Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
Pat Dye Field => War Damn Eagle => Topic started by: Birmingham on January 24, 2010, 11:12:04 PM
-
TIFWIW
-
I think this is a vast improvement over any other recent recruiting class we have had. I really don't care if we have a higher ranked class than anyone else, I am just glad that we are at least on the minds of some of the most talented young men to play the game of football. Hopefully they will all qualify and we can start making some improvements on the field.
-
Top 5 recruiting is not good enough, Boooooo
-
I think this is a vast improvement over any other recent recruiting class we have had. I really don't care if we have a higher ranked class than anyone else, I am just glad that we are at least on the minds of some of the most talented young men to play the game of football. Hopefully they will all qualify and we can start making some improvements on the field.
I concur with most of this. I will say that I don't expect a group of young ones to come in here and win championships. BUT SABAN DID IT? Yeah, he's had experience doing that. Chizik is in new territory here. We'll see what he does with it. 2010 - I think a trip to Nashville or Shreveport is reasonable.
-
Top 5 recruiting is not good enough, Boooooo
It was cold at the airport tonight. Where were you standing?
-
It was cold at the airport tonight. Where were you standing?
Between Sar and Castic
-
I concur with most of this. I will say that I don't expect a group of young ones to come in here and win championships. BUT SABAN DID IT? Yeah, he's had experience doing that. Chizik is in new territory here. We'll see what he does with it. 2010 - I think a trip to Nashville or Shreveport is reasonable.
How 'bout a trip to Orlando? Maybe Atlanta? That's reasonable.
-
How 'bout a trip to Orlando? Maybe Atlanta? That's reasonable.
Replacing the leading passer, rusher, and sack leader. Don't think so.
-
Replacing the leading passer, rusher, and sack leader. Don't think so.
Leading Passer? I'm not sure replacing Chris Todd will be all that difficult. He was a serviceable QB, not a great one. His stats are a product of the system he was placed in. I'm not going to say that an equal, if not better talent can't do better, and do it quickly.
Leading Rusher? As great a back that Tate was, I'm not sure that there won't be someone ready to take that lead role this year. Fannin? McCallebb? Dyer? Aycock? Smith? Lattimore? Howard? ...and on and on. I'm making a total guess, but I have to believe our run game will be better, and we'll have an improved OL to do it with.
Sack Leader? Defense could still have a few issues, but it's not like we don't have ANYONE on the D-line. I like Carter to step up. He was not 100% this year, but could be this next year.
If you don't think we can improve on this year, that's your right, but I have to think that we ARE moving in a better direction.
-
Cynical, I'm sorry, but every time you speak, you prove more and more that you are clueless. Doen't stop you from assuming the sky is falling.
-
I think assuming either will happen to any degree of certainty is a crap shoot at best.
I would have bet you any amount of money in August that there was no way UA runs the table with a new QB at the helm.
-
Right. Because Kodi was so much more talented he was going to be a vast improvement over that shitty Cox guy.
This is a big mass of wishful thinking.
I'm no fan of Todd, but if more talented guys were unable to take his spot it's sort of ridiculous to think some raw kid fresh off the boat can waltz into SEC play and elevate the game. We are, sadly, not in a positon like Alabama is where you can put a chimpanzee under center and win by hammering the ball on the ground.
These "we will be better because we are replacing two, three and four year starters with kids who have never played" arguments are laughable.
Optimism is one thing. Delusion is another.
-
I think assuming either will happen to any degree of certainty is a crap shoot at best.
I would have bet you any amount of money in August that there was no way UA runs the table with a new QB at the helm.
Fair enough, but despite the fact things are moving in the right direction, I haven't seen anyone predict an undefeated season next year.
Bitching & moaning and suggesting we will be worse off with Cam Newton, the guy who beat out UF's up and coming God who Gaytors claimed was the second best QB in the NCAA, than Chris Todd...I can't take you seriously. Essentially the same thing applies to th RBs, let alone the ones we've had in the stable waiting for their turn.
-
Fair enough, but despite the fact things are moving in the right direction, I haven't seen anyone predict an undefeated season next year.
Bitching & moaning and suggesting we will be worse off with Cam Newton, the guy who beat out UF's up and coming God who Gaytors claimed was the second best QB in the NCAA, than Chris Todd...I can't take you seriously. Essentially the same thing applies to th RBs, let alone the ones we've had in the stable waiting for their turn.
