“Faulkner was next level, really enjoyed it…”

Charles Faulkner
Charles Faulkner

Feedback in:

Mike –

That episode with Faulkner was next level. Really enjoyed it. Too bad you guys couldn’t spend more time on network theory, maybe in the future. I was able to reach out to him and he sent me over some additional material on the network theory. This podcast has been a great source that articulates work and ideas concisely where someone looking for them can then go in that direction. I’ve always played around with the inefficiencies of language etc. but to see that Faulkner has done so much work and articulates it so well is refreshing. Thanks for creating a tool for motivated people.

Just curious, I wasn’t sure if you were agreeing for the flow of conversation or you thought the logic was sound. But I don’t get how you and Annie Duke came to the conclusion that running it was better than passing on the first play. She starts by saying caught/dropped is 99% of occurrence but leaves out completion rate vs rush success of first occurrence. Furthermore, Russell Wilson’s redzone completion percentage was probably in the 50s or 60s in the postseason, I’m guessing. Not to mention his INT/Pass was much higher than 1% so again going back to that 99% number so I don’t understand why she would think it would be better in the redzone where you have less field to work with. She reinforces this with saying you get an extra play and don’t have to use that timeout by passing on first play if you don’t get it. 24 seconds best case scenario incompletion you can still run it afterward, call timeout, if you don’t get it then run or pass again, 3 plays. If you run first, you can call timeout, pass it if you don’t get it (clock would be stopped) and run or pass on the 3rd play again. In either scenario the success rate of the first play is probably closer than the masses would like to believe but you also don’t have the risk of an interception on a tipped pass with 11 defenders in a 12 yard depth area. She just went on for awhile about this like it was some great epiphany when I don’t even think she was correct 🙂

What made you want to put what Pena had to say on your cast? Going from perspectives like Chris Voss or Sally Hogshead on how to work with people or collaborate, who both seem very effective in their approach, using the information of the situation and maximizing effectiveness accordingly. Whereas Pena just seems like someone whose OS is outdated. Sure the blunt force strategy of just calling people pussies and talking in a loud imposing voice can be effective but I’m not sure it is always the approach with the most success in dealing with people. Just my humble onion. It seems like having a network of highly intelligent open minded people is important to you, would you say that the majority of them would enjoy (operate at peak efficiency) collaborating on a project with someone with Pena’s approach?

I’ve never been to Saigon. My first Asia trip was last year to Tokyo. I think I’m still processing it. Looking forward to checking out more of Asia. But if you’re ever in San Diego lets meet up at the Comber in South Mission for a beer, hows that for a filter? Ha take care, keep up the next level content!

Some questions there are no answers for! My podcast definitely has a perspective and some voices push the envelope. That’s a good thing. Thanks for the great feedback.

The Author