Right on Strat. Les installs Mullen's offense. I don't think Mullen wants a coach to run the offense, in the true sense of an OC. He wants an installer. No true OC wants to be an "installer." Mullen doesn't want a true OC and a true OC doesn't want to work for Mullen. Les is at the point in his career where he is no longer ambitious coach. So he rolls with the punches. If Mullen is chewing Les doing the games, it's probably more about execution than play calling.
New coaching hire, Billy Gonzales
- Thread starter Vv83
- Start date
Right on Strat. Les installs Mullen's offense. I don't think Mullen wants a coach to run the offense, in the true sense of an OC. He wants an installer. No true OC wants to be an "installer." Mullen doesn't want a true OC and a true OC doesn't want to work for Mullen. Les is at the point in his career where he is no longer ambitious coach. So he rolls with the punches. If Mullen is chewing Les doing the games, it's probably more about execution than play calling.
It "improved" in relation to 2011 -- it was NO BETTER in relation to 2010 in any way. Simply traded passing yards and TDS for rushing yards and TDS -- and it was worse when you consider the level of competition. I don't see how this can really be disputed at this point if you actually look at the statistics...
So, we're poor ole State and the best we can do is a 5+ time retread at OC... that what you are saying?
How does Oklahoma St keep rolling through TREMENDOUS OCs that go on to have VERY GOOD head coaching careers -- even though they are running Gundy's system while there(even terminology, everything)? How does that work THERE -- yet we don't think we can make that work at MSU? Nevermind that we traditionally recruit just as good or better than them...
I give you Todd Monken, Larry Fedora, and Dana Holgerson as prime examples of OCs under the Gundy regime. Dan Mullen should be having similar success. But he's too busy holding onto a 5-time retread rather than going out and getting a bright offensive mind to actually augment his knowledge and make each other better.
Last edited:
National rankings are misleading because some conferences allow better offensive numbers than others. The SEC is a defense heavy conference, so offensive numbers are going to be more diminished than defensive numbers. But within the SEC conference, MSU was 7th in offense based upon YDs/G and 9th based upon PPG in 2012 (2 points separated 5th from 9th). That is middle of the pack SEC. On defense, however, MSU's D was 8th in the SEC based upon YDs/G and 8th in PPG (The only team close to MSU in PPG on defense was Texas A&M). Compared to the average SEC team, neither the offense or defense was the culprit. Both were average for MSU. But, the defense took a big step back, whereas the offense reached 2010 levels. Here is a comparison between 2012 and 2011.
2012 Offense vs. 2011 Offense
Points per game: 29.5 vs. 25.3 (+4.2 points change)
Yards per play: 5.9 vs 5.4 (+0.5 yards change)
2012 Defense vs. 2011 Defense
Points per game 23.3 vs. 19.7 (+4.5 points change)
Yards per play: 5.5 vs. 4.7 (+0.8 yards change)
The problem was our defense last year. Both were average, but the defense took a step back and took away most any gains the offense made.
By the way, South Carolina in 2012 averaged 31.5 P/G and 5.7 Yds/Play. No one could say South Carolina's offense was a big problem last year.
btw- our time of possession on offense went up 4 minutes per game in 2012 from 2011
Were we not tied at halftime with OM? Even after the DEFENSE giving the offense 3 turnovers?
Why did we get behind vs NW? Remember that Pick-6 Russell threw? Russell gave NW 14 of their points
Our offense scored 7 points vs Bama- a Dak Prescott drive of 60+ yards in garbage time that got us over 200 yards of offense
Our offense scored 13 points vs A&M- and had only 2 first downs in the first half
We scored 17 points on LSU- one TD thrown by Prescott- but also threw a pick-6 to give 7 back- plus fumbled it over to change the momentum of the entire game
We scored 10 points on OM- got 7 more on a KO return, and then Prescott put 7 more on the board in garbage time
Our offense was 9th in the SEC in Scoring- just like it was in 2011 and that is below average
Why are you comparing anything to 2011? To say that the offense sucked less? No one argues that and NOWHERE in this thread have they. Those of us that look at the big picture see that the offense has been bad all 4 years. While the defense has been good for 2 years, mediocre for 1, and bad for one.
They were both problems last year. However, I've conclusively shown multiple times statistically that the offense is and has been the bigger problem. How much more do you need than that? The method I used in this very thread even takes SOS out of the equation.
Quit looking at this from within the "msu bubble". That's a tremendous problem around here -- the inability to look at the big picture -- and look at those around us objectively. Basically, in 2012, the offense went from terrible to a shade below mediocre -- and the defense went from good to mediocre. That's the simple statistical facts of it. But after 4 years and not a single offense that was ABOVE mediocre, many of us want significant changes on that side. We haven't had a SINGLE year where the defense was anything less than good that heads didn't roll.
Looks like we may be getting most of the changes that we want... But I won't be satisfied until Koenning is out -- or Mullen publicly announces that he will be taking over playcalling...
They were both problems last year. However, I've conclusively shown multiple times statistically that the offense is and has been the bigger problem. How much more do you need than that? The method I used in this very thread even takes SOS out of the equation.