And I cannot take seriously people who espouse such unfounded arguments.
From a base of historical precedent, the likelihood that improvement will be the result of the impending personnel changes is significantly smaller than the reality that there will be a painful learning curve. Not saying it can't happen, only that to insist it will happen is without merit.
Expecting to replace a two-year starter at QB and a three year starter at RB and emerge significantly better off had virtually no precedent.
Reality eludes you. Hope is one thing, Obama. Ramming that socialist agenda through is another.
Be hopeful. But have some sense. Otherwise I can't take you seriously at all.
-
As great a back that Tate was, I'm not sure that there won't be someone ready to take that lead role this year. Fannin? McCallebb? Dyer? Aycock? Smith? Lattimore? Howard? ...and on and on. I'm making a total guess, but I have to believe our run game will be better, and we'll have an improved OL to do it with.
Sack Leader? Defense could still have a few issues, but it's not like we don't have ANYONE on the D-line. I like Carter to step up. He was not 100% this year, but could be this next year.
How long are you people going to tote the "this will be a breakout year for Fannin" party line? The guy will be a senior this season, and has been relatively low impact in his career at AU. Something I didn't realize about AU's OL is after this season, AU will be replacing 4 OL starters. I'm assuming the starters from last season will start this year, anyway.
As far as DL goes, there are some bodies there, but really nobody who has proven anything.
-
And I cannot take seriously people who espouse such unfounded arguments.
From a base of historical precedent, the likelihood that improvement will be the result of the impending personnel changes is significantly smaller than the reality that there will be a painful learning curve. Not saying it can't happen, only that to insist it will happen is without merit.
Expecting to replace a two-year starter at QB and a three year starter at RB and emerge significantly better off had virtually no precedent.
Reality eludes you. Hope is one thing, Obama. Ramming that socialist agenda through is another.
Be hopeful. But have some sense. Otherwise I can't take you seriously at all.
I think you'll find I'm exactly that. Hopeful. Nothing more. I see this recruiting class and it is encouraging and exciting. How anyone can look at it and brood the way a couple of you are doing is beyond me.
I forgot what a world-beater you thought Todd to be before this season began. :rolleyes:
-
Top 5 recruiting is not good enough, Boooooo
Good point.
As I proved in another thread, the only ranking that has any legitimate trend is #1. Since 2002, teams with #1 ranked recruiting classes have gone on to play in a NC game within three years 100% of the time.
Behind that? It's hit or miss. Just ask FSU and its three consecutive Top Five finishes.
-
I think you'll find I'm exactly that. Hopeful. Nothing more. I see this recruiting class and it is encouraging and exciting. How anyone can look at it and brood the way a couple of you are doing is beyond me.
I forgot what a world-beater you thought Todd to be before this season began. :rolleyes:
Not brooding. At all.
Just providing balance to the screaming -- and here's that word again -- loons who can't connect the reality dots.
It's sort of like politics. Prowler is a lunatic democrat. One of the crazies. I'm more of a moderate republican. But in comparison to his yammering, bleeding leftism I come off looking like a combination of Hitler and Pat Robertson.
As for Todd, he sucks. He's Daniel Cobb's slower, less athletic, weaker evil twin. I'd like to hope that we have something better, but there's nothing tangible or quantifiable to indicate that will be the case. Maybe after the spring you can make that argument, but it's silly now.
-
I understand what Kaos is trying to say. However, I'm NOT saying to "expect" one thing or the other either. Rather pointing out that it IS possible that it could be the same if not better next season. Now, do I personally believe that we are moving in the right direction? Yes.
QB - All the things said about Todd was correct. He beat out the spring competition. Who WAS that, really? Caudle? Okay.... Trotter - hurt. Tyrik Rollison (literally weeks out of HS)? Kodi Burns?
Do I believe that Todd would beat out Cameron Newton? Mabye, but I'd still vote probably not. Does he beat out Tyrik Rollison with a year of learning the offense? Would he beat out a healthy Barrett Trotter? Who knows?
