HawkeyeGameFilm: Spring Defense Analysis

[tm3308]

Your statement is insinuating that any former D1 player has the same qualifications. It subsequently is insinuating that what he says should simple be taken at face value.

You're welcome to be content with a vague, anonymous source for film breakdown. I am not.

I didn't say the information was bad...I just don't take what I am being fed at face value.

Congratulations. You've successfully figured out that you don't belong on a message board. Anonymity is practically the name of the game (no pun intended), so I don't see why you're getting all concerned about it in this case.

HGF has proven over the last year that he has a pretty good idea of what he's talking about. So what more are you going to get from knowing his name? Not much.

On the other hand, you can take his opinion with a grain of salt, just like most people do with any "expert analysis", whether the source is anonymous or not.

And "back seven" is hardly some newfangled term we came up with two days ago. It's been used for just as long as the term "front seven".

[hogeye]

Congratulations. You've successfully figured out that you don't belong on a message board. Anonymity is practically the name of the game (no pun intended), so I don't see why you're getting all concerned about it in this case.

So far the people getting concerned are those of you obsessed with the fact that I posed a simple question and stated that I would like to know who it is.

Also, I don't consider HGF a simple message board poster, otherwise I'd agree with the analogy. However, when you've gone past a message board poster and into the realm of a media resource I think it makes sense to identify yourself for obvious reasons.

HGF has proven over the last year that he has a pretty good idea of what he's talking about. So what more are you going to get from knowing his name? Not much.

On the other hand, you can take his opinion with a grain of salt, just like most people do with any "expert analysis", whether the source is anonymous or not.

Apparently, from the responses here, taking it with a grain of salt isn't an option. I must obey.

Also, I never said I had any problem with the analysis...if anyone is blowing this out of proportion it's the three of you who have a problem with me asking who is behind it.

And "back seven" is hardly some newfangled term we came up with two days ago. It's been used for just as long as the term "front seven".

Clearly you missed the point behind that reply in its entirety, so I'll just you pretend you got a good one in on me there. Go you.

[whammer33024]

It matters to me who it is because I don't want to take information at face value without knowing the qualification behind the person giving it.



I don't think everybody else thinks the back seven will be fine. I think this might be the first time I've ever seen rampant use of the term "back seven".

Good defenses are strong starting up front, not in the back. You need solid play in the middle, starting at the front and going to the back, and outward from the center to the edges. Otherwise any offense, regardless of style, will pound it up the middle all day.

There has never been a strong defense predicated on a secondary supporting an underachieving front seven...ever.

i can't take any information you give without a grain of salt because i don't know your name or your qualifications to give your thoughts.

so until you release your name and credentials, your opinions are the same as a cow's. moo

[Golfer]

Wow. Although Hog makes some good points here. But wow.

[tm3308]

So far the people getting concerned are those of you obsessed with the fact that I posed a simple question and stated that I would like to know who it is.

Also, I don't consider HGF a simple message board poster, otherwise I'd agree with the analogy. However, when you've gone past a message board poster and into the realm of a media resource I think it makes sense to identify yourself for obvious reasons.



Apparently, from the responses here, taking it with a grain of salt isn't an option. I must obey.

Also, I never said I had any problem with the analysis...if anyone is blowing this out of proportion it's the three of you who have a problem with me asking who is behind it.



Clearly you missed the point behind that reply in its entirety, so I'll just you pretend you got a good one in on me there. Go you.

My point regarding taking the analysis with a grain of salt has nothing to do with the responses you've gotten here. Any time you go against the grain, you're going to get ribbed for it. But don't pretend this has been some sort of Spanish Inquisition here.

But it's generally a good idea to take even the nationally recognized experts' opinions with a grain of salt when it comes to stuff like this. So what difference does it really make if we know exactly who HGF is? Even if we knew it was Pagel (for example), it would still be wise to take everything with a grain. So why get worked up about the anonymity on a message board?

You don't have to take it at face value. You also don't have to make a big deal out of the anonymity.

And regarding the back seven: it's being used rampantly because that's clearly the strength of the defense. I've seen one poster suggest that the back seven will cover up for the front four. Everybody else has said they simply aren't worried about the back seven. There's a huge difference there.

[Section136]

Wow. Although Hog makes some good points here. But wow.

Which points are you referring to?

[hogeye]

My point regarding taking the analysis with a grain of salt has nothing to do with the responses you've gotten here. Any time you go against the grain, you're going to get ribbed for it. But don't pretend this has been some sort of Spanish Inquisition here.

But it's generally a good idea to take even the nationally recognized experts' opinions with a grain of salt when it comes to stuff like this. So what difference does it really make if we know exactly who HGF is? Even if we knew it was Pagel (for example), it would still be wise to take everything with a grain. So why get worked up about the anonymity on a message board?

You don't have to take it at face value. You also don't have to make a big deal out of the anonymity.

