[stupac2]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=17596.msg204477#msg204477 date=1507344931]

Sure, but WiM's point all along has been that either there was sufficient evidence that that OL should've been the starters from day 1, or there wasn't and the move was panicky. I agree, which leaves us with:

1) The coaching staff overvalue experience relative to talent; or
2) The coaching staff are overly reactive.

I think the totality of the evidence points to the former. Though, in their defense, they do seem to come to the right conclusions eventually, but it's unclear how many games we'll needlessly lose in the meantime...

I think this is certainly a false dichotomy. There are a myriad of other possible analysis, such as Little improved a lot with two weeks experience as a substitute. It was not a given that would happen. When it did, the coaches reacted accordingly. Even assuming the coaches should have known that would happen, until it did happen, their actions would have been appropriate. The two possible analysis presented are only two of many. In fact, I think these two are probably the least probable of what happened. They are far too simplistic, IMHO.
[/quote]

I don't think so, I think that anything you can come up with boil down to one of those two. I suppose it's possible in theory that Little just exploded in practice over those two weeks, but that strains credulity. Lots of observes (including many on this board) thought he was our most talented OT and should've been LT from the beginning, but the staff didn't roll with him until SDSU. So your options are either:

1) He went from the nth-best option to the best over the course of a couple weeks of practice; or
2) The coaches misevaluated the talent.

Again, the former is possible but strains credulity, players don't suddenly learn how to play their position at a high level over two weeks. An injury is an explanation, except that we have no indication that one happened.

Anyway if you think some other option is more likely, go for it. But if you're going to say that I'm missing a myriad of options, it would be nice if you'd supply more than one that's pretty implausible.

[stupac2]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=17596.msg204477#msg204477 date=1507344931]

Sure, but WiM's point all along has been that either there was sufficient evidence that that OL should've been the starters from day 1, or there wasn't and the move was panicky. I agree, which leaves us with:

1) The coaching staff overvalue experience relative to talent; or
2) The coaching staff are overly reactive.

I think the totality of the evidence points to the former. Though, in their defense, they do seem to come to the right conclusions eventually, but it's unclear how many games we'll needlessly lose in the meantime...

I think this is certainly a false dichotomy. There are a myriad of other possible analysis, such as Little improved a lot with two weeks experience as a substitute. It was not a given that would happen. When it did, the coaches reacted accordingly. Even assuming the coaches should have known that would happen, until it did happen, their actions would have been appropriate. The two possible analysis presented are only two of many. In fact, I think these two are probably the least probable of what happened. They are far too simplistic, IMHO.
[/quote]

I don't think so, I think that anything you can come up with boil down to one of those two. I suppose it's possible in theory that Little just exploded in practice over those two weeks, but that strains credulity. Lots of observes (including many on this board) thought he was our most talented OT and should've been LT from the beginning, but the staff didn't roll with him until SDSU. So your options are either:

1) He went from the nth-best option to the best over the course of a couple weeks of practice; or
2) The coaches misevaluated the talent.

Again, the former is possible but strains credulity, players don't suddenly learn how to play their position at a high level over two weeks. An injury is an explanation, except that we have no indication that one happened.

Anyway if you think some other option is more likely, go for it. But if you're going to say that I'm missing a myriad of options, it would be nice if you'd supply more than one that's pretty implausible.