RB - Does Mario Fannin's experience not count? He's been around now since Caesar was a road guard. I think he'd be a great back if his shoulder holds up. By most accounts, Aycock is a bruiser and has put on some solid weight. I'm not saying that replaces Tate, but it's not like we've got a bunch of shit-tacular talent behind Tate. I also believe with a better, and healthy OL, our running game has the potential to get better. I don't think that's a stretch, and it isn't me guaranteeing it either.
DL? Do we NOT think that Carter could be as good if not better than Coleman? Who's to say? He was injured 80% of last season. Dee Ford looked good the few times he was in. Fairly looks like Marks2.0. I have a hard time believing that we don't find someone to step up. Someone usually does.
Bottom line.. Were we crazy about Ben Leard before the lightbulb went off in his head the final year? Campbell the same way? Was Carnell a guarantee before he hit the field the first time, despite the hype? Ronnie Brown even in his first year? There's no way to predict who is going to be bad ass, but there is no way to say that it is a going to be a step backwards either.
There are real reasons for some optimism this upcoming season. However, NOBODY is claiming guaranteed success. Being called "delusional" doesn't fit the bill here at all.
-
How anyone can look at it and brood the way a couple of you are doing is beyond me.
Only someone with inflated self importance would interpret the cautious approach as "brooding."
There is a dangerous mindset among Auburn fans these days. One that is bent on beating down any opposition to the party line.
-
Right. Because Kodi was so much more talented he was going to be a vast improvement over that shitty Cox guy.
This is a big mass of wishful thinking.
I'm no fan of Todd, but if more talented guys were unable to take his spot it's sort of ridiculous to think some raw kid fresh off the boat can waltz into SEC play and elevate the game. We are, sadly, not in a positon like Alabama is where you can put a chimpanzee under center and win by hammering the ball on the ground.
These "we will be better because we are replacing two, three and four year starters with kids who have never played" arguments are laughable.
Optimism is one thing. Delusion is another.
^^^^^THIS^^^^^
I love how folks bash Todd and call him a system QB. Well he beat out all that we had in TWO different systems. The kid had talent and grit. You don;t JUST replace that and all is well. I really do want someone to step in and do a better job, but being QB encompasses so many things these days that it's hard to find that one guy. Look around and you'll see that many of the other FBS schools are in the same boat. There are only a handful of super good QBs each season. Hopefully we'll get one soon. As for RBs, Tate was not as suited for this offense as some of the others we have coming in. I think we might find that one of the quicker backs will make a difference. In this offense, it's not the pounding that gets you the breakouts, it's the quick back up the middle. I think we may see some exciting RBs next season.
I do know that it will at least be fun to watch.
-
There's no way to predict who is going to be bad ass, but there is no way to say that it is a going to be a step backwards either.
There are real reasons for some optimism this upcoming season. However, NOBODY is claiming guaranteed success. Being called "delusional" doesn't fit the bill here at all.
Actually, yes there is. It's called "historical precedent."
Based on what most programs experience, you can make a rational, logical argument supported by facts, statistics and trends to show that a step backward is the most likely result by far.
Failure to recognize that reality and adjust expectations to meet it qualifies as delusional.
I said Chizik would win seven or eight games last year based on what he had to work with. You can look it up. About January of last year I told you that.
I'm telling you now (and you can write it down) that if he sustains that level -- seven or eight games -- next season, you should consider that a successful effort on his part. Of course there are qualifiers depending on which games he loses and how dreadful AU looks in those losses, but just maintaining the position would be a win.
-
^^^^^THIS^^^^^
I love how folks bash Todd and call him a system QB. Well he beat out all that we had in TWO different systems. The kid had talent and grit. You don;t JUST replace that and all is well. I really do want someone to step in and do a better job, but being QB encompasses so many things these days that it's hard to find that one guy. Look around and you'll see that many of the other FBS schools are in the same boat. There are only a handful of super good QBs each season. Hopefully we'll get one soon. As for RBs, Tate was not as suited for this offense as some of the others we have coming in. I think we might find that one of the quicker backs will make a difference. In this offense, it's not the pounding that gets you the breakouts, it's the quick back up the middle. I think we may see some exciting RBs next season.
I do know that it will at least be fun to watch.
I definitely didn't say that Todd didn't deserve to be where he was this year. In fact, I got in more of my share of "debates" on why I agreed with Todd being the starter this last year.
