bring in Cochran. Go back to Whitmer. Either would have been more defensible than staying with Boyle. When it finally did end, Boyle was ranked dead last among quarterbacks in Division 1A, and it wasn't even close for the next guy. He started 5 games and came away with a 71.6 efficiecny rating, 44% completions, 8 picks, zero touchdowns, 124 ypg. And he was sacked something like 16 times. Even if he "earned the chance to stumble" as you say by his practice performance, and watching him actually play, I am skeptical that he did, he had clearly stumbled after 2 games, and by game 3 he was way beyond stumbling. He was in total free fall. And watching him play it was just so clear he shouldn't have been on the field. It was clear against USF. I was more clear against the rest of the schedule. So I can't believe that Weist and Day saw something in practice that made them think he should play. If they did, we are well to be rid of them. When your team is struggling I get that you have to make a change. But when you have a true freshman who is supposed to be the future of the program and he clearly isn't ready, it is horrible coaching to use him and waste a year.
 
freescooter said:
I'm not criticizing starting Whitmer. While he wasn't great, and had a tendency to throw picks his first year, I thought he also showed an upside at times. But by the Buffalo game it was pretty clear that he wasn't getting it done. Time to move on. I'd have gone to Cochran at that point and tried mightily to save Boyle's redshirt because A. he was being sold as the future of the program and B. a redshirt Senior is usually better than a true freshman at quarterback. And it had to have been clear that he had little command of the offense, regardless of his raw talent. That was a huge miss by Pasqualoni, and by his offensive coordinator and quarterbacks coach. They basically wasted a year on a kid who was not ready in a desperate attempt to save their jobs. But even if you do decide to go with him, it was also clear to anyone who watched the USF game that Boyle was completely unprepared to play at that level. The defense held USF to 2 field goals. They scored on a run back of a Boyle fumble, too. Boyle was 15/43 149 yards against a team that gave up a 68% completion rate. UConn's touchdown was on a long McCombs run. Other than the first drive he was incapable of moving the team against a bad football team. He followed that mess up at Cincy. He was sacked 8 times against Cincinatti and threw 3 picks. By the end of next week surely he had had his fair chance...14/29/3, 5 sacks. still zero td passes. The experiment should have ended right there at the latest. Bring in Cochran. Go back to Whitmer. Either would have been more defensible than staying with Boyle. When it finally did end, Boyle was ranked dead last among quarterbacks in Division 1A, and it wasn't even close for the next guy. He started 5 games and came away with a 71.6 efficiecny rating, 44% completions, 8 picks, zero touchdowns, 124 ypg. And he was sacked something like 16 times. Even if he "earned the chance to stumble" as you say by his practice performance, and watching him actually play, I am skeptical that he did, he had clearly stumbled after 2 games, and by game 3 he was way beyond stumbling. He was in total free fall. And watching him play it was just so clear he shouldn't have been on the field. It was clear against USF. I was more clear against the rest of the schedule. So I can't believe that Weist and Day saw something in practice that made them think he should play. If they did, we are well to be rid of them. When your team is struggling I get that you have to make a change. But when you have a true freshman who is supposed to be the future of the program and he clearly isn't ready, it is horrible coaching to use him and waste a year.
Expand ...
I like when we talk rationally. :)
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,385
Messages
4,569,794
Members
10,475
Latest member
Tunwin22


Top Bottom