I call BS. Go back and read every reply of mine on page one of this thread and you point out where I made a big deal out of it. I didn't, however multiple people here certainly took what I had said and made a big deal.

I was more than content to have left it at that prior to that.

And regarding the back seven: it's being used rampantly because that's clearly the strength of the defense. I've seen one poster suggest that the back seven will cover up for the front four. Everybody else has said they simply aren't worried about the back seven. There's a huge difference there.

I am well aware of this fact...frankly, I would contest the "back seven" not being in issue in and of itself, but that's another thread.

[Section136]

I would like to know who it is.

So what? If HGF wanted to use his real name, he would have. If Jon wanted to disclose who HGF is, he would have. You have no more right to know his identity than any other poster on here.

If you cant take his evaluations seriously because you do not know who he is, then dont read them.

[hogeye]

So what? If HGF wanted to use his real name, he would have. If Jon wanted to disclose who HGF is, he would have. You have no more right to know his identity than any other poster on here.

If you cant take his evaluations seriously because you do not know who he is, then dont read them.

As I already stated:

Ok, so we're not getting a name...that's what I am getting at. The anonymity doesn't make sense to me, but so be it.

Move along.

[JHHawk]

If I had my druthers,I would prefer a strong d-line over a strong secondary,but as we all saw in 2010, our strong d-line was not able to hold the fort with our lb corp devastated by injuries to 4 of our top 5 lbs.

My point is that the defense is really only as strong as the weakest link,wherever that might be. So, yes, our d-line is our weakest link,on paper,so it could really hurt us...but, with a strong lb corp and secondary,we can do things to help that d-line,like more blitzing. No unit operates in a vacumm,so having a strong back 7 is certainly better than no strength at all.

But,I guess if hog insists we can refer to them as strong middle three and strong back 4,if that makes him feel better.

[hogeye]

If I had my druthers,I would prefer a strong d-line over a strong secondary,but as we all saw in 2010, our strong d-line was not able to hold the fort with our lb corp devastated by injuries to 4 of our top 5 lbs.

My point is that the defense is really only as strong as the weakest link,wherever that might be. So, yes, our d-line is our weakest link,on paper,so it could really hurt us...but, with a strong lb corp and secondary,we can do things to help that d-line,like more blitzing. No unit operates in a vacumm,so having a strong back 7 is certainly better than no strength at all.

But,I guess if hog insists we can refer to them as strong middle three and strong back 4,if that makes him feel better.

I never once contested use of the term "back seven". My point was simply that I've never heard the term used as rampantly as it has this season...underscoring the fact that you and I agree on, which is a weak front. And also pointing out the fact that strong defenses are built up front, not in the back.

However, I don't believe our "back seven" is as solid as many are projecting. I think our back field is pretty good and I think our LBer's seem about average. And I am not buying that our strength in the back is going to cover significant problems up front. I am counting on the DL and LB developing over the summer more than I am relying an artificially perceived strong back seven being the answer.

[JHHawk]

Or maybe I am not counting on an ''artificially perceived'' weak d-line to ruin our season. hello...everything is ''artificially perceived'' until they go on the field and the games begin.

This just in...saturday's spring practice event was not a real game.
Until the games begin, everything written on here and elsewhere is nothing but opinion,which everyone has. Buy it,don't buy it...fine. Enjoy the summer.

[tm3308]

As I already stated:



Move along.

Other than having some people point out the HGF "bio", trj is the only one who addressed the anonymity before you got going. And all he said was that he didn't think it really mattered who it was, because the material is pretty good stuff.

Nothing he said escalated the discussion/argument/whatever.

My guess would be Derek Pagel, but it doesn't matter if we know who it is or not it is good stuff. Lot of terminolgy and technical stuff that I don't know or can't explain because I never played.

I am pretty much with everybody else I think the back 7 will be fine. Really not to worried about it.

Good to read about Morris being more explosive,hopefully he is more aggressive and attacking more he will have to be to stay in the middle.

[hogeye]

Or maybe I am not counting on an ''artificially perceived'' weak d-line to ruin our season. hello...everything is ''artificially perceived'' until they go on the field and the games begin.

This just in...saturday's spring practice event was not a real game.
Until the games begin, everything written on here and elsewhere is nothing but opinion,which everyone has. Buy it,don't buy it...fine. Enjoy the summer.

That's pretty much the point I've been making this spring. I've stated numerous time that you don't measure these things in April.

No argument here. That's precisely why I am waiting to see how things shape up in terms of DL/LB development.

Preaching to the choir.

[hogeye]

Other than having some people point out the HGF "bio", trj is the only one who addressed the anonymity before you got going.

To which I simply replied a simple answer before moving on to a different topic. It was at that point people started piling on and on top of it making assumptions about my perception of what HGF was bringing to the table. I never once said I thought it was bad information. In fact, most of the time it's pretty good, but people sure were hell bent on me wanting to know who it was and making a big deal out of something that shouldn't affect them anyway.