Also, calling him a system QB, doesn't necessarily mean we're insulting him, or bashing him. He flurished in this system, whenit was clear that while he was hurt, Tony Franklin fucked him and his mind up last year. I'm not sure anyone has bashed him or said he sucks.
-
I asked an Auburn beat writer before last season started how he thought Onterio McCalleb fit into the offense. I was hoping for some insight into how he'd work in the scheme. What I got was straight up smart-ass.
The Auburn beat writers responded with: "He's fast as hell. That's how he fits in." He went to write about McCalleb (after only a couple games) using such unique kinds of praise like, "he changes geometry" and the like. Then, he hurt an ankle. Tough for a fast, undersized, cutting back to heal in a season.
Fast as hell is fun until the wheels break.
Give me a cloud of dust anyday.
Oh, and that beat writer is still a smart-ass.
-
RB - Does Mario Fannin's experience not count? He's been around now since Caesar was a road guard. I think he'd be a great back if his shoulder holds up.
I think if he were going to be a great back, we would know it by now. Fannin has accomplished dick at AU, really. He's just kind of a gadget guy that doesn't really fit in anywhere. I know alot of fans fell in love with him after his freshman year, but since then, he really hasn't defined himself.
-
I'm telling you now (and you can write it down) that if he sustains that level -- seven or eight games -- next season, you should consider that a successful effort on his part. Of course there are qualifiers depending on which games he loses and how dreadful AU looks in those losses, but just maintaining the position would be a win.
I'm going to hold on to this.
-
Actually, yes there is. It's called "historical precedent."
Based on what most programs experience, you can make a rational, logical argument supported by facts, statistics and trends to show that a step backward is the most likely result by far.
Failure to recognize that reality and adjust expectations to meet it qualifies as delusional.
I said Chizik would win seven or eight games last year based on what he had to work with. You can look it up. About January of last year I told you that.
I'm telling you now (and you can write it down) that if he sustains that level -- seven or eight games -- next season, you should consider that a successful effort on his part. Of course there are qualifiers depending on which games he loses and how dreadful AU looks in those losses, but just maintaining the position would be a win.
This is silly, Kaos. Serioulsy. Nobody is guaranteeing anything. Rather, some are simply being optomistic. There is ZERO wrong with that. If they were, you're "historical precedent" thing MIGHT make sense.
Historical precedent does NOT guarantee the future. One way or the other. Trends, you're right. Doesn't necessarily fit every situation though.
There is NO guarantee that Auburn WILL for a FACT step backwards next year. Is there a case for it based on historical precedent? Sure. Is there a case that it could get better because of getting better talent based on historical precedent? Sure is. It happened over the last two years in Tuscaloosa. You don't even have to look far.
It's NOT delusional.
-
This is silly, Kaos. Serioulsy. Nobody is guaranteeing anything. Rather, some are simply being optomistic. There is ZERO wrong with that. If they were, you're "historical precedent" thing MIGHT make sense.
Historical precedent does NOT guarantee the future. One way or the other. Trends, you're right. Doesn't necessarily fit every situation though.
There is NO guarantee that Auburn WILL for a FACT step backwards next year. Is there a case for it based on historical precedent? Sure. Is there a case that it could get better because of getting better talent based on historical precedent? Sure is. It happened over the last two years in Tuscaloosa. You don't even have to look far.
It's NOT delusional.
Somebody is going to win the lottery. It's a fact.
Expecting a successful outcome based on that one winner while ignoring the hundreds of thousands of losers is the very definition of delusion.
Trends are not created by the exceptions (Alabama), they are created by the rule (Georgia, Tennessee, virtually every other program in the country that had to replace 90% of its offense). And even at Alabama, the exception, you can't really use it as a benchmark, because the QB was essentially non-functional. A ferret could have performed that role.
No, trends don't fit every situation. That's why they are trends and not absolutes. But trends to define the most likely outcome. Historical precedent gives you a pattern of what to expect. Your argument that there is a "trend" in regard to a situation improving is false. An exception is not a trend.
-
I'm going to hold on to this.
You'll lose it when I turn out to be right (yet again) and make up something that you think you remember me saying instead.
That's another trend. :)
-
This is silly, Kaos. Serioulsy. Nobody is guaranteeing anything. Rather, some are simply being optomistic. There is ZERO wrong with that. If they were, you're "historical precedent" thing MIGHT make sense.