Quit looking at this from within the "msu bubble". That's a tremendous problem around here -- the inability to look at the big picture -- and look at those around us objectively. Basically, in 2012, the offense went from terrible to a shade below mediocre -- and the defense went from good to mediocre. That's the simple statistical facts of it. But after 4 years and not a single offense that was ABOVE mediocre, many of us want significant changes on that side. We haven't had a SINGLE year where the defense was anything less than good that heads didn't roll.
Looks like we may be getting most of the changes that we want... But I won't be satisfied until Koenning is out -- or Mullen publicly announces that he will be taking over playcalling...
It's all about CONFERENCE STATS. When you post that we held A&M under their season average of 45, that's meaningless. They only averaged 39 in conference games. The differences between OOC schedules, especially considering how incredibly soft our was last year, skews everything.
Look at CONFERENCE GAMES ONLY. That will paint a truer picture of the offense vs defense. That is where Mullen, and us as fans, judge success or failure. When you compare our outputs in those games TO THE CONFERENCE ONLY NUMBERS, it shows that the defense struggled more than the offense. Plenty of room for improvement on both sides, but the D was the bigger issue.
That is why we fired our DC before the bowl game, but we still have our OC. I can't understand it for you, obviously.
Look at CONFERENCE GAMES ONLY. That will paint a truer picture of the offense vs defense. That is where Mullen, and us as fans, judge success or failure. When you compare our outputs in those games TO THE CONFERENCE ONLY NUMBERS, it shows that the defense struggled more than the offense. Plenty of room for improvement on both sides, but the D was the bigger issue.
That is why we fired our DC before the bowl game, but we still have our OC. I can't understand it for you, obviously.
One thing you didnt account for is that even though we scored 4 more PPG in 2012 than 2011- both teams were still 9th in Scoring. Even though the SEC is known for its defense- offenses are beginning to score at a higher rate.
Plus, the 2011 team played six 10+ win teams and only 2 SEC teams with losing records- 2012 played 4 SEC teams with losing records- that can easily explain that 4 point gain on offense.
Here's a great example of what I'm trying to say. Take A&M for example. You say that since A&M averaged 45 points all year, our D did pretty well "holding" them only 38. But Look at the non conference games and scores that are included in your 45 ppgs:
SMU - they scored 48
South Car State - they scored 70
La Tech - they scored 59
Sam Houston State - they scored 59
Those OOC games skew everything. In reality we gave up 38, they averaged 39 against an SEC team, not bad. LSU averaged 22 and OM averaged 28 against comparable compition, we gave up 37 and 41 respectively.
Those are the problems the problems that Mullen saw, and addressed by the firing of Chris Wilson.
SMU - they scored 48
South Car State - they scored 70
La Tech - they scored 59
Sam Houston State - they scored 59
Those OOC games skew everything. In reality we gave up 38, they averaged 39 against an SEC team, not bad. LSU averaged 22 and OM averaged 28 against comparable compition, we gave up 37 and 41 respectively.
Those are the problems the problems that Mullen saw, and addressed by the firing of Chris Wilson.
No I'm not saying that's the best we can do. I'm saying in your words that Mullen does not want a "bright offensive mind to actually augment his knowledge and make each other better." He wants a guy to do exactly as he says. Ask Hud. So he has to have someone old and content, Les, or someone young and dumb, Mirando.
Compare it for me, then...
You can't understand it for me? It's becoming pretty obvious that you can't understand it for yourself. The fact that you don't see the double standard that's been consistently in place between our offensive and defensive staff hiring/firing is hilarious to me.
For literally the 5th time I've told you, my formula DOES AWAY with strength of schedule. It doesn't take a mathematician to figure this out. You should BEAT bad teams by an equal amount that you hold them below their scoring average. Simple. Easy to understand. Unless you want to complicate it because you don't like what the numbers tell you -- and break a data set down into smaller and smaller pieces until you can FINALLY get it to tell you want you want...
The offense has been the bigger problem CLEARLY in the past 3 years at MSU. Year 1 was debatable. The fact that so many of our "fans" argue this simply defines what I already know -- a HUGE percentage of our fanbase are MSU fans and not college football fans -- thus lacking perspective to look at the big picture. The fact that they HAVE seen dominant defenses at MSU -- while never seeing a dominant offense -- skews the perception of what is reality.
Ole Miss has put together quite a few dominant offenses. Why can't we?
ok- conference games only
We were 8th in the SEC in Scoring O while playing the weakest SEC schedule. We also played 5 of the SEC's 6 worst defenses- the only team to do that
We played 4 SEC games against teams with losing records- by contrast the 2011 team played 2.
In our 4 SEC losses- Russell only led us to 33 points...Prescott accounted for 21...and we ran a KO back for 7 more (if that's not an offensive problem, I dont know what is)
Old and content? That's what you see in Hud, Brewster, Gonzales, etc? Ask Hud what? That he didn't like working for Mullen? He also accepted a promotion to a HC at a job that he would NEVER have gotten without Dan Mullen.
