[BostonCard]

[quote author=Goose link=topic=17393.msg201344#msg201344 date=1505756485]
I think it is sensible to ask "Why did you make the change?". You may not get an answer that satisfies your desire to know, but it is for sure fine to raise the question. I don't think it is sensible to ask "Why didn't you do this earlier?", because the only possible answer is "I previously thought differently, but now I think  this is what should be done."

Right. But what I'm saying is that in a of exceedingly large proportions percentage of scenarios, the level of evidence is insufficient to convince you of the switch. If the level of evidence was sufficient, chances are more likely that you screwed up the initial decision rather than becoming better informed. Now, better to correct an error than persist in it -- but it's still an error. If Little was the right guy for game 3 he was, in all probability, the right guy in game 1.
[/quote]

I generally do agree with you, but I would say that the one situation where you might not have a ton of evidence early in the season is with a true freshman.  Maybe you know that the true freshman is a talented player, but you are not convinced he will immediately adapt to the college game, so you watch him closely a couple of series in your first two games, reach the conclusion that he is as good as advertised, and start him the next game.

That being said, I didn't see anything Saturday that would lead me to believe that the offensive line with Little at LT, Bright at LG, and Hebrig at RG is better than the one with Bright at LT, Hebrig at LG, and Fanaika at RG.  They looked, as a unit, arguably worse than the line did against USC, against what is probably a weaker defensive line than USC's.  I also am not sure that moving three guys around was the answer (Hebrig seemed to be doing well enough  at LG), and Little could have been brought in as the right tackle, where we have had the most trouble, and where Little was already playing a fair bit.  I would be curious as to what led to changing 3 linemen.  Last but not least, San Diego State might not be the most talented defensive line we play, but they blitz and stunt a lot.  It would seem that you would want experience rather than raw talent to deal with that.

Overall, one game in, the move has turned out to be a bust.  But if Shaw and Bloomgren believe that is the long term solution, we will have to revisit the decision a few games down the line.

Last thought, I think it is clear that Tucker will not be playing this year unless he has a previously undisclosed injury.  He went from starting at RT as a sophomore (and doing a decent enough job of it) to an unsuccessful position move in the span of two years.  I know he was injured for much of last year, but I sure as hell wouldn't have anticipated that career trajectory.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Goose link=topic=17393.msg201344#msg201344 date=1505756485]
I think it is sensible to ask "Why did you make the change?". You may not get an answer that satisfies your desire to know, but it is for sure fine to raise the question. I don't think it is sensible to ask "Why didn't you do this earlier?", because the only possible answer is "I previously thought differently, but now I think  this is what should be done."

Right. But what I'm saying is that in a of exceedingly large proportions percentage of scenarios, the level of evidence is insufficient to convince you of the switch. If the level of evidence was sufficient, chances are more likely that you screwed up the initial decision rather than becoming better informed. Now, better to correct an error than persist in it -- but it's still an error. If Little was the right guy for game 3 he was, in all probability, the right guy in game 1.
[/quote]

I generally do agree with you, but I would say that the one situation where you might not have a ton of evidence early in the season is with a true freshman.  Maybe you know that the true freshman is a talented player, but you are not convinced he will immediately adapt to the college game, so you watch him closely a couple of series in your first two games, reach the conclusion that he is as good as advertised, and start him the next game.

That being said, I didn't see anything Saturday that would lead me to believe that the offensive line with Little at LT, Bright at LG, and Hebrig at RG is better than the one with Bright at LT, Hebrig at LG, and Fanaika at RG.  They looked, as a unit, arguably worse than the line did against USC, against what is probably a weaker defensive line than USC's.  I also am not sure that moving three guys around was the answer (Hebrig seemed to be doing well enough  at LG), and Little could have been brought in as the right tackle, where we have had the most trouble, and where Little was already playing a fair bit.  I would be curious as to what led to changing 3 linemen.  Last but not least, San Diego State might not be the most talented defensive line we play, but they blitz and stunt a lot.  It would seem that you would want experience rather than raw talent to deal with that.

Overall, one game in, the move has turned out to be a bust.  But if Shaw and Bloomgren believe that is the long term solution, we will have to revisit the decision a few games down the line.

Last thought, I think it is clear that Tucker will not be playing this year unless he has a previously undisclosed injury.  He went from starting at RT as a sophomore (and doing a decent enough job of it) to an unsuccessful position move in the span of two years.  I know he was injured for much of last year, but I sure as hell wouldn't have anticipated that career trajectory.

BC