Historical precedent does NOT guarantee the future. One way or the other. Trends, you're right. Doesn't necessarily fit every situation though.
There is NO guarantee that Auburn WILL for a FACT step backwards next year. Is there a case for it based on historical precedent? Sure. Is there a case that it could get better because of getting better talent based on historical precedent? Sure is. It happened over the last two years in Tuscaloosa. You don't even have to look far.
It's NOT delusional.
Keep in mind some WANT Auburn to do bad.
-
Somebody is going to win the lottery. It's a fact.
Expecting a successful outcome based on that one winner while ignoring the hundreds of thousands of losers is the very definition of delusion.
I guess, by this, you'll bring in to debate what people here quantify as "success". I don't have time for that debate. If you still think I'm guaranteeing success, or that I expect championships, then you haven't been paying attention, or you've decided to make that my position, facts be damned.
This whole debate started with me simply pointing out that I disagreed with Cynical's position that we'd be worse off next year due to the specific losses he pointed out. I did what you like to do, provide the other argument. Nothing more. I'm not guaranteeing anything. I just didn't call him delusional, nor am I calling YOU that, because I disagree with your view on it.
No, trends don't fit every situation. That's why they are trends and not absolutes. But trends to define the most likely outcome. Historical precedent gives you a pattern of what to expect. Your argument that there is a "trend" in regard to a situation improving is false. An exception is not a trend.
I said nothing of the sort. I never mentioned that there is a trend as it relates to Auburn's specific situation. Simply didn't happen.
I base my opinion on the specific people and specific situation.
Never said you have to agree with it. Lord knows you don't.
-
I didn't call YOU anything.
Stuck strictly to the argument itself. How you define that is up to you.
You said there was "no way to say it was going to be a step backward." I merely pointed out that, yes, there was a way to say that based on historical precedent. In fact, it's the only rational argument that fits until and unless additional evidence is presented.
You said nothing of the sort?
Is there a case that it could get better because of getting better talent based on historical precedent? Sure is. It happened over the last two years in Tuscaloosa.
Unless there's another Chopper using your access, yes, yes you did say exactly something of that sort. You cited an exception to disprove a rule. That is a fallacy.
-
I didn't call YOU anything.
Stuck strictly to the argument itself. How you define that is up to you.
You said there was "no way to say it was going to be a step backward." I merely pointed out that, yes, there was a way to say that based on historical precedent. In fact, it's the only rational argument that fits until and unless additional evidence is presented.
You said nothing of the sort?
Unless there's another Chopper using your access, yes, yes you did say exactly something of that sort. You cited an exception to disprove a rule. That is a fallacy.
Just for arguments sake, what is the historical precedent that points to us failing this year?
-
You said there was "no way to say it was going to be a step backward." I merely pointed out that, yes, there was a way to say that based on historical precedent. In fact, it's the only rational argument that fits until and unless additional evidence is presented.
You said nothing of the sort?
I don't disagree with your historical precedent argument, Kaos. Never did. I disagree with how you feel it should define my position. There, you're simply incorrect.
Here's the entire quote:
There's no way to predict who is going to be bad ass, but there is no way to say that it is a going to be a step backwards either.
If you want to base EVERYTHING regardless of facts as it's based on specific situations on simply "historical precedent", then fine. That's your business. I simply don't believe in it defining every situation. Doesn't mean that I ignore them in all situations. However, I can, and DO judge the individual situations and circumstances on their own merits, and yes, historical precedent where and if it applies.
there's another Chopper using your access, yes, yes you did say exactly something of that sort. You cited an exception to disprove a rule. That is a fallacy.
Wasn't an example of a trend. It WAS as YOU called it, an "exception", and proof that even YOU recognize it CAN happen.
Thanks for proving my point.
-
Wasn't an example of a trend. It WAS as YOU called it, an "exception", and proof that even YOU recognize it CAN happen.
Thanks for proving my point.
Oh dear god....
If your point was that you were wrong, then I proved it. Otherwise... <shakes head and walks away>
-
This argument has been molded into the myopic one about whether the QB, RB, and DE replacements will be better or worse than last year's.
While I believe the answer to all three is "at least as good", this is not even taking into consideration the fact that we have plugged major depth holes with this recruiting class.
