I watched the game again, in the second half a true freshmen (Hearns) and a true sophomore (Gamble) played the majority of the snaps at CB. Both have the same amount of experience ~ just the past three games.
Anusiem, a projected starter with expectations to be a shut down corner saw no action (perhaps a play or two) in the second half. Obviously that does not bode well for the secondary when an upper classmen isn't cutting it.
And we really have no depth at CB. So it appears it will be trial by fire for the young corners and the ONLY way to protect them is to get a pass rush. Sirmon will be earning his shekels come Saturday.
I hope that getting the younger guys some experience was the strategy. We need to be able to create depth, especially if the upperclassmen had a bad day.
based on what I observed in the interaction between Anusiem and his coach, I would say poor play. In his presser Wilcox noted that experienced players in the secondary were not performing. Reading between the lines, I think Wilcox would include Anusiem & Hicks in that statement.
Interesting, thanks. I hope that Wilcox can light a fire under that group and get them to play to their potential. And that Hearns and Gamble follow the SydQ Thompson trajectory and not the Lapite one.
Yes, uncomfortably close. When we went up 28-6 that should have been it. Instead, the secondary was sliced apart. I'm a bit worried that in the Washington game we'll go up by two TD's in the first quarter than relinquish the lead.
By looking at the comparison charts you can pretty much eyeball the average. I don't think most people really care to know it precisely, though, sure, it wouldn't be bad to have running averages in the top table.
I would also recommend throwing out extreme values to a certain degree, not only in the overall calculations but the fun little Sunshine Pumping and Old Blues awards section. It's a fun trivial thing I know, but loses some meaning when there are multiple people who use 100% or 0% and are showing up on the list -- thus bumping off the people who are honestly pumpin' or bluein' and don't get the LIFE CHANGING recognition/validation on this site. Not so much this game, but you'll see several 100's during rivalries, etc. I've shown up a few times in the "voice of reason" category and I'll be honest, it kinda feels good haha. Dont deprive the honest pumpers and bluers their glory!
Some of the first charts are plots that show this game's performances relative to similar games and all of Wilcox's games. If that's not enough context, the community typically grades like we're using a 5 star scale instead of a grade school one, which is to say that a 50% is a true mixed bag instead of a failing grade.
Though people's feelings are typically influenced pretty heavily by whether Cal won the game or not. B97 might have actual stats on it but I'd be willing to bet overall grades swing by 10% or more depending on the outcome of the game.
special teams got the highest grade? wow that's new. haha
but really, we didn't have anything go wrong in special teams for the first time in a while. Opponents missed FGs and XP so that was a plus on ST.
I'm surprised special teams got such a high score after such a noticeable penalty on the kick-off going out of bounds.
I think it's just a sign of how multifaceted the special teams unit is and how many different aspects there are to the role they play.
And that everyone just loves kicks returned for touchdowns.
oh i forgot about the kickoff out of bounds. I think as long as there's no collapse, we are okay.
I watched the game again, in the second half a true freshmen (Hearns) and a true sophomore (Gamble) played the majority of the snaps at CB. Both have the same amount of experience ~ just the past three games.
Anusiem, a projected starter with expectations to be a shut down corner saw no action (perhaps a play or two) in the second half. Obviously that does not bode well for the secondary when an upper classmen isn't cutting it.
And we really have no depth at CB. So it appears it will be trial by fire for the young corners and the ONLY way to protect them is to get a pass rush. Sirmon will be earning his shekels come Saturday.
You think Anusiem was benched for bad play? Or they wanted to get the younger guys some experience once we had a 3 TD lead?
I hope that getting the younger guys some experience was the strategy. We need to be able to create depth, especially if the upperclassmen had a bad day.
based on what I observed in the interaction between Anusiem and his coach, I would say poor play. In his presser Wilcox noted that experienced players in the secondary were not performing. Reading between the lines, I think Wilcox would include Anusiem & Hicks in that statement.
Interesting, thanks. I hope that Wilcox can light a fire under that group and get them to play to their potential. And that Hearns and Gamble follow the SydQ Thompson trajectory and not the Lapite one.
Just read the depth chart for this week's game.
Hearns
-or- Anusiem
which confirms what we've been discussing. Drayden is listed as the other starting corner unless he goes to NB and then Gamble will play that corner.
Deng also listed as a starting OLB, not sure if he will play or not
yeah that was odd given Wilcox said they didn't expect anything new on Deng's condition until Thursday.
Hearns was the SF Chronicle's Metro Player of the Year at De La Salle
https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/article/De-La-Salle-s-Lu-Magia-Hearns-is-The-Chronicle-16162595.php
Yes, uncomfortably close. When we went up 28-6 that should have been it. Instead, the secondary was sliced apart. I'm a bit worried that in the Washington game we'll go up by two TD's in the first quarter than relinquish the lead.
Second paragraph should read "Especially one not named [dangerous FCS schools]," not "Especially not one named..."
Thanks for catching that
"I normally ignore an article that in part is based upon rating team performance based upon ratings and standard deviation."
You can just say that you ignore my Power Rankings--I only take it personally a little.
By looking at the comparison charts you can pretty much eyeball the average. I don't think most people really care to know it precisely, though, sure, it wouldn't be bad to have running averages in the top table.
I would also recommend throwing out extreme values to a certain degree, not only in the overall calculations but the fun little Sunshine Pumping and Old Blues awards section. It's a fun trivial thing I know, but loses some meaning when there are multiple people who use 100% or 0% and are showing up on the list -- thus bumping off the people who are honestly pumpin' or bluein' and don't get the LIFE CHANGING recognition/validation on this site. Not so much this game, but you'll see several 100's during rivalries, etc. I've shown up a few times in the "voice of reason" category and I'll be honest, it kinda feels good haha. Dont deprive the honest pumpers and bluers their glory!
Some of the first charts are plots that show this game's performances relative to similar games and all of Wilcox's games. If that's not enough context, the community typically grades like we're using a 5 star scale instead of a grade school one, which is to say that a 50% is a true mixed bag instead of a failing grade.
Though people's feelings are typically influenced pretty heavily by whether Cal won the game or not. B97 might have actual stats on it but I'd be willing to bet overall grades swing by 10% or more depending on the outcome of the game.
Yep, that summarizes it well. I haven't directly compared the scores during wins and losses, but there is usually a slight bump for wins.