So, Mullen is severing ties with EVERY underperforming part of this team... yet you think he DELIBERATELY wants a yes man to hold us back as our offensive coordinator CALLING THE 17'N plays? That doesn't even make sense. If he wanted a "yes man" as OC, that's what the fool would be -- while Mullen was the one calling plays.
We are only marginally ahead of the McCorvey days relative to those around us. We haven't even made it to MEDIOCRE on offense yet -- while we've been borderline elite on defense twice. That is unacceptable to me going forward. And it should be for the rest of our fanbase that can look at the big picture as well.
Last edited:
And in all these examples, to how great of an extent did aTm hold those teams below their scoring averages? Hence how the equation still balances.
Of course, I'm sure MANY would suspect that aTm's offense outperformed their defense almost unanimously this year... so no surprise there.
Breaking unbiased data down into smaller pieces introduces error to the equation. The "strength" of the teams doesn't matter when you balance the equation in the manner that I have.
Now, do you see why I asked you about where the blame lies between Mullen and Keonning?
When you compare the entire schedule's 45 PPG, what you're saying is "Look how much better we did than South Carolina State, Sam Houston State, SMU, and La Tech". Of course we out performed those teams, Engie. That's the fundamental flaw in your arguemnt. When you take their SEC CONFERENCE NUMBERS, you compare how we performed against OM, Ark, Auburn, etc. That's apples to apples.
Also, just to recap, in this thread I have done the following:
1) I explained to you the moves that we were making by hiring Gonzalez. Notice I was dead on the entire time, while you were posting about his salary being proof he was replacing LK. (Nice call on that one, btw)
2) I explained to you the logic behind us making more defensive staff changes than offensive
3) I backed those moves up with quantative, apples to apples, data which youre arguement can't support. You start talking about double standards on the coaching staff or Mullen playing favorites.
Come on man, you're better than this.
Old and content = Les = OC. Hud, Brewster, Gonzales not = OC. Les has a very short leash in play calling. Mullen hears every play call before its ran (from his script). When you are an offensive "genius", you don't need some ambitious, brilliant OC telling you what he thinks is a good approach. You need a guy to constantly acknowledge that you are a genius or at least not question your approach. Answer this, if Les isn't what Mullen wants in a OC and has 17ed up his offense, while has he kept him around for 4, soon to be 5, years?
QB development and offense implementation. His strength is getting the QB to understand the offense.
No.
It's blatantly obvious that my method here LITERALLY goes consistently beyond your comprehension level. There IS NO FUNDAMENTAL FLAW TO MY ARGUMENT. Do these teams you are accusing of inflating my numbers NOT also have to face aTm's DEFENSE? Oh they do, don't they? Does aTm's DEFENSE not dominate them to the same extent that their offense overpowers them? Yes or no? If NO, that simply means that aTm's OFFENSE IS BETTER THAN THEIR DEFENSE, which should come as a surprise to no one. See how this cancels itself out? Surely for the sake of common sense, you do. I can do the SAME THING with OUR OWN WEAK *** non-conference games...and you know what? Our defense outperformed the offense in EVERY SINGLE ONE of those as well BY AN EVEN GREATER MARGIN than I presented before. "But it skews the numbers" -- ********. It gives you more GOOD data. TWICE as much to be exact -- which equals data that is twice as accurate.
Troy average scoring: 30.6
MSU allowed: 24
Defense + 6.6
Troy average giving up: 30.5
MSU scored: 30
Offense - 0.5
Defense was better by 7.1 points
USA average scoring: 18.5
MSU allowed: 10
Defense + 8.5
USA average giving up: 29.5
MSU scored: 30
Offense + 0.5
Defense was better by 8.0 points
MTSU average scoring: 26.6
MSU allowed: 3
Defense + 23.6
MTSU average giving up: 28
MSU scored 45
Offense + 17
Defense was better by 6.3 points
Obviously, this "snapshot" shows the numbers EVEN MORE in our defense's favor over to our offense. HMMM... Seems your theory of throwing out the data due to "it skewing things into the offense's favor" falls flat on it's face right here, does it not?
Or better yet, let's look at aTm since that's your CONSTANTLY knighted example of "skewed stats":
SMU average scoring: 30.5
aTm allowed: 3
Defense: +27.5
SMU average giving up: 25.7
aTm scored: 48
Offense: +22.3
DEFENSE was better by 5.2 points
La Tech average scoring: 51.5
aTm allowed: 57
Defense: -5.5
La Tech average giving up: 38.5
aTm scored: 59
Offense: +20.5
OFFENSE was better by 26 points
So, as expected -- aTm's offense outperformed it's defense in these games, by about 10 PPG. No surprise.
So, tell me again how this "skews" my numbers? Since I CLEARLY showed you both sides of the coin on this. A better defense "wins" as was shown in the case of MSU -- as does a better offense, as was shown in aTm's case.
OK? Explain to me how my logic was not sound in the argument. We were both speculating -- you were right(maybe). Let's let the titles come out before you count your horses. ALOT of talk that Gonzo is going to include the title of co-OC ---where he will likely be groomed for future playcalling duties. AND Les is still looking for a new job.
