Dennis_DeYoung
New Fish
THIS!
Mad Son's Ramblings: Year Three is Prove-It Time for Petersen
- Thread starter administrator
- Start date
THIS!
Dennis_DeYoung
New Fish
The other night I was Dilaudid-sext-ranting to Coker about Bayesian analysis and why you have to take all years of Petersen as meaningful prices.
He deserves a medal.
puppylove_sugarsteel
New Fish
Mad Son you are a tard. Year 3 isnt "prove-it" time for ANY coach, at ANY level of big time football. Especially at Washington, where Sark left a program worse off than USC after 3 years of brutal sanctions.
Read Weak 1...at least Its accurate, truthful and relevant
Read Weak 1...at least Its accurate, truthful and relevant
puppylove_sugarsteel
New Fish
Uh, pup wanted him gone before he ever stepped on field dipshit.
Mad_Son
New Fish
Basically you want to know the probability that Petersen is a good coach given you've seen his record so far. The odds of you seeing that are the odds of his record given he is good, times the odds of him being good, normalized by the overall chances of him having that record (like if he is good or if he is bad, or inbetween). The more we see the more we understand about the odds of him being good.
puppylove_sugarsteel
New Fish
Mad Cunt sit down, im going to knock some smarts into your ignant little gine.
Petersen ran the ball last year ahead of schedule. If you watched the 1st half, when Browning Was throwing the ball, you saw Gaskin was shredding Rutgers on toss sweeps, stretch plays and other runs indicitive of a building and powerful oline run or pass.
Your dumbass is drawing conclusions from a team up by 30-something, simply trying to burn clock. Everyone includ I ng Rutgers knew Browning was done taking shots downfi e ld. Pedderson and Smith were simply working on the running game versus an 8-man box and the strength of Rutgers, the defensive line.
Now just shut your hole and watch the running game going forward, with the threat of the pass, the long ball to Ross, Pettis; Chico, the wheel route to Dotson (who has great hands. Didnt know that did you Sonny?), etc that we saw in the 1st half. See the reason now that Gaskin found yardage more difficult to find in the 2nd half? Everyone knew the run was coming in case you didnt understand.
You armchairs qb's crack me up. You MadSon the starter. 1st team dipshit, backed up by J, then Boob. Race on the practice squad.
puppylove_sugarsteel
New Fish
J that aint close to true. I was here bashing Sark in 2013. I bashed Sark on Dawgman from day 1, whic h is why I got banned. Now here, I remember why I dont come here...but will as I like to drag your pussy through the mud.
Now if your going to lie about Pup wanting Sark, find proof. I was the original on the topic Ty's 0-12 team Sark took over was better than Sark's team when he left. Now I see your brain firing up a memory , which are few and far between
Last edited:
TurdBomber
Active poster
What a Goddamn'd waste of time reading this thread was. Fuck me.
Have at it Mad-Son. Good thing others will engage you.
I'd bar you from my tailgate party for whining and being insufferably boring.
Christ Almighty. At least Puppy is funny when he rants.
Have at it Mad-Son. Good thing others will engage you.
I'd bar you from my tailgate party for whining and being insufferably boring.
Christ Almighty. At least Puppy is funny when he rants.
TierbsHsotBoobs
New Fish
Dennis_DeYoung
New Fish
That should be 'priors' not 'prices'. Fucking AutoCorrect.
It's hard.
But yeah, as my class poaster friend @Mad_Son is saying the idea is this:
The important premise is we are predicting something that changes, but is not random.
Given that the pattern of data is not random, data already gathered can help you make more accurate (not 100% accurate, just MORE accurate) predictions about the future.
So, we just look at what we've gotten out of Pete so far... let's make it simple and not even use stats, just grades.
2014 Offensive Grade: C-
2014 Defensive Grade: B+
2015: Offensive Grade: D
2015 Defensive Grade: A-
What are the grades for 2016 likely to be?
And then, even more than that... Given our prior knowledge, what new information would we view as satisfactory evidence that a new pattern was emerging?
EsophagealFeces
Well-known poster
No one was harder on Sark than puppy was.
Tequilla
Active poster
A better way of saying this then would be that I'm looking forward to signs that this team has improved on the OL and in the running game (and in fairness, the running game IN GENERAL was fairly good last year as it began to solidify as inexperienced players gained experience) ... after the first game of the 2016 season, the grade for this is INCOMPLETE given the nature of Rutgers defense, their tendency to sell out to stop the run (at the expense of the vertical passing game), and the outcome of the game being decided by no later than halftime.
To suggest that the OL performed poorly or whatnot in a game where the team won 48-13, played significant depth even leading into the eventual pulling of the starters, and was working through the 2nd and 3rd units by the middle of the 3rd quarter at the latest is insanely FS to me.
Pitchfork51
Active poster
You saying that no one ever talks about the times that Peterman was right?
FremontTroll
New Fish
Unlike Mad_Son you may actually understand Bayesian analysis.
Regardless, John Ross' +3 wins cancel out CP's -3 wins ergo we are a 10 win team. Boom.
Chest?
puppylove_sugarsteel
New Fish
Wow, some actually follow.