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!

     

PGA Championship at Oak Hill CC


DirtyMagic97

Recommended Posts

Well, it's already time for the last major of the season.  PGA Championship tees off tomorrow at 7:10am.  Tiger is the favorite, of course.  Phil isn't far behind.  I will take the field against Tiger + Phil this weekend.

 

PGA-Championship-Oak-Hill_r640.jpg?6c65b

 

Tiger made some comments last week about the condition of the course.  Wasn't happy with the speed of the greens.  General consensus is that the course is in amazing condition now.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anti Tiger here. ( Was for him early on but his arrogance turned me off).  I am a Phil fan....so I loved The Open!!  Would be so cool for him to get this one too.  He seems to be a genuinely good guy.  If not Phil's week, I will pick a good guy from the weekend leader board to pull for.  But Phil......let's go!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got Sneds and Matt Kuchar.

 

...and how does Phil have "a great demeanor" but is "one of the biggest a-holes on the tour..." seems a little contradictory. I first met him some 20 years ago and have crossed paths many times since. He always remembers me and he's never been anything but cordial, nice, genuine, so I'm not sure where you're getting that unless you're considering his competitive nature (he's not out there to finish second) and his willingness to share his opinion.

 

Phil has opinions, so if you don't want his answer, don't ask, because he doesn't shy away from them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got Sneds and Matt Kuchar.

 

...and how does Phil have "a great demeanor" but is "one of the biggest a-holes on the tour..." seems a little contradictory. I first met him some 20 years ago and have crossed paths many times since. He always remembers me and he's never been anything but cordial, nice, genuine, so I'm not sure where you're getting that unless you're considering his competitive nature (he's not out there to finish second) and his willingness to share his opinion.

 

Phil has opinions, so if you don't want his answer, don't ask, because he doesn't shy away from them.

 

It has been said that he is great to the fans, but an asshole to the other guys on tour. Basically the reason no one ever really speaks to Phil at the course. He has been called fake on several occasions. I don't know how true any of it is, but that's some stuff that has been said over the years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got Sneds and Matt Kuchar.

 

...and how does Phil have "a great demeanor" but is "one of the biggest a-holes on the tour..." seems a little contradictory. 

 

Here is an article where he is named one of the biggest jerks in sports. His camera demeanor makes him a fan favorite. There are lots of articles out there where his peers seem to despise him. Stuart Appleby called him a fake.

So great demeanor and a-hole on tour are not contradictory.

Glad he is nice to you.

 

http://www.worldgolf.com/blogs/alan.katz/2006/02/03/beaver_cleaver_knows_why_gq_hates_phil_m

 

The article says Phil doesn’t have a single friend among the players on the PGA Tour, and yet he’s one of the most popular players with the fans. How can we explain the contradiction?

To understand in the most efficient way, I went back to Jennifer Mario’s column on author John Feinstein. The author of “A Good Walk Spoiled” nails Phil’s personality with two words: Eddie Haskell.

Readers of a certain age will recall that in the late 1950s and early 60s, Eddie was a supporting character in the popular TV series “Leave it to Beaver.” Eddie was the funniest character on the show, probably because he was an archetype that everyone in the television audience instantly recognized from their own lives. He was that snooty little brat we all loved to hate. An unctuous brown-noser when the parents were around, he showed his true self – sarcastic, mean, conniving and self-congratulatory – when only kids were present.

Eddie was so vivid in his phoniness that Ken Osmond, the actor who played Eddie, never had much of a career after the series was canceled and ended up working as a cop. Nobody could look at the guy without thinking of Eddie Haskell. By the time he’d reached middle age Osmond was consigned to autograph shows and B-movies like “Dead Women in Lingerie” (1991). Hope nothing like that happens to Phil.

 

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...