Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

England or Australia?


OneBadassCat

Recommended Posts

Sup guys. So I'll have the opportunity to study abroad next semester and the dead line to apply is soon approaching. I'm basically stuck between these two countries. I'd really like to see both of these places. In England I'd go to Kingston University(really close to London), and in Australia I'd go to Wollongong University in New South Whales.

I'd love to see London and they SAY the transportation is excellent to go all over the UK. I've got family in Ireland too. So I find it appealing that I could go to other places as well. Plus there are pubs and night life etc..

As for Australia, it's fuging Australia. The campus looks really beautiful and there would be lots of poo to do there as well. I was told that Wollongong is very outdoorsy.

So I hope it's not a stretch ask for advice on here but I think we have some Australians and English folk here too. So if anyone has been to these schools or has experience studying abroad tell me whats up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i bicycled part of the coast of australia last year... started in sydney headed for melbourne, passed through wollongong on the way. the weather was over 110 degrees fahrenheit (hottest summer in 70 years, i've never been accused of being a master of timing) so i decided to stay a few days and cool off my sunburn. and i can tell you firsthand wollongong is the poo.

ten minutes west and you're in the middle of the mountains and deserted australian bush. half an hour north you're in sydney. two hours northwest and you're in the middle of the desolate wollemi wilderness. two hours south and you're in lush australian wine and cattle country. half a day north by train and you're on the great barrier reef, which basically is like an episode of LOST. half a day west and you're in the middle of one of the largest, most desolate spaces on earth - australian desert.

england is splendid but australia offers adventure and an allur unparalleled by most countries. go. you won't regret it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really can't go wrong with either. Australia has great weather, sun, surf, partying etc...

England has pubs, loose women, and ease of travel.

Remember with England, you also get easy access to the rest of europe.

and this right here would seal the deal for me imo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • His footwork has been discussed at length, just like Cam's was--no argument from me there. What I'm asking for is a statistical indicator that supports the idea that Bryce's footwork is creating meaningful issues. With Cam, we could clearly correlate occasional high passes to footwork problems. With Bryce, there are occasional misfires as well, but we aren't seeing it surface with the frequency of severity you'd expect if it were such a persistent issue. That's why when concerns about his footwork and height are paired together, there should be some measurable statistical impact. That's what I keep coming back to. That same inconsistency shows up in the deep ball critique. Saying "he misses guys outright" suggests he either isn't seeing them or can't hit them downfield... yet, as we've already seen, he was top-10 in catchable passes over 20+ yards. If accuracy were truly the issue, it should reflect in the data. It's also worth pointing out that deep-ball concerns largely became the next talking point after he made it through the season without the durability disaster some were predicting (despite being sacked for what was then the second-most times ever for a rookie QB). As for those sideline throws you mentioned: what specific throws are you referring to? If you can identify them, I'd be happy to pull up the PFF premium grades or grab All-22 clips from NFL Pro to look at those sequences and assess how real that concern is. For my part, I'd actually like to see improvement in the intermediate game. That was a strength his rookie year, but he seemed to trade it for a stronger deep game this past season. Could that shift relate to height and footwork? Maybe! But again... we'd need data or film trends to verify that rather than assume it. On the "top-10" classification front: I know that it's a moving target for most people. That's why I've been asking for specifics. Without a shared definition, it's hard to engage meaningfully. So with you moving away from raw yardage, does that mean your preferred KPIs are now height, weight, red zone efficiency, and point differential? If so, that's totally fine (just being clear about it helps). That said... red zone success and point differential depend heavily on OL play, WR execution, coaching decisions, defense (for point differential), etc. They're influenced by the QB but not exclusively determined by him... which, like passing yards, makes them more difficult to isolate for analysis of Bryce's performance.
    • I think "amazing" is basically relating to his prior performances, which is a very low bar. Even at his peak(so far), he hasn't consistently been an elite performer either by the simple eye test nor statistically. Regardless, we have seen the flashes of WHY we drafted him #1 overall and he is visibility significantly more confident. Hopefully he has spent an inordinate amount of time this offseason getting that footwork better and more consistent. That's going to be a massive factor in his continuing improvement.
×
×
  • Create New...