David's article does not address everything . . .

mrmatt

Orange Blooded [2753]

TigerPulse: 91%

Posts: 5047

Joined: 10/18/06

Dec 6, 2022, 9:38 AM [ in reply to Re: Stop with the Dabo playing Cade earlier would split the team ]

that's material here. It is a great point he makes and it's not to be neglected, but again, it deals with lowest common denominator criticism . . . i.e. to use the source's phrasing, why he wasn't benched "after 20 passes," (i.e. prematurely). I have no problem taking that point heartily.

But that doesn't cover where things were at the mid or end-point of the season. As I posted elsewhere:

that one phrased "after 20 passes we are going to bench you." Sure, there is a certain contingent that wants these decisions made too quickly, w/o allowing a player time to settle in and get w/ the ebb and flow. But AGAIN, this tendency to lump all the fans in the same boat as the lowest common denominator fan is exactly what's gotten Dabo the persistent criticism. He's been busy rebutting the lowest common denominator, meanwhile, the folks with more reasonable expectations and timetables are the ones really making a solid case.

Also, there's a middle ground that's been missed here, which is that it didn't have to be about "benching DJ in favor of Cade" the whole time. It would have been plenty doable to get significant time in for Cade so that any decision could be based on more data. That way, DJ isn't simply "benched," and Cade isn't necessarily "the starter." I'm not saying this was Dabo's intent (b/c I don't think it was), but FUNCTIONALLY, Cade not getting significant time here and there (as a back-up) paved the way to justify continuing to give DJ the benefit of the doubt on the backdrop of inconsistency. Was Cade ready? No one could really say b/c there was no effort made to test those waters.

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

not without it's complications and qualifications, to be sure, but not some huge, murky, intractable set of circumstances either.

First of all, I'm happy to factor in all the data, even that which is contra to those who wanted an earlier change. But it's interesting that you pick the Wake game. Dabo's MO was to mention the high points as if the low points didn't happen. I don't want to ignore the good, but I reject mentioning the good as simply a context-less distraction. The Wake game great, but the inconsistencies don't go away b/c of that (just as the Wake game doesn't go away b/c of the inconsistencies). It's both/and.

Reducing QB play to "wins" isn't a tenable analysis. We all know so much more goes into a win than just who plays QB. By this reasoning, DJ almost won the SC for Clemson . . . came w/in one point, right? But we all know that's not true. Clemson almost won the game , but the QB play didn't "almost" win it.

There's a lot to consider, but it's not reducible to 14 wins and an off-the cuff reference to a good game.

Stop with the Dabo playing Cade earlier would split the team

Re: Stop with the Dabo playing Cade earlier would split the team

That was the 2nd game of the season, no one thinks Cade