-
Just for arguments sake, what is the historical precedent that points to us failing this year?
Shall I list every school that had to replace its top two offensive threats (regardless of who they might be) and production declined as a result?
Do you have six or seven weeks?
-
This argument has been molded into the myopic one about whether the QB, RB, and DE replacements will be better or worse than last year's.
While I believe the answer to all three is "at least as good", this is not even taking into consideration the fact that we have plugged major depth holes with this recruiting class.
You're welcome to believe that, even though most credible evidence trends otherwise.
To hope for improvement is to have the soul of a fan. To recognize that it will be a difficult transition and anticipate bumps along the way, bumps that could (and historically do) lead to diminished production is to possess reason.
Either, without the other, is extreme. Reasoned optimism should be course. We hope it will turn out well and there are some reasons to imagine that it might. But we should definitely be aware of the pitfalls so that we are rationally prepared to accept a slightly different outcome.
I hope that things will progress. But based on the history of first-year quarterbacks and freshman running backs in the SEC, I'm not doing the humpty dance or making rash statements like "we will be better." History says we won't and that's the cold hard reality.
-
This argument has been molded into the myopic one about whether the QB, RB, and DE replacements will be better or worse than last year's.
While I believe the answer to all three is "at least as good", this is not even taking into consideration the fact that we have plugged major depth holes with this recruiting class.
You're not really plugging the hole until you see if what you're plugging it with actually works or not. The kids in the 2010 class haven't even signed LOIs yet, so its a little soon to assume they are all going to be viable.
-
I'm not doing the humpty dance or making rash statements like "we will be better."
I haven't seen anyone doing a "humpty dance". It seems that if you have optimism, you automatically place people in this crazy state of mind.
Oh dear god....
If your point was that you were wrong, then I proved it. Otherwise... <shakes head and walks away>
Really?
Let me throw this at you.
1. Historical Precedent simply means it's happened before. It has. Even though the Alabama example WAS an exception, it HAS happened, and therefore, there is "historical precedent". I'm sure there are other examples where an unknown, or unproven player on the field has come in and been greater than expected.
2. You are absolutely correct with trends. NOBODY here disagrees, says you're wrong, or would claim that "based on trends", Auburn should set the world on fire next year.
Trying to act as if I've guaranteed success, or that I'm ignoring trends or historical precedent, is something you're simply adding that I'm not.
I'm not sure why you're trying to act as if I have. The only explaination is that you're simply just trying to get into an arguement for the fun of it. If that's the case, I'll just walk away from it myself.
-
But we should definitely be aware of the pitfalls so that we are rationally prepared to accept a slightly different outcome.
I got mad skillz and know how to beat that game.
-
95% of this "argument" is in your head. You are arguing with yourself, contradicting yourself and flailing away at points that were never made. Windmills as it were.
Carry on.
I haven't seen anyone doing a "humpty dance". It seems that if you have optimism, you automatically place people in this crazy state of mind.
Really?
Let me throw this at you.
1. Historical Precedent simply means it's happened before. It has. Even though the Alabama example WAS an exception, it HAS happened, and therefore, there is "historical precedent". I'm sure there are other examples where an unknown, or unproven player on the field has come in and been greater than expected.
2. You are absolutely correct with trends. NOBODY here disagrees, says you're wrong, or would claim that "based on trends", Auburn should set the world on fire next year.
Trying to act as if I've guaranteed success, or that I'm ignoring trends or historical precedent, is something you're simply adding that I'm not.
I'm not sure why you're trying to act as if I have. The only explaination is that you're simply just trying to get into an arguement for the fun of it. If that's the case, I'll just walk away from it myself.
-
Shall I list every school that had to replace its top two offensive threats (regardless of who they might be) and production declined as a result?
Do you have six or seven weeks?
True true - but could it be that what we are replacing it with is better than what was there? Look at Leak at UF. Not that I am comparing Todd to Leak. Bu you get what I'm saying. Bama replaced a Sr with McElroy and I know they had a much better OL than us allowing them to pound it. I just don't think we miss much of a beat at RB. And are even at the QB position at worse. Newton is coming in, Rollison has a year in the offense and Trotter will be back healthy. Things change. I'm not saying we will be better or worse, I just think its inconclusive at this point until we see some practices and A Day at the least.
