2025 at minnie

[Spartanmack]

Yeah its facts if we take out an 85 yard run and a 2nd and long run and an end of a half run and whatever other cherry picked run.

The real facts are our rbs had 25 carries for 178 and a td in this game. If you don't think thats fine then youre a fool.


You just can't ever admit to being wrong.

You did the exact same thing when talking about Heyward, which you keep bringing up thinking it somehow wins you arguments. Now suddenly it's totally inappropriate despite 9 games of evidence to the contrary. If this team could get a legit 4.6 ypc, they'd never throw the ball.

You said it yourself, our RBs had those yards - but it was despite having a shitty OL, not because they're good.

Only a fool would credit the offensive line for that 85 yard run. And I only took out 2 runs that were obvious garbage yards. Do you honestly think the OL earned the 13 yards Tullis gained on the last play of the half from our own 20 - do you think their defense gave a shit about a handoff from 80 yards away and were not instead playing to prevent a pass over the top? That's total nonsense. Same with the 2nd and 19 play. They probably had as many negative yardage plays as they did runs of 6+ yards.

The RBs rushed for 17 yards against IU (Frazier had 7 carries for 1 yard), Tolliver had 5 for 13. Against UCLA, the RBs had 65 yards on 16 carries. Nebraska 23 carries for 62 yards, USC 81 yards on 23 carries. Other than Indiana, who completely dominated our line, those aren't good teams. Did the o-line suddenly figure out how to run block against MN?

The numbers look good against uofm - 1 game, thanks to Frazier. But as I've been saying all season, Frazier has gotten virtually every yard on his own, except when he gets outside and gets good blocking from Marsh & Kelly - they're better run blockers than our offensive line.

 

[gotime909]

178 on 25 carries. They were fine

 

[gotime909]

And Heyward was an awful running back. You're the only person on this planet that thinks otherwise

 

[gotime909]

Down 4 starters on the OL and also missing our starting rb and this guy thinks running for 178 is subpar. Make it make sense

 

[Spartanmack]

178 on 25 carries. They were fine

This is full on delusion. The running backs are decent, the line is absolutely dreadful. Do you think we suddenly had a great offensive line in 2020 and they just went back to sucking the next and every year since or do you think maybe there was something else that made a difference that year?

 

[Spartanmack]

Down 4 starters on the OL and also missing our starting rb and this guy thinks running for 178 is subpar. Make it make sense

nice strawman. no one ever said anything of the sort. This is about who gets credit for the 178 - you have to be out of your mind to think this o-line does.

You're like MC arguing that uofm dominated the line of scrimmage against OSU a few years back when they had 2 busted plays for 75+ yards and averaged 1.7 on every other carry. But this is from the guy who thinks Chiles is the problem with the offense and we would have lost by 20 to PJ Fleck's gophers if he played.

Chiles is out, and because of that change we almost beat MN, everything is fine.

 

[gotime909]

Calling them fine isnt saying they're great. It's not even saying they're good. Running for 175 in a big ten game is not horrible like you've called them. Jesus you look like an idiot here just stop

 

[gotime909]

It's insane that you try twisting me saying they were fine this game into more than what it was. You're completely fighting with yourself here guy and its hilarious

 

[gotime909]

nice strawman. no one ever said anything of the sort. This is about who gets credit for the 178 - you have to be out of your mind to think this o-line does.

You're like MC arguing that uofm dominated the line of scrimmage against OSU a few years back when they had 2 busted plays for 75+ yards and averaged 1.7 on every other carry. But this is from the guy who thinks Chiles is the problem with the offense and we would have lost by 20 to PJ Fleck's gophers if he played.

Chiles is out, and because of that change we almost beat MN, everything is fine.

Alessio has more positive game film in 6 quarters than Chiles does in 2 years. Cope harder

 

[byco42]

You argue like a toddler. So much so, that you've made me team mchamp several times

 

[Spartanmack]

Alessio has more positive game film in 6 quarters than Chiles does in 2 years. Cope harder

Nice pivot attempt. I don't care, this isn't about Chiles - nobody is disappointed that he got benched. Maybe you can try to work in a reference to Lewerke and misrepresent what I said about him too - anything to avoid admitting you're wrong about this o-line.

I will say this, if Alessio keeps getting sacked 6 times a half and taking big hits on scrambles, his game film is going to suffer. Thankfully for him, there are only 3 games left (unless we run the table and qualify for a pre-Christmas bowl game.

