Wait, What? Weird list.

[Eriul]

And my first post said something along the lines of it's not necessarily a recipe for winning but if you can't admit that stitt has a great offense then you are a bitter biased fan. The argument is about his offense.

I'm not sure that pointing out that the team scoring 16 against EWU, 25 against N. Colorado and 17 against the Cats is not necessarily a prolific (in your terms great) offense means that I or others are bitter biased fans. It's kind of like 75 getting called a douche-bag for pointing out some incongruities between what some players may have said and the actual product we witnessed during the second half of the season. It would be nice if there could be differing opinions without the excess baggage.

That argument is so bad though. Every year has bad offensive games. The best offenses in the history of football have games where they don't put up 50+ points. Every single year has bad point games for the Griz or any other team.

Here....



2002 - 21 points against EWU, 7 against MSU, 20 against Mcneese in losses. 13 against ISU, 21 against Hofstra in wins

2003 - 24 against NDSU, 20 against MSU in losses. 12 against Weber, 17 against Cal Poly in wins

2004 - 21 points against JMU in champ loss.

2005 - 14 points against Oregon, 20 points against EWU, 6 points against MSU, 21 points against Cal Poly in losses. 7 Points against SDSU, 23 points against NAU, 24 points against Weber in wins.

2006 - 7 points against Iowa, 17 points against UMass in both losses of season. 10 points against CP, 13 against MSU, and 20 against S illinois in wins

2007 - 22 points against Wofford in our only loss. 18 against Weber, 17 against Sac, 21 against NAU in wins

2008 - 28 points against Weber, 7 points against Richmond in only losses of season. 19 against EWU, 24 against Weber in wins.

2009 - 21 points against Nova in our only loss. 17 points against UC Davis, 12 against ISU, 24 against App State in wins

After this is considered the downfall of the football program. Every single one of these years, including 2004, had worse offensive production than this year. It's actually not even close. This last years offense put up better numbers than any griz team in 20 years. AGAIN NOT SAYING IT'S A RECIPE FOR WINNING. Just saying.. we moved the ball better than we have in years.

 

['68griz]

I really don't give a damn what the "offensive production" is if the Griz don't win the game.

 

[Eriul]

I really don't give a damn what the "offensive production" is if the Griz don't win the game.

Guess who does? Teams looking for o-coordinators

 

[sdk.catfish]

That argument is so bad though. Every year has bad offensive games

I will acknowledge that can be true. However "great" offenses, as you have called this one, also win big games, must win games against good teams, games on the road. They win even when the defense allows a bunch of points because we are playing "great" offensive teams. And we just didn't see a lot of that last year. I would say this is an above average offense that can be figured out by competent FCS defensive coordinators, especially the second time around.

That said at least we are keeping this thread somewhat on track, since it was originally about the search for offensive coordinators. Maybe if Stitt concentrates on that at UM next year, it will be a better year. Unfortunately there is a hell of a lot of other responsibilities that go along with being a head coach.

 

[GrizzlyClaw]

Stitt needs one or two more years. Look at Craig Bohls at Wyoming. 2014 (4-8) 2015 (2-10) 2016 (8-4). Wyoming is certainly not a great recruiting school and in no way is historically good. But Coach Bohls is a winner and to be 8-4 in three years is commendable. Stitt at least has better recruiting and history on his side only because it is Montana!! Year three will be a big test. To just throw in the towel now would be a huge mistake for the Griz. No guarantee we would get a top notch coach to replace him. I bet Wyoming, under Coach Bohls goes 9-3 or 10-2 next year. Likewise, the Griz will win 8 or 9 next season and be back on track. If not, than it's time to start searching!

 

[BillingsMafia]

Why all the comparisons to coaches who actually produced on the field or had substantial higher level experience. Stitt has accomplished nothing and has only lower level experience. I think Bohls had some small wins a NDSU before going to Wyo.