How do you figure? Looks to me like we're essentially making the same number of changes with the duty shuffling going on. Also, Koenning isn't exactly guaranteed to be staying yet. He's WELL-KNOWN to be looking for another job, which means he's either been demoted or told to get out. SAME EXACT situation that was given to Wilson. Just so happens that he was OBVIOUSLY a more attractive job candidate than Koenning. Surprise surprise!
You haven't backed up anything quantitatively. NOTHING. You realize that quantitative means numbers right? You've produced none. "Apples to apples data my argument can't support?" Where? All you've produced is an argument for LITERALLY throwing out HALF OF THE TOTAL DATA for a whole season in order to try to skew the numbers into your favor -- and even then, you haven't done ANY quantitative analysis to prove ANYTHING that even supports your viewpoint...
Your right, I am better than this -- and I can't believe I'm having to go to this painstaking of a level to explain this in a manner that you can understand and accept.
Cord Sandberg and Dak Prescott already understand the offense. Dak's had 2 years in it here. Cord's had 4 years in it in highschool(even using Meyer's terminology, which is basically identical to us). So, I ask again, what is his role on this team that makes him worthy of an OC title and $300k/yr, because at this point, I don't see his role whatsoever? With Mullen off special teams, that frees him up for another role. What is that role most likely to be? Playcalling and QB coaching is the obvious answers...
AND just to satisfy your "conference only" parameters(this is the "quantitative" you were going for--which as I've stated, adds a great deal of increased error to the totality of the season)...
<tbody>
</tbody>
In the final column, the "defense winning" is a positive number. The "offense winning" is a negative number.
For the cumulative total, the offense outperformed the defense by a TOTAL of 1.3 points over 8 games. So, using this metric, the offense was better than the defense by 0.1625 points/game. Both were about 3 ppg BELOW average for the competition that we faced.
Using THESE parameters, the problems are EQUAL in scope. That's with our alleged "best" offense -- and a defense that for all intents and purposes fell apart -- and was our second worst under Mullen(and worst in many regards).
| MISSISSIPPI STATE | OPPall | TmSCO | Odiff | Tmavg | OPPsco | Ddiff | ||||
| *Auburn (3-9) | 28 | 10 | 34 | 28 | -6 | 10.1 | 10 | 0.1 | 6.1 | |
| *Kentucky (2-10) | 27 | 14 | 36.4 | 27 | -9.4 | 11.1 | 14 | -2.9 | 6.5 | |
| *Tennessee (5-7) | 41 | 31 | 40 | 41 | 1 | 30.8 | 31 | -0.2 | -1.2 | |
| *Alabama (13-1) | 7 | 38 | 13.1 | 7 | -6.1 | 37.2 | 38 | -0.8 | 5.3 | |
| *Texas A&M (11-2) | 13 | 38 | 21 | 13 | -8 | 39.1 | 38 | 1.1 | 9.1 | |
| *Louisiana State (10-3) | 17 | 37 | 18.8 | 17 | -1.8 | 22.5 | 37 | -14.5 | -12.7 | |
| *Arkansas (4-8) | 45 | 14 | 32.1 | 45 | 12.9 | 19.6 | 14 | 5.6 | -7.3 | |
| *Mississippi (7-6) | 24 | 41 | 29.9 | 24 | -5.9 | 28 | 41 | -13 | -7.1 | |
| -23.3 | -24.6 | -1.3 |
<tbody>
</tbody>
In the final column, the "defense winning" is a positive number. The "offense winning" is a negative number.
For the cumulative total, the offense outperformed the defense by a TOTAL of 1.3 points over 8 games. So, using this metric, the offense was better than the defense by 0.1625 points/game. Both were about 3 ppg BELOW average for the competition that we faced.
Using THESE parameters, the problems are EQUAL in scope. That's with our alleged "best" offense -- and a defense that for all intents and purposes fell apart -- and was our second worst under Mullen(and worst in many regards).
Last edited:
This has been a pissing contest for the ages and I have very much enjoyed reading it. I think we can all agree that our problems this past year cannot be limited to even one or two issues. We had problems on offense. We had problems on defense. We had problems with special teams. We had what appeared to be dissension amongst the staff. We have some baffling personnel decisions that may or may not have been attributable to off the field issues. I could go on, but will not.
What I believe we can also agree on is that Mullen knows and is aware of these issues and is actively trying to do something to remedy them. Based on his demeanor on the sidelines during the back half of the season where he appeared to, literally, give two *****, I am happy with the changes so far. Hopefully, the less public issues will get worked out as well and we will be ready to enter next fall playing with a little more chippiness. This team badly needs swagger on both sides of the ball. Dawg pound rock, Landsharking (remember, McPhee stole that), nut dragging after tackles, 15 yard penalties after spiking the ball on interceptions (thanks Nickoe)...we need a healthy dose of all of this. Controlled chaos.
