Yuku free message boards

What a dolt.

I sent him an e-mail:
_______________________________________

KC:

Great call on the likelihood of Dan O'Brien struggling at Wisconsin. Nobody should expect him to have the impact Russell Wilson did last year. Actually, I know of one very silly analyst who didn't think Russell would set the bar for O'Brien very high at all. He even thought it was clear the Wilson transfer could take its place alongside the Herschel Walker trade as the most overhyped and disappointing match-makings in football history. Can you imagine? After the year Wilson ended up having in Madison, there's probably enough egg on that guy's face to make him want to get out of the prediction business for a while. At least insofar as Wisconsin's system and transfer QBs are concerned.

http://insider.espn.go.co...ct=http%3a%2f%2finsider.
espn.go.com%2fncf%2finsider%2fnews%2fstory%3fid%3d6738725

Enjoy the draft and best of luck with the football season.

The saga continues. First is KC Joyner's response to my e-mail. Then is my response to him.
__________________________________________________________________
On Apr 24, 2012, at 2:03 PM, KC Joyner <kc@thefootballscientist.com> wrote:

Let's think back for a moment. When Wilson transfers to Wisconsin, Badgers fans jump up and down and proclaim their team the favorite to win the national championship.

My response was to write an article stating that, while Wilson is a solid QB, he isn't as great as he is being made out to be and therefore the national title talk ought to be scaled back.

Lo and behold, Wilson does have a good season in many respects but he also has some big gaffes in important games. Those gaffes are part of why the Badgers lost two games by the end of October and were out of the national championship race at that point.

I'll admit to getting it wrong as to how well Wilson played for much of the year, but the premise of that article was actually mostly spot on.

__________________________________________________________________________
And Ryebadger's response:

I love it. A player sets the all time NCAA record for QB efficiency and you call it "a good season in many respects." Actually, according to the most reliable statistical measure of quarterback performance no college QB has ever had a better season. Certainly better than Luck. Certainly better than RGB III. And significantly better than "good in many respects." I can only assume since those players posted less impressive statistics while also failing to lead their teams to a national title you think they were "busts" of an historical magnitude.

It is surprising to see an alleged professional analyst diminish Wilson's performance because he failed to win a national title. While Wilson, like every other QB to strap on a helmet, made some gaffes that cost his team, it was obvious to anyone paying attention that he played his best football in the 4th quarters of those 2 losses. Certainly you recall that he brought UW back from significant 4th quarter deficits to tie MSU and take the lead against OSU in the waning seconds of both games (in successive hostile, nighttime environments). Do you also recall how those games ended? Both on terrible defensive breakdowns on Hail Mary passes. If Jared Abbrederis doesn't mistime his jump on the Hail Mary against MSU and the safeties don't blow coverage and leave a WR wide open in the endzone with 20 seconds left at OSU, UW is, in fact, playing in the national title game. All thanks to Russell Wilson (who also single handedly led UW to a dramatic come-from-behind victory in the conference championship game vs. MSU). I won't even get into the fact that UW had a punt blocked for a TD in both games, or that Bielema botched clock management to even give MSU the chance to throw its game winning Hail Mary on the game's last play. Are you actually saying the success or failure of Russell Wilson's season was swung by two plays he wasn't even on the field for? Suffice it to say, as far as Russell Wilson was concerned, he led UW to wins in both. But for 2 last second defensive breakdowns over which he had not control, he had UW in the National Title Game.

All of which ignores the fact that your article on Wilson did not merely allege that he would not lead UW to a national title. You said he would be a bust of a magnitude not seen since the Herschel Walker trade. In other words, he would not just fall short of expectations but disappoint on an historical level. Had you intended to merely scale back the national title talk while leaving open the possibility Wilson could still have a good year, one wonders why you included the Herschel Walker historical context at all. Given that Wilson ended up having the best statistical season of any QB in NCAA history and also had his team 2 flukey, last second defensive lapses from the national championship game, your article was not "spot on" by any reasonable measure. Rather, it was a flop deserving of the same historical comparisons you sought to employ with Wilson's transfer.

Sent from my iPad