 

[poorgriz]

Stitt needs one or two more years. Look at Craig Bohls at Wyoming. 2014 (4-8) 2015 (2-10) 2016 (8-4). Wyoming is certainly not a great recruiting school and in no way is historically good. But Coach Bohls is a winner and to be 8-4 in three years is commendable. Stitt at least has better recruiting and history on his side only because it is Montana!! Year three will be a big test. To just throw in the towel now would be a huge mistake for the Griz. No guarantee we would get a top notch coach to replace him. I bet Wyoming, under Coach Bohls goes 9-3 or 10-2 next year. Likewise, the Griz will win 8 or 9 next season and be back on track. If not, than it's time to start searching!

I promise you aren't going to win nine games next season. Have you seen your schedule? Why do you guys do this to yourselves? :lol:

 

[sdk.catfish]

Let's not turn this into a "fire Stitt" thread. It originated with the OC position at LSU being open and the validity of this assessment of Bob Stitt's offensive scheme:

He’s become one of the more exciting offensive minds in the game in recent years, with an up-tempo, spread-the-field passing game that makes use of every inch of turf. He’s progressed from a near mythical stint at the Colorado School of Mines to one of the top FCS powers, and much like Brohm, could use a move here to increase his profile for his next move.

Some feel that is what we got with him and others, including myself do not. However I would not begrudge him an OC opportunity at any school that would take him although I doubt they will come. It might be less messy than the potential alternative of being let go in the next couple of years because there won't be many offers on the table then. Quite frankly I have some empathy for the man. I would not want to go out to dinner in Missoula if I were him. I feel sorry for his wife and kids having to read all the negative comments. But that is what comes with the position and I'm sure he knew that before he took the job.

 

[Grizzoola]

That argument is so bad though. Every year has bad offensive games

... That said at least we are keeping this thread somewhat on track, since it was originally about the search for offensive coordinators. Maybe if Stitt concentrates on that at UM next year, it will be a better year. Unfortunately there is a hell of a lot of other responsibilities that go along with being a head coach.

Indeed! Maybe one realization Coach Stitt is coming to is that unlike at Mines, there's too much admin concerns beyond just being OC. Stitt needs to let go running the O; he needs to tune more into what his D and ESP his STs, are doing. IOW, he needs to take an Olympic view of his program. Get an OC who conforms to his philosophy & let the guy do his thing. Stitt's mistake, I think, is micro-managing.

 

[RayWill]

Stitt needs one or two more years. Look at Craig Bohls at Wyoming. 2014 (4-8) 2015 (2-10) 2016 (8-4). Wyoming is certainly not a great recruiting school and in no way is historically good. But Coach Bohls is a winner and to be 8-4 in three years is commendable. Stitt at least has better recruiting and history on his side only because it is Montana!! Year three will be a big test. To just throw in the towel now would be a huge mistake for the Griz. No guarantee we would get a top notch coach to replace him. I bet Wyoming, under Coach Bohls goes 9-3 or 10-2 next year. Likewise, the Griz will win 8 or 9 next season and be back on track. If not, than it's time to start searching!

I promise you aren't going to win nine games next season. Have you seen your schedule? Why do you guys do this to yourselves? :lol:

Have to agree with poorgriz here. 7-4 at best unless maybe 5-6 unless something dramatically changes

 

[AZGrizFan]

You can hate him all you want. But Stitt has a good mind for offense. Sure he struggled getting us into the endzone at times but this year we were 7th in the FCS in total offense. 2nd in the Big Sky behind EWU.

I mean everyone can hate all they want but the guy averages almost 40 points a game here. It isn't the recipe for winning but you can't deny the fact that he has a good offense.

Don't know if you were talking to me with this or not, but just for the record, I DON'T hate the guy at all. I have no doubt he has given it and us his best so far. It is just that IMHO, he is not a quality Div. 1 football coach. Again, IMO, there is more to a quality Div. 1 football coach than being able to score 40 points a game. Color me silly, but that doesn't impress me all that much if it takes 50 points a game to be a winner. I feel the Griz could do a lot better.

Wasn't specifically referring to you. Was referring to all the shade going Stitt's way. Again you can argue semantics and shit all you want. AT THE END OF THE DAY... he produces a great offense. No if's ands or buts about that. He gets heralded for his offensive prowess and people on e-griz lose their minds. I'm not saying he's a good coach or good anything besides an offensive guy.