What I believe we can also agree on is that Mullen knows and is aware of these issues and is actively trying to do something to remedy them. Based on his demeanor on the sidelines during the back half of the season where he appeared to, literally, give two *****, I am happy with the changes so far. Hopefully, the less public issues will get worked out as well and we will be ready to enter next fall playing with a little more chippiness. This team badly needs swagger on both sides of the ball. Dawg pound rock, Landsharking (remember, McPhee stole that), nut dragging after tackles, 15 yard penalties after spiking the ball on interceptions (thanks Nickoe)...we need a healthy dose of all of this. Controlled chaos.
These points are easy to blow out of the water. Stats don't address flow of the game, momentum, excitement of the team, any of the other intangible factors that effect football. Texas A&M and Alabama could have named the score, they ran through us like a hot knife in butter, stats go out the window. Offense lost ONE game for us, Northwestern and possibly Ole Miss, but hard to think we would have outscored them that day anyway. We could have possibly put the game away earlier, but we'll never know.
TROY devasted our defense. So did Tennessee. Kentucky even moved the ball on us. Arkansas did the same. We weren't headhunting. We were soft. We did not attack and were never the aggressor. Banks took it upon himself in some games, but that's it. Whitley didn't even make near as many big hits. I wouldn't expect a nerd like you to understand what the grit of football is all about. Continue with your 'stats'.
You have destroyed nothing. Only thing you have proven is that you're weak, evidenced by your name calling. That math you did is completely useless.
TROY devasted our defense. So did Tennessee. Kentucky even moved the ball on us. Arkansas did the same. We weren't headhunting. We were soft. We did not attack and were never the aggressor. Banks took it upon himself in some games, but that's it. Whitley didn't even make near as many big hits. I wouldn't expect a nerd like you to understand what the grit of football is all about. Continue with your 'stats'.
You have destroyed nothing. Only thing you have proven is that you're weak, evidenced by your name calling. That math you did is completely useless.
Yet you two lollypops rant and rave about how great 2010's offense was. I am not saying I agree or disagree, just that you two are a walking contradiction.
Last edited:
Mullen has more fingerprints on the offense than any other coach, including Les. That's why, when you complain about Les and hold Mullen as demi-god, I just shake my head.
If Mullen doesn't like something in the game plan, he changes it.
If Mullen wants to add something, it gets added.
If Mullen doesn't like a play call, he changes it.
Mullen takes over play calling at stretches in our games.
Plus, we often have two plays called in the huddle and Russell checks at the line.
Les' primary job is to develop our QBs, and he's done a pretty good job of that. We all knew Russell was going to be a bit of a round peg in a squre hole, but we had 3 years to avoid and we did not. If you want to make the "Dak/Rushing attach" is better then fine, but those are decisions Mullen made.
Everyone wants to make Les the fall guy for all things related to MSU offensive struggles, but that's not fair to him. Mullen realizes this, that's why he's still on the staff dispite your pleads. Look what Paul Jones said yesterday when asked if Gonzalez was going to replace Les as OC (I hope he doesn't mind me copying premium material):
Does 'the best at MSU in 20 years' mean anything in the grand scheme of things? Not really considering MSU's past, but is that ground to fire him? No way. It's Mullen's offense engie. That's why Les is still here.
And to be clear, I'm not promising he'll be here in the fall. Something might change between now and then, but it's looking Les and Les (get it?) likely. If Mullen wanted him out, he wouldn't be here right now.
If Mullen doesn't like something in the game plan, he changes it.
If Mullen wants to add something, it gets added.
If Mullen doesn't like a play call, he changes it.
Mullen takes over play calling at stretches in our games.
Plus, we often have two plays called in the huddle and Russell checks at the line.
Les' primary job is to develop our QBs, and he's done a pretty good job of that. We all knew Russell was going to be a bit of a round peg in a squre hole, but we had 3 years to avoid and we did not. If you want to make the "Dak/Rushing attach" is better then fine, but those are decisions Mullen made.
Everyone wants to make Les the fall guy for all things related to MSU offensive struggles, but that's not fair to him. Mullen realizes this, that's why he's still on the staff dispite your pleads. Look what Paul Jones said yesterday when asked if Gonzalez was going to replace Les as OC (I hope he doesn't mind me copying premium material):
Does 'the best at MSU in 20 years' mean anything in the grand scheme of things? Not really considering MSU's past, but is that ground to fire him? No way. It's Mullen's offense engie. That's why Les is still here.
And to be clear, I'm not promising he'll be here in the fall. Something might change between now and then, but it's looking Les and Les (get it?) likely. If Mullen wanted him out, he wouldn't be here right now.
LINK?
We simply said that 2010's offense was JUST as good as this one -- and BETTER in games that mattered. NOWHERE did we imply that EITHER offense was actually GOOD.
Goat, your gibberish too ignorant to even discuss... But that's not surprising.
When it goes above your head, step away and let the men talk.
