re: No Respect for Les Miles

quote:

---

In this case, LSU's staff chose incorrectly both times, as proven by the fact that in neither case did we actually achieve the first down that would have won the game.

---

Right, because the only possible reason for a play not achieving the desired result is bad playcalling. That's why every coach is guilty of bad playcalling on every play that doesn't score a touchdown, because if they "chose correctly" they would have scored.

I always chuckle when I see people whose knowledge is so miniscule in proportion to their perception of their own knowledge purport to "explain" things in the simplistic terms representing the depth of their limited knowledge. Like, running plays against defensive formations with lots of guys near the line of scrimmage are AUTOMATICALLY a "bad call", since defensive coaches (like, say, Saban) would NEVER camouflage a playcall by disguising their formation before the snap.

But then again, that's probably why you make the big bucks coaching and those poor shleps like Miles and Saban keep "cho[osing] incorrectly" and not scoring touchdowns on so many of their plays.

quote:

---

neversaid anything about LSU having more talent than Bama tard, equal yes

---

Okay, so let's review:

LSU's talent is equal to Bama's talent.
LSU's coach is an incompetent, bumbling retard who can't coach his way out of a paper sack.
Alabama's coach has a 4-3 record against LSU's coach, and is 2-2 in the last four meetings.

I guess Bama's coach must be barely above the level of an incompetend, bumbling retard, huh?

It's funny how many people can't do the simple math. LSU under Miles is a half step behind Bama under Saban, and Saban is a coaching genius who is leaps and bounds ahead of everyone. And yet, somehow, Miles is an addle-brained moron whose coaching wrecks his teams' chances at winning. Which could only be true if he is just so badly whipping Saban's arse on the recruiting trail that he's got such an immense talent edge that it manages to eclipse the gigantic coaching advantage Saban has almost half the time. But still, that recruiting advantage somehow does not count in Miles' quality as a college head football coach (since everyone knows that recruiting is not an important factor in coaching college football ).

Delusion and irrationality can be quite entertaining at times.

quote:

---

Assinine statement of the year so for.

---

Then refute it. I backed my statement up with facts. Refute it with facts.

Alabama had more All-Americans than LSU had All-SEC players. To me, I don't see how you can't call that a massive talent advantage. Yet LSU won, on the road, despite that disadvantage. Hell, LSU won despite completely incompetent QB play. Think about that. Miles beat the most talented team in the nation running an offense straight out of 1955.

quote:

---

Yes if Mett makes the throw it's a great call, but he didn't.

---

quote:

---

I have lost confidence in Mile's game day thought process.

---

quote:

---

King Joey

---

As always, kudos to you sir

quote:

---

What's funny is how you morons who think Mile's is a good, great coach take words and put in others mouths who have said nothing of the kind. Yes, if you ask me I will tell you Les Mile's is not a good x and o's coach, but regardless he is still a coach. Never called the man bumblimg or stupid, nothing like that, you did because I don't share your opinion about Mile's.

all you people do is throw out lines like "oh, he's 2-2 against Saban or look how many games he's won" so that equates to good coaching to y'all?? Mile's has won games by rolling dice (as well as lost some) or stubbornly, steadfastly sticking to running it down people's throats to barely eek out wins, none of which has anything to do with good coaching. That math simple enough for you? Carry on.

---

You really like apostrophes, don't you?

quote:

---

Mile's has won games by rolling dice (as well as lost some) or stubbornly, steadfastly sticking to running it down people's throats to barely eek out wins, none of which has anything to do with good coaching.

---

So Miles simaltaneously is too risky AND too conservative? Most people wait a full sentence before they completely contradict themselves.

And how does winning games not have anything to do with coaching? Isn't that the point? Isn't good coaching, winning games? This ain't figure skating. There's no score for looking good.

quote:

---

Rebuttal you say? yeah, ok, I'll play

---

Alabama had no massive talent adavantage, idiot. yes, outstanding defense, but LSU's defense equally impressive. Different styles though. Sure, the media gave a lot of them All American honors and deservedly so, but you make is sound as if Mathieu(Heismann finalist), Brockers, Mingo, Montgomery, Reid, Claiborne were all chopped liver.

LSU cleaned up in awards, but Bama got AA statuses so I consider it break even. Difference in dfenses is in the styles though with Saban of course playin a much more aggressive runstuffing package that Mile's crazy arse continued to try to run against. But even so, LSU was still in that NC game all the way in the 4th qtr til a bottled in Richardson scored due to a tired, weary LSU defense throwin in the towel after seeing Mile's bumbling, incomptent offense wasn't gonna come to rescue. Anything else?

quote:

---

Yours is a remarkable feat.

---

Interesting. I presume you are referring to my post in response to your post, so I'm curious how addressing the point that our playcalling was bad in both cases exibits, "willful obliviousness to the central thesis of the post you have chosen to respond to(sic)". Was it not your central thesis that the criticism of both playcalls was in fact legitimate? I made that deduction based on the fact that your post was in rebuttal to another post that challenged the criticism of both playcalls, and the fact that your post supported its rebuttal with specific affirmations that criticism of both playcalls was in fact justified as both playcalls were "proven" wrong. Perhaps I am assigning too much reasoning to your writing, but the words as written actually do make that assertion.

I am also curious how the stringing together of a set of what I assume you believe to be impressive words bears relevance to a post to which none of those words apply. In order to have created a strawman, my post would have had to refute an argument that had not been made. You clearly made the argument that failure to achieve the desired result is proof of bad playcalling, and the refutation of that argument is the central thesis of my post. Perhaps I should point out to you that someone refuting an argument that you made accidentally by misspeaking or misunderstanding does not constitute a strawman. That would be miscommunication on your part. Also, my post was not a syllogism as it was not deductive reasoning, was not spurious or subtle argument, and did not contain a major and a minor premise and a conclusion. It was a mocking of an incorrect assertion (that both playcalls were proven to be bad by the failure to achieve the desired result) with a sarcastic example (that defensive formation stacking the line does not always mean running the ball is a bad playcalling, and one possible reason for that is that sometimes defensive formations are camouflage). There was a separate mocking of the apparent relative skill levels of the critic (you) and the actors (Miles and Saban), which employed the common theme on this board of mocking so-called "wannabe" coaches who speak as if they seem to think they are knowledgeable enough to be as successful coaching as those who make huge amounts of money doing it. But as that was not part of the argument portion of my post, it clearly did not qualify as syllogism, either.

I suppose you could consider the last part of my post an "ad hominem," if you consider your understanding of football to be your character. It remains unclear how a demeaning of your understanding of football could be a non sequitur in a post rebutting an assertion you made about criticism of a coach's football decision.

As for the relation between a coach's salary and the propriety of a given playcall, that is simply a misunderstanding on your part. I obviously never suggested that a coach's salary proves anything about any particular decision, including playcalls. The coaches' salary was referenced in relation to their general ability to make football decisions -- in this case, playcalling in general -- successfully in contrast to your asserted measure of failure to achieve the desired result being proof of incorrect playcalling.

It is a complete mystery why you would bring up the notion that only another coach might accurately critique the LSU staff. I could make guesses as to the various misunderstandings and failures of comprehension that led you to bring that up, but that would be too speculative to be productive.

But, yeah, I did use a few emoticons. I wouldn't call it a "lot", but it's a subjective enough description that I won't split hairs over it.

quote:

---

pointing out that a ploy like rolling dice which is bad coaching

---

Rolling dice is bad coaching??? Taking calculated risks is bad coaching??


Really?