Just curious but what is Stitt's average points per game against the teams the Griz didn't score 60 points against? A good offensive coach perhaps, but not a very consistent one, especially against solid defensive teams. Hope he finds a way to pad the stats (especially scoring) against teams with winning records as one poster pointed out almost half the Griz's touchdowns were in three games.

UM: 27 of 54 TD's in 3 games (50%)
UND: 17 of 36 TD's in 3 games (47.2%)
CP: 24 of 56 TD's in 3 games (42.8%)
ISU: 18 of 36 TD's in 3 games (50%)
EWU: 23 of 67 TD's in 3 games (34.33%)
NAU: 23 of 46 TD's in 3 games (50%)
MSU: 16 of 36 TD's in 3 games (44.5%)
WSU: 18 of 42 TD's in 3 games (42.9%)
UNC: 22 of 51 TD's in 3 games (43.4%)
SUU: 20 of 44 TD's in 3 games (45.6%)

There's only one outlier, folks. UM's #'s were NOT abnormal for this conference....

 

[HookedonGriz]

Don't know if you were talking to me with this or not, but just for the record, I DON'T hate the guy at all. I have no doubt he has given it and us his best so far. It is just that IMHO, he is not a quality Div. 1 football coach. Again, IMO, there is more to a quality Div. 1 football coach than being able to score 40 points a game. Color me silly, but that doesn't impress me all that much if it takes 50 points a game to be a winner. I feel the Griz could do a lot better.

Wasn't specifically referring to you. Was referring to all the shade going Stitt's way. Again you can argue semantics and shit all you want. AT THE END OF THE DAY... he produces a great offense. No if's ands or buts about that. He gets heralded for his offensive prowess and people on e-griz lose their minds. I'm not saying he's a good coach or good anything besides an offensive guy.

Just curious but what is Stitt's average points per game against the teams the Griz didn't score 60 points against? A good offensive coach perhaps, but not a very consistent one, especially against solid defensive teams. Hope he finds a way to pad the stats (especially scoring) against teams with winning records as one poster pointed out almost half the Griz's touchdowns were in three games.

UM: 27 of 54 TD's in 3 games (50%)
UND: 17 of 36 TD's in 3 games (47.2%)
CP: 24 of 56 TD's in 3 games (42.8%)
ISU: 18 of 36 TD's in 3 games (50%)
EWU: 23 of 67 TD's in 3 games (34.33%)
NAU: 23 of 46 TD's in 3 games (50%)
MSU: 16 of 36 TD's in 3 games (44.5%)
WSU: 18 of 42 TD's in 3 games (42.9%)
UNC: 22 of 51 TD's in 3 games (43.4%)
SUU: 20 of 44 TD's in 3 games (45.6%)

There's only one outlier, folks. UM's #'s were NOT abnormal for this conference....

Great point. I keep reading "well if you take away the 3 games where they scored 60....". Dumbest thing I've heard. That is all relative. All teams in FCS who are tops in the nation for scoring is because they have all had games where they put up 50-60. You can't just magically remove those points for a comparison unless you're going to remove them for all the top offenses.

 

[UMGriz75]

That is all relative. All teams in FCS who are tops in the nation for scoring is because they have all had games where they put up 50-60. You can't just magically remove those points for a comparison unless you're going to remove them for all the top offenses.

You've never had a genuine statistics class, have you?

In stats, you examine data carefully for 1) outliers, and 2) correlated data. "Conference" data tends to be correlated. Non-conference games can be all over the place. Then, within "conference data," a given game may also be an outlier for a variety of reasons -- reasons which a statistician attempts to account for, including key injuries or game flukes (UM v ISU, 2015).

Finally, generic data without a trend analysis is good for ... what? If you aren't looking for predictive and analytical value from statistical analysis, WTF are you looking for? Personal validation? Snowflakes? Puppies?