 

[Spartanmack]

It's insane that you try twisting me saying they were fine this game into more than what it was. You're completely fighting with yourself here guy and its hilarious

Judging them based on topline numbers is putting lipstick on a pig. They're 105th in the country. They sucked in every game not against MAC or FCS opponents in every aspect including this one.

they had 11 of 34 run plays go for 2 yards or less, 7 of them negative. Committed multiple penalties and gave up 7 sacks - Alessio's season could have ended in the 1st half.

Per Grok, Is having 1/3 of all rushing plays go for 2 yards or less and 21% negative plays typical, bad or extraordinarily bad?

Grok: "A 33% less than or equal to 2 yard rate and 21% negative yards is extraordinarily bad - far worse than typical and a major red flag for offensive line play, scheme or talent...That's worse than 95% of FBS teams"

OK Grok, what if they also have an 85 yard run in that same game?

Grok: "Yes - even with an 85-yard run a 33% rate of 2 yards or less and 21% negative is still extraordinarily bad. One explosive play doesn't fix the systemic problem - it just masks it in the box score."

 

[gotime909]

Judging them based on topline numbers is putting lipstick on a pig. They're 105th in the country. They sucked in every game not against MAC or FCS opponents in every aspect including this one.

they had 11 of 34 run plays go for 2 yards or less, 7 of them negative. Committed multiple penalties and gave up 7 sacks - Alessio's season could have ended in the 1st half.

Per Grok, Is having 1/3 of all rushing plays go for 2 yards or less and 21% negative plays typical, bad or extraordinarily bad?

Grok: "A 33% less than or equal to 2 yard rate and 21% negative yards is extraordinarily bad - far worse than typical and a major red flag for offensive line play, scheme or talent...That's worse than 95% of FBS teams"

OK Grok, what if they also have an 85 yard run in that same game?

Grok: "Yes - even with an 85-yard run a 33% rate of 2 yards or less and 21% negative is still extraordinarily bad. One explosive play doesn't fix the systemic problem - it just masks it in the box score."

THEY. WERE. FINE. IN. THIS. GAME.

Stop making it more than me saying that. My god, you have the thickest head of anyone I communicate with. Good lord

 

[Spartanmack]

THEY. WERE. FINE. IN. THIS. GAME.

Stop making it more than me saying that. My god, you have the thickest head of anyone I communicate with. Good lord

I'M. TALKING. ABOUT. THIS. GAME. The lipstick on a pig comment is referring to you focusing on top line data FROM. THIS. GAME. The data fed into Grok was FROM. THIS. GAME. Grok's response was about their performance IN. THIS. GAME. They were extraordinarily bad IN. THIS. GAME. despite the topline number.

I'm not making it about anything else. That's just you pivoting and attempting to reframe the discussion and dismiss my points for something I'm not doing.

And by the way, the numbers I put into Grok exclude sacks in case you're wondering if I was trying to mislead the chatbot.

 

[gotime909]

I'M. TALKING. ABOUT. THIS. GAME. The lipstick on a pig comment is referring to you focusing on top line data FROM. THIS. GAME. The data fed into Grok was FROM. THIS. GAME. Grok's response was about their performance IN. THIS. GAME. They were extraordinarily bad IN. THIS. GAME. despite the topline number.

I'm not making it about anything else. That's just you pivoting and attempting to reframe the discussion and dismiss my points for something I'm not doing.

And by the way, the numbers I put into Grok exclude sacks in case you're wondering if I was trying to mislead the chatbot.

Stop being lazy **** and think for yourself

 

[Spartanmack]

Stop being lazy **** and think for yourself

right, nice deflection. I reviewed all the plays, dumped them into a spreadsheet, aggregated the data, filtered out the sacks and garbage yards and showed the o-line was in fact horrible IN. THAT. GAME. You look at top line numbers and said "they were fine".

Then I queried an AI LLM to evaluate the same data, and of course they came to the same conclusion I did - the line's performance was extraordinarily bad and I'm the lazy one and you're the thinking man. Good one.

By the way, in that Grok query Grok actually said something like "here's a real life example that matches the data provided almost perfectly, on November 1 Michigan State played Minnesota and was stuffed on 33% of run plays and had negative yards on 21% not counting sacks. They had an 85 yard run that masks their extraordinarily bad performance in the box score."

 

[gotime909]

FYI, I haven't read more than 10 words from your last 5 or so responses. Why do you have to write a 500 word essay every time, guy? Ain't nobody got time to read all that