Last edited:
All this is true. But it's time for Mullen to either CALL THE PLAYS and set up the game plan -- or get a coach that can. It may VERY well be 90% his fault. We don't know. But what we do know is that he is NOT firing himself. IF this is the best that a Dan Mullen offense can be at MSU, it may be time for him to allow a hot-shot OC that we can clearly afford at this point to do his thing. I know he made calling plays an artform at Florida with 2 different style QBs and was VERY innovative -- stuff that I haven't seen even a FLASH of at MSU since 2010. Many credit that to Hud while here, because we haven't seen it from Mullen yet without him.
What it boils down to is this... The offense sucked. Again. There has got to be a fall guy -- or AT LEAST SOMETHING has to change that turns the perception to lead us to believe that things are about to get better. Our offensive ineptitude against decent teams the past two years is absolutely undeniable. It's not getting better. It's getting worse. I was hopeful that's why we were getting with Gonzo(and it still may be) -- and I'm still hopeful that Koenning finds another gig as well. The beauty of Gonzo is that he/Mullen came up through the ranks together in the same system. There will likely not be ANY other coaches out there that think more like Mullen than Gonzo. That's why I think he's going to be groomed into eventual playcaller/OC for us if he proves to be up for the task.
After what I saw last year down the stretch, we need a fresh start on both sides of the ball. On defense, WE GOT IT. On offense, we've got a nice start -- but a long way to go.
I keep going back to the fact that Keonning has been fired at least 5 times before elsewhere(why, if he's so good?) -- and we found him at South Alabama trying to build a program that didn't even really exist yet. That doesn't scream CUTTING EDGE SEC to me. It screams Torbush-level retread...
Last edited:
[h=3]Probability mass function[/h]In general, if the random variable K follows the binomial distribution with parameters n and p, we writeK ~ B(n, p). The probability of getting exactly k successes in n trials is given by the probability mass function:
<dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 19.1875px;"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;"></dd></dl>for k = 0, 1, 2, ..., n, where
<dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 19.1875px;"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;"></dd></dl>is the binomial coefficient (hence the name of the distribution) "n choose k", also denoted C(n, k), [SUB]n[/SUB]C[SUB]k[/SUB], or [SUP]n[/SUP]C[SUB]k[/SUB]. The formula can be understood as follows: we want k successes (p[SUP]k[/SUP]) and n − k failures (1 − p)[SUP]n − k[/SUP]. However, the k successes can occur anywhere among the n trials, and there are C(n, k) different ways of distributing k successes in a sequence of n trials.
In creating reference tables for binomial distribution probability, usually the table is filled in up to n/2 values. This is because for k > n/2, the probability can be calculated by its complement as
<dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 19.1875px;"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;"></dd></dl>Looking at the expression ƒ(k, n, p) as a function of k, there is a k value that maximizes it. This kvalue can be found by calculating
<dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 19.1875px;"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;"></dd></dl>and comparing it to 1. There is always an integer M that satisfies
<dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 19.1875px;"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;"></dd></dl>ƒ(k, n, p) is monotone increasing for k < M and monotone decreasing for k > M, with the exception of the case where (n + 1)p is an integer. In this case, there are two values for which ƒ is maximal: (n + 1)p and (n + 1)p − 1. M is the most probable (most likely) outcome of the Bernoulli trials and is called the mode. Note that the probability of it occurring can be fairly small.
[h=3][edit]Cumulative distribution function[/h]The cumulative distribution function can be expressed as:
<dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 19.1875px;"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;"></dd></dl>where
is the "floor" under x, i.e. the greatest integer less than or equal to x.
It can also be represented in terms of the regularized incomplete beta function, as follows:
<dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 19.1875px;"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;"></dd></dl>For k ≤ np, upper bounds for the lower tail of the distribution function can be derived. In particular,Hoeffding's inequality yields the bound
<dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 19.1875px;"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;"></dd></dl>and Chernoff's inequality can be used to derive the bound
<dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 19.1875px;"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;"></dd></dl>Moreover, these bounds are reasonably tight when p = 1/2, since the following expression holds for all k ≥ 3n/8[SUP][1][/SUP]
<dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 19.1875px;"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;"></dd></dl>[h=2][edit]Example[/h]Suppose a biased coin comes up heads with probability 0.3 when tossed. What is the probability of achieving 0, 1,..., 6 heads after six tosses?
<dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 19.1875px;"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;"></dd></dl><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 19.1875px;"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;">
</dd></dl><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 19.1875px;"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;">
</dd></dl><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 19.1875px;"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;">
</dd></dl><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 19.1875px;"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;">
</dd></dl><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 19.1875px;"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;">
</dd></dl><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 19.1875px;"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;">
[SUP][2][/SUP]</dd></dl>[h=2][edit]Mean and variance[/h]If X ~ B(n, p) (that is, X is a binomially distributed random variable), then the expected value of X is
<dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 19.1875px;"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;"></dd></dl>and the variance is
<dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 19.1875px;"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;"></dd></dl>[h=2][edit]Mode and median[/h]Usually the mode of a binomial B(n, p) distribution is equal to
, where
is the floor function. However when (n + 1)p is an integer and p is neither 0 nor 1, then the distribution has two modes: (n + 1)p and (n + 1)p − 1. When p is equal to 0 or 1, the mode will be 0 and n correspondingly. These cases can be summarized as follows:
<dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 19.1875px;"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;"></dd></dl>In general, there is no single formula to find the median for a binomial distribution, and it may even be non-unique. However several special results have been established:
[h=2][edit]Covariance between two binomials[/h]If two binomially distributed random variables X and Y are observed together, estimating their covariance can be useful. Using the definition of covariance, in the casen = 1 (thus being Bernoulli trials) we have
- If np is an integer, then the mean, median, and mode coincide and equal np.[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP]
- Any median m must lie within the interval ⌊np⌋ ≤ m ≤ ⌈np⌉.[SUP][5][/SUP]
- A median m cannot lie too far away from the mean: |m − np| ≤ min{ ln 2, max{p, 1 − p} }.[SUP][6][/SUP]
- The median is unique and equal to m = round(np) in cases when either p ≤ 1 − ln 2 or p ≥ ln 2 or |m − np| ≤ min{p, 1 − p} (except for the case when p = ½ and nis odd).[SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP]
- When p = 1/2 and n is odd, any number m in the interval ½(n − 1) ≤ m ≤ ½(n + 1) is a median of the binomial distribution. If p = 1/2 and n is even, then m = n/2 is the unique median.
<dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 19.1875px;"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;"></dd></dl>The first term is non-zero only when both X and Y are one, and μ[SUB]X[/SUB] and μ[SUB]Y[/SUB] are equal to the two probabilities. Defining p[SUB]B[/SUB] as the probability of both happening at the same time, this gives
<dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 19.1875px;"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;"></dd></dl>and for n such trials again due to independence
<dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 19.1875px;"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;"></dd></dl>If X and Y are the same variable, this reduces to the variance formula given above.
[h=2][edit]Relationship to other distributions[/h][h=3][edit]Sums of binomials[/h]If X ~ B(n, p) and Y ~ B(m, p) are independent binomial variables with the same probability p, then X + Y is again a binomial variable; its distribution is[SUP][citation needed][/SUP]
<dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 19.1875px;"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;"></dd></dl>[h=3][edit]Conditional binomials[/h]If X ~ B(n, p) and, conditional on X, Y ~ B(X, q), then Y is a simple binomial variable with distribution[SUP][citation needed][/SUP]
<dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 19.1875px;"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;"></dd></dl>[h=3][edit]Bernoulli distribution[/h]The Bernoulli distribution is a special case of the binomial distribution, where n = 1. Symbolically, X ~ B(1, p) has the same meaning as X ~ Bern(p). Conversely, any binomial distribution, B(n, p), is the sum of n independent Bernoulli trials, Bern(p), each with the same probability p.[SUP][citation needed][/SUP]
[h=3][edit]Poisson binomial distribution[/h]The binomial distribution is a special case of the Poisson binomial distribution, which is a sum of n independent non-identical Bernoulli trials Bern(p[SUB]i[/SUB]).[SUP][citation needed][/SUP]If X has the Poisson binomial distribution with p[SUB]1[/SUB] = … = p[SUB]n[/SUB] =p then X ~ B(n, p).
[h=3][edit]Normal approximation[/h]
Binomial PDF and normal approximation for n = 6 and p = 0.5
If n is large enough, then the skew of the distribution is not too great. In this case a reasonable approximation to B(n, p) is given by the normal distribution
<dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 19.1875px;"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;"></dd></dl>and this basic approximation can be improved in a simple way by using a suitable continuity correction. The basic approximation generally improves as n increases (at least 20) and is better when p is not near to 0 or 1.[SUP][7][/SUP] Variousrules of thumb may be used to decide whether n is large enough, and p is far enough from the extremes of zero or one:
- One rule is that both x=np and n(1 − p) must be greater than 5. However, the specific number varies from source to source, and depends on how good an approximation one wants; some sources give 10 which gives virtually the same results as the following rule for large n until n is very large (ex: x=11, n=7752).
<dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 19.1875px;"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;"><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;">
- A second rule[SUP][7][/SUP] is that for n > 5 the normal approximation is adequate if
</dd></dl></dd></dl>
<dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 19.1875px;"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;"><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;">
- Another commonly used rule holds that the normal approximation is appropriate only if everything within 3 standard deviations of its mean is within the range of possible values,[SUP][citation needed][/SUP] that is if
</dd></dl></dd></dl>The following is an example of applying a continuity correction. Suppose one wishes to calculate Pr(X ≤ 8) for a binomial random variable X. If Y has a distribution given by the normal approximation, then Pr(X ≤ 8) is approximated by Pr(Y ≤ 8.5). The addition of 0.5 is the continuity correction; the uncorrected normal approximation gives considerably less accurate results.