The fact is, a closer examination of UM's "Scoring Offense" for the season, instead of the rosy charade that Eruil tries to present, shows instead a football team in deep collapse as the season wore on -- far worse than any other team in the conference -- predicting a possibility or probability of a loss even to ... the 'Cats.

Nothing about that loss was "relative."

 

[stilwtrgrizz]

Serious question: I have never had a serious statistics class, so am curious as to what these stats mean to a person who has? Teams that beat us were 30-23 overall, teams we beat were 21-29 over all. I know what I think they mean, or at least what they mean to me, just wondering if it is even close to the same as someone in the know on statistics.

 

[Ursa Major]

Serious question: I have never had a serious statistics class, so am curious as to what these stats mean to a person who has? Teams that beat us were 30-23 overall, teams we beat were 21-29 over all. I know what I think they mean, or at least what they mean to me, just wondering if it is even close to the same as someone in the know on statistics.

All depends upon your agenda. It's really a simple two-step process:

Statistics 101
1) Define agenda.
2) Gin up stats that defend said agenda.

 

[stilwtrgrizz]

Serious question: I have never had a serious statistics class, so am curious as to what these stats mean to a person who has? Teams that beat us were 30-23 overall, teams we beat were 21-29 over all. I know what I think they mean, or at least what they mean to me, just wondering if it is even close to the same as someone in the know on statistics.

All depends upon your agenda. It's really a simple two-step process:

Statistics 101
1) Define agenda.
2) Gin up stats that defend said agenda.

:roll: :roll: So there is no definitive answer to that? Just like politics apparently, depends on what the spin is and who's applying it??????

 

[AZDoc]

Oh man...here we go arguing over who knows stats better. I'm not that smart, but what those stats show is that EWU was the most consistent team as far as scoring goes. Most teams have outlying games so you can manipulate everyone's stats to fit how you want to. In reality, I have taken stats before, and there are always outlying statistics and you compare what's in front of you. So, yes, this shows that we are "the norm" for the conference. What that means is, against the teams we matched up well against, we scored more. Same thing as all the other teams...who they matched up against well, they probably scored more. REAL statistics would then get into comparing common opponents and that crap. Again, in reality, the only thing it really showed was that EWU was consistent in how much and who they scored against.

 

[stilwtrgrizz]

Oh man...here we go arguing over who knows stats better. I'm not that smart, but what those stats show is that EWU was the most consistent team as far as scoring goes. Most teams have outlying games so you can manipulate everyone's stats to fit how you want to. In reality, I have taken stats before, and there are always outlying statistics and you compare what's in front of you. So, yes, this shows that we are "the norm" for the conference. What that means is, against the teams we matched up well against, we scored more. Same thing as all the other teams...who they matched up against well, they probably scored more. REAL statistics would then get into comparing common opponents and that crap. Again, in reality, the only thing it really showed was that EWU was consistent in how much and who they scored against.

OK, think I got the jist of it then. Thank you......

 

[AZDoc]

Oh man...here we go arguing over who knows stats better. I'm not that smart, but what those stats show is that EWU was the most consistent team as far as scoring goes. Most teams have outlying games so you can manipulate everyone's stats to fit how you want to. In reality, I have taken stats before, and there are always outlying statistics and you compare what's in front of you. So, yes, this shows that we are "the norm" for the conference. What that means is, against the teams we matched up well against, we scored more. Same thing as all the other teams...who they matched up against well, they probably scored more. REAL statistics would then get into comparing common opponents and that crap. Again, in reality, the only thing it really showed was that EWU was consistent in how much and who they scored against.

OK, think I got the jist of it then. Thank you......

If you're serious...you're welcome. If you're a smart ass...you're also welcome! :thumb:
Your comparison of records also mirrors what I said, again, due to match ups. So, see, you know more about stats than you thought!

 

[stilwtrgrizz]

I am very capable of being a smart ass when the situation calls for it. However, in this case I certainly was not. I have never found it to be useful, unless one knows he is with friends and just doing it for the laughs. Personally, I find know-it-all, cutting, hurtful smart asses to be very distasteful. This time, I was just after some knowledge that I don't have. Thank's for your help.