Estrada's picture


Lookin' California, Feelin' Midwestern

Member since 30 August 2010 | Blog


  • SPORTS MOMENT: 1/3/2003

Recent Activity

Comment 04 Oct 2015

This is most of it, but not all of it.  There were a couple more:

3) Execution in the red zone.  Some of these were penalties, but there were also plenty of poorly executed plays (a glaring example being Cardale missing an open Thomas).  Both offensively and defensively they seemed to play mediocre to bad in the red zone (the defense's exception being at the end of the game).

4) 3rd downs.  We were bad on 3rd down yesterday (2 for 14).  The play-calling was sub-optimal at times (and other times downright confusing), and sometimes penalties contributed there as well.  During the magical 3 game stretch last year Cardale seemed to pull a rabbit out of his hat quite often on 3rd down (be it scrambling, throwing, or a combination of both), but he and the entire offense just didn't have it yesterday.

Comment 08 Sep 2015

I think VT certainly would have scored more with Brewer at the helm, but I seriously doubt they would have been able to keep pace with the Buckeye offense in the 2nd half.  So I think dodged a bullet is a bit too strong, rather we wouldn't have been able to get 2nd stringers reps as the game would have been closer (we also would have had to keep our foot on the gas as well).

Comment 22 Jan 2015

At least according to these sources he did not do so on the regular, so this could be where some confusion is coming into play:

Comment 15 Jan 2015

because it's clear they were hiring the demeanor more than anything - the "Anti-Bo," if you will,

Absolutely this. 

Will it back fire?  Who knows.  Personally I believe he will maintain the level of success Bo had, but not be able to surpass it.  However, that will be tolerable for Nebraska because Riley won't make waves (like Bo did on the regular).

Comment 29 Dec 2014

There's a decent number of us out in SD (though I'm current visiting family in the heart of it all), a large number of Californians are transplants.

Comment 16 Nov 2014

Indiana's offense most certainly would have been a challenge before Sudfeld (their starting QB) went down for the season.  Without him (and with Roberson and Coffman transferring; the other 2 QBs that played for Indiana last year), they've been starting a true freshman at QB and he's been terri-bad in Sudfeld's stead.  The game against Rutgers was the first time he's cracked the 75 yard mark since taking over the starting spot at QB.

Coleman is good, particularly given that he still manages to get yards even now that Sudfeld and any semblance of a decent passing game is gone.  But Indiana's Offense will likely make Minnesota's look incredibly dynamic and multi-faceted.

All that said, Cobb and Coleman are both good warm-ups for Gordon (though Gordon is better than those 2, and Wisconsin has a passing attack that's slightly better than Minnesota or Indiana's, but thankfully not much better).

Comment 09 Nov 2014

It's crazy to think that Sparty was +2 in the turnover margin, at home, in not great weather, and still lost by 2 scores.

I knew this team was super talented, but I thought the youth would bite them in the ass a good bit.  It did, but it didn't matter.  If OSU plays like this, they have a shot at beating anybody.

Comment 09 Nov 2014

They did absolutely curb stomp Iowa.  While Iowa is not a good team, they typically don't get their doors blown off either.  Maybe that's enough to get Minny to crack the top 25, but I doubt it.  Had Minny not shit the bed against Illinois (seriously, Illinois?), they'd only have 1 loss (to TCU), and would be in the top 25, possibly even creeping higher than that.  But they did, so they'll likely just be in the "others receiving votes category."

Now if Minnesota was in the SEC East, with that record, I'm sure they'd be in the top 15.  *dismissive wanking motion*

Comment 24 Oct 2014

Though we should really strike the Nebraska game during his freshman year from his losses.  I mean, we can't since he was the starter, but that game was in the bag until Brax went down and Bauserman aided Nebraska's largest comeback victory ever.

Comment 24 Oct 2014

People say that, but all of us from that small town (Orrville) didn't think he had the chops to play QB at OSU.

He's a nice kid and had a good arm, but that state championship was largely won in spite of him rather than because of him.  The running back/DB on that team also won the 100 M dash that year and was 2nd or 3rd the year before (he won the 110 M hurdles one of those years as well); that kid could flat out ball.  There were a number of other kids on the O and D that played college ball at smaller schools (e.g. Youngstown St., Mt. Union, etc.).  Quite simply, it was far from a 1 man team, and there were a number of games where they had to overcome costly turnovers thrown by an easily rattled QB (to be fair he was a freshman).

Comment 20 Oct 2014

Absolutely people want polls and topics to discuss (or shout mindlessly into their series of internet tubes about).  And I'm fine with preseason and early season polls existing, if they didn't matter or influence polls that actually matter.  But they do.  It's not going to change, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

And you're also right that things tend to work themselves out by the end of the season for the most part; I think that goes back to my sample size comment.  Our sample size will always suck, but obviously an n of 12 is much better than an n of 3, or an n of 1, or an n of 0.  So as a result, you tend to have a better of idea where teams fall, at least in a general grouping sense (e.g. teams A - E are the next 5 best teams). But the devil is in the details, and seemingly small ranking differences due to some early poll bias could potentially have much larger implications now that we have a playoff.  Though even without that, that preseason bias could muck up a few minor things come season's end.  And that's a shame, because what we think we know about a team before we've actually seen them play a game shouldn't have any influence on how we view them at or near the end of the season.  I know as humans it will be difficult for any of us to check our expectations and/or biases about a team at the door, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do so (even if in vain).

Comment 20 Oct 2014

You know what, you do have some valid points.

Here's what it is for me: we just don't really have enough data to know where most teams really stand.  Part of that will always be the case in CFB as there are 120+ teams and only a VERY limited number of games played by each team.  The fact that there isn't all that much cross-over between leagues further compounds this problem (even the teams that do a nice job of trying to have a good out of conference schedule will only play 2 or 3 half decent teams from a P5 conference, at the most).  So our sample size will always suck.

But on top of that, preseason rankings bias everything way more than it should.  An easy example from this season is Wisconsin vs LSU.  Both top 15 teams when they met.  Close game that sees Wisconsin supposedly piss down their leg and lose (or the Hat pull another win out of his magic grass filled hat, if that's your fancy).  So LSU moves up because they beat the #14 (preseason) team.  But it turns out Wisconsin is 1-dimensional and probably not that good this year (their running game is nice, but aside from that their D is OK, while their passing game will make you claw your eyes out rather than watch it).  So is that really a good win for LSU?  Should they really have been a top 10 team when Miss St. played them?

The answer is I don't really know.  But in all reality, it's probably a no to both questions.  

What I do know is that we shouldn't rank teams until about the 4th or 5th week to eliminate any bias of what people project about a particular team.

I certainly think that's where some of the backlash against the SEC is coming from; having so many teams that likely didn't deserve their preseason ranking (e.g. USC, LSU, Mizzou).  The catch is, no one deserves their preseason ranking because preseason ranking is a stupid endeavor that only biases people to those irrelevant thoughts about how good a team should be, which often reverberates through the season.  

But those early rankings can color the rest of the season.  TAMU has 1 "good" win over USC (the same team that beat Georgia and ECU, but also lost to Mizzou and UK; talk about a schizophrenic team), and another over Arkansas (who knows what to think of them).  Then 3 "good" loses (whatever that means, particularly when they weren't all that competitive in any of them, especially against the Tide).  So how good is TAMU then?  Ignore rankings and really try to parse that out--when you do that, it all becomes a big mess.  A wonderful, beautiful mess that is the college football regular season.

TL;DR: Preseason ranking is bullshit and needs to go away.