This approximation, known as de Moivre–Laplace theorem, is a huge time-saver when undertaking calculations by hand (exact calculations with large n are very onerous); historically, it was the first use of the normal distribution, introduced in Abraham de Moivre's book The Doctrine of Chances in 1738. Nowadays, it can be seen as a consequence of the central limit theorem since B(n, p) is a sum of n independent, identically distributed Bernoulli variables with parameter p. This fact is the basis of a hypothesis test, a "proportion z-test," for the value of p using x/n, the sample proportion and estimator of p, in a common test statistic.[SUP][8][/SUP]
For example, suppose one randomly samples n people out of a large population and ask them whether they agree with a certain statement. The proportion of people who agree will of course depend on the sample. If groups of n people were sampled repeatedly and truly randomly, the proportions would follow an approximate normal distribution with mean equal to the true proportion p of agreement in the population and with standard deviation σ = (p(1 − p)/n)[SUP]1/2[/SUP]. Large sample sizes n are good because the standard deviation, as a proportion of the expected value, gets smaller, which allows a more precise estimate of the unknown parameter p.
[h=3][edit]Poisson approximation[/h]The binomial distribution converges towards the Poisson distribution as the number of trials goes to infinity while the product np remains fixed. Therefore the Poisson distribution with parameter λ = np can be used as an approximation to B(n, p) of the binomial distribution if n is sufficiently large and p is sufficiently small. According to two rules of thumb, this approximation is good if n ≥ 20 and p ≤ 0.05, or if n ≥ 100 and np ≤ 10.[SUP][9][/SUP]
[h=3][edit]Limiting distributions[/h]
- Poisson limit theorem: As n approaches ∞ and p approaches 0 while np remains fixed at λ > 0 or at least np approaches λ > 0, then the Binomial(n, p) distribution approaches the Poisson distribution with expected value λ.[SUP][citation needed][/SUP]
<dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 19.1875px;"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;"><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;">
- de Moivre–Laplace theorem: As n approaches ∞ while p remains fixed, the distribution of
</dd></dl></dd></dl><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 19.1875px;"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;">approaches the normal distribution with expected value 0 and variance 1.[SUP][citation needed][/SUP] This result is sometimes loosely stated by saying that the distribution ofX is asymptotically normal with expected value np and variance np(1 − p). This result is a specific case of the central limit theorem.</dd></dl>[h=2][edit]Confidence intervals[/h]Main article: Binomial proportion confidence interval
Even for quite large values of n, the actual distribution of the mean is significantly nonnormal.[SUP][10][/SUP] Because of this problem several methods to estimate confidence intervals have been proposed.
Let n[SUB]1[/SUB] be the number of successes out of n, the total number of trials, and let
<dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 19.1875px;"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;"></dd></dl>be the proportion of successes. Let z[SUB]α/2[/SUB] be the 100 ( 1 − α / 2 )[SUP]th[/SUP] percentile of the standard normal distribution.
<dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 19.1875px;"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;">
- Wald method
</dd></dl>A continuity correction of 0.5/n may be added.[SUP][clarification needed][/SUP]
<dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 19.1875px;"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;">
- Agresti-Coull method[SUP][11][/SUP]
</dd></dl>Here the estimate of p is modified to
<dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 19.1875px;"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;"></dd></dl>
<dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 19.1875px;"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;">
- ArcSine method[SUP][12][/SUP]
</dd></dl>
<dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 19.1875px;"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;">
- Wilson (score) method[SUP][13][/SUP]
</dd></dl>
My statistics say you're still a tool shed.
What does La Tech, Baylor, West Virginia, and Boise St have that we don't have? There were 4 SEC teams in the top 22 in scoring this year. It's not unreasonable for us to expect to creep up into the top 40 on occasion...
There are 10-15 dominant defensive teams every single year as well, but that doesn't stop us from expecting to be either in or just outside that level. What literal constraint exists preventing us from good offensively, yet it allows us to be dominant defensively? Basically, it's "all in our head." OM saw no such constraint when they put together at least 3 top 30 scoring offenses in the past decade right up the road...
#1: Much easier schedule
#2: They don't have a terrible history, thus making it tougher to recruit offensive playmakers
#3: For Baylor and West Virginia (comparable BCS teams), let's go with Geno Smith and Robert Griffin ie TALENT. Tech and Boise also have superior talent as compared to their competition.
You want offense? You're going to have to get the playmakers in to do it. The reason our offense is better than it ever has been is because we finally got some talent in there with guys like Russell and Bumphis. That's why Ole Miss' offense was pretty good too. Ever heard of a guy named Moncrief?
And our defense was not dominant last year, and they haven't been since 2010. It was better last year, largely because of Fletcher Cox.
Only thing that is in anyone's head is how much of a whiner you are.
Latest
-
01
Maroon and White Football
Zakari Tillman joins Ayden Williams and Diesel Moye as "Out" on upgraded SEC Availability Report
-
02
Maroon and White Basketball Recruiting
Mississippi State WBK lands commitment from 2027 4-star Saniyah Murray
-
03
Maroon and White
Mississippi State HC Brian O'Connor speaks on fall ball
-
04
Maroon and White Football
Mississippi State Week 3 Preview: South Carolina Q&A
-
05
Maroon and White
South Carolina OC Kendal Briles: Mississippi State Defense brings "lots of problems" to offense