re: what is moffit doing

quote:

---

confirmation bias typically gets too myopic while ignoring broader implications and factors. this is sfp to a "t". the three points i raised which had been raised in one form or another by others were more broad in scope and did not agree with the conclusion he was trying to draw from the combine data.

---

Further evidenced by his avoidance of addressing the issue of LSU's continued success on the field and in recruiting in the face of what he claims to be a consistent trend of poor combine results that will negatively impact our success, specifically through recruiting.

quote:

---

in all fairness, he might be right in the long run. however, that is not the case right now and we have a satisfactory sample size.

---

It is possible that he turns out right in the long run. But I just meant that the fact he refuses to address the current data (as you said, a satisfactory sample size) pretty strongly demonstrates his confirmation bias.

if i have confirmation bias, please explain what the underlying bias is

quote:

---

it's getting mighty quiet in here.....

---

i went to get lunch

quote:

---

if i have confirmation bias, please explain what the underlying bias is

---

the bias is that you feel like poor combine showings suggests that moffit might not be quite as good as advertised which ultimately will negatively affect recruiting. that is how i understand the issue based on this thread.

your use of stats (that have been questioned) to attempt to buttress the point shows that you are seeing what you want to see. thus, confirmation bias.

quote:

---

the bias is that you feel like poor combine showings suggests that moffit might not be quite as good as advertised which ultimately will negatively affect recruiting. that is how i understand the issue based on this thread.

---

no you're taking 1 assumption and a possible effect of that

i've said it may not be moffit. it may be our talent level

quote:

---

your use of stats (that have been questioned) to attempt to buttress the point shows that you are seeing what you want to see. thus, confirmation bias.

---

i saw the trends a couple years ago

then i saw all the praise of moffit, and it didn't make sense

then trends continued, as did the praise

our talent and our performance aren't correlating. either the elite talent isn't there or the development of the talent isn't there

quote:

---

we're have our fair share of disapointing players

---

what school hasn't?

quote:

---

you have to admit our run of players the past 10 years hasn't corresponded really with our play on the field

---

even if true, that's still not an indictment of moffit's system because there are too many other variables

quote:

---

there were significant injuries which were not uncommon for sec defenses late in the year. yet, the d was still one of the best in the nation statistically. what was wrong with the d in '07? again, statistically one of the best in the nation.

---

2007 has a schedule with 2 absolutely horrible offenses who sucked AFTER they replaced their shitty QBs. we got a shot at their horrible initial starters (carroll, glennan)

we also benefited from one of urban's conservative gameplans (also seen in this previous national title game)

then came USC, when spurrier carved our D with his own horrible offensive talent. of course they didn't win, because they sucked, but that was the beginning of the end

after USC, teams were no longer scared of us. they attacked us, and they had success. our slow defense correlates with shitty pass D and the inability to stop the option against athletic RBs

quote:

---

our talent and our performance aren't correlating. either the elite talent isn't there or the development of the talent isn't there

---

That's not supported by your evidence. At best, your evidence demonstrates that our performances in some aspects of the combine and our performance on the field may not be correlating. Performance in all aspects of the combine is not the same as talent at the college level.

The primary direct measure of Moffitt's performance is the ability of the players to perform in college games. The performance of players in any subsequent or ancillary endeavors is at best a secondary indicator of Moffitt's performance. And when the results of such a secondary indicator are directly contradicted by the primary measure, the secondary indicators are meaningless. That's what makes them secondary.

In the face of the unprecedented success on the field in college football games that has correlated with Moffitt's tenure at LSU, only evidence of players' inability to perform successfully in college football games can serve as meaningful evidence that there is a problem with our S&C program.

quote:

---

That's not supported by your evidence.

---

no it is

where is our elite talent during testing? we have laron landry and....

quote:

---

At best, your evidence demonstrates that our performances in some aspects of the combine and our performance on the field may not be correlating.

---

not realy. it perfectly explains why our D was so slow and why it got exposed in 2007 and 2008

quote:

---

Performance in all aspects of the combine is not the same as talent at the college level.

---

no, but the combine shows athleticism. that's what i'm talking about: talent

quote:

---

And when the results of such a secondary indicator are directly contradicted by the primary measure, the secondary indicators are meaningless.

---

2007 Defense being slow
2008 Defense being slow

the primary measure indicates exactly what the combine is confirming