-
True true - but could it be that what we are replacing it with is better than what was there? Look at Leak at UF. Not that I am comparing Todd to Leak. Bu you get what I'm saying. Bama replaced a Sr with McElroy and I know they had a much better OL than us allowing them to pound it. I just don't think we miss much of a beat at RB. And are even at the QB position at worse. Newton is coming in, Rollison has a year in the offense and Trotter will be back healthy. Things change. I'm not saying we will be better or worse, I just think its inconclusive at this point until we see some practices and A Day at the least.
mark my words.....
We WILL win A-Day.
-
Not miss a beat at RB?? Are you shitting me?
Tate will be harder to replace than Todd.
To quote Cinderella: " Don't know what you got till it's gaw-aw-awuuhawwwn"
-
Not miss a beat at RB?? Are you poopting me?
Tate will be harder to replace than Todd.
To quote Cinderella: " Don't know what you got till it's gaw-aw-awuuhawwwn"
Yeah, Cinderella sucks....and yep, he does say 'gone' like that. Sad.
I think the RB committee will do a good job, serviceable at worse. I imagine they will do the flanker thing with Mario again, but still Dyer, Aycock and McCallebb is a formidable trio, and thats assuming Lattimore doesnt commit to AU.
The D should be better. Wr's should be better. Notice I said 'should'. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree here but I see your point.
-
95% of this "argument" is in your head. You are arguing with yourself, contradicting yourself and flailing away at points that were never made. Windmills as it were.
Carry on.
Whatever blows your skirt up. Anyone can read what was said, and see you arguing with every bit of it.
-
mark my words.....
We WILL win A-Day.
I'll be at that Championship gala.
-
Of the (more) skilled positions RB is the easiest one for someone to come in and be successful at but that is usually based on a team that goes run all the time. The hardest thing that a RB has to do in this offense is make the right blocks when he isn't getting the ball or it's a pass play. This is where incoming newbies will have weaknesses for sure.
-
I'm hopeful that the experience on the offensive line will help offset the inexperience at running back.
-
While we do have some good returning talent on both sides of the ball, I think it unrealistic to think that more than a couple of true freshmen along with the JC guys (4-6 possibly) can have an immediate impact. If we recall the past Spring practice, several players commented on Burn's strong arm as if they knew he was the guy. Didn't happen.
And while Spring practice is a good way for the staff to evaluate those ready to contribute in some form, the Spring game is a controlled pageant that proves very little what a team can or can't do at game speed against SEC caliber teams.
So while I figured that Todd would eventually take the reins upon returning, this time around I will be looking for a QB that demonstrates the ability to consistently move the offense, not a guy who makes his own broken plays as we have seen. We have a good O-line returning. And if our QB is running as much as Tebow, we have serious problems ahead because we don't know if we have an inside running threat yet at RB. McCalleb is an outside threat. Fannin doesn't seem an every-down back. I waited on Tristan Davis to become one. Again, some just don't possess the speed while size handicaps the others.
My opinion is that the defense can overcome some shortcomings and grow into a force quicker than the offense can adjust to replacing the major skill players. But if we are expecting a QB to come in and duplicate Todd's numbers AND an unproven back to out-do Ben Tate in his first season, that is improbable. If we get the back we want to share time with another, that is more likely.
I'm not downplaying our chances because I think we can improve in consistency, special teams, tackling, not getting embarrassed deep, penalties, 2 minute offense and better quality depth while finding a TRUE DEEP THREAT. I think we win 9 and that to me seems very hopeful but here again, this staff looks like it can pull it off. Still third in the west but improving is a positive sign. I think there are just too many unknowns to be too negative or positive. Hey, we might duplicate last season's record or go plowing into Amen Corner with a single loss.
-
just to bring up a historical reference that applies to RB's and AU:
In 1985 AU had BO, the Heisman and a 8-4 record and a loss to uat.
The following year AU replaced the QB and BO (a Heisman Trophy winner) and went 10-2 with a win over uat. And were within a couple of water hoses and a Gimpy Bell of playing for the whole enchilada. (and fuck McGinity too....little sumbitch)
AU also had some new faces on D in '86, I just do not want to go look them up
WAR EAGLE
:bar:
-
just to bring up a historical reference that applies to RB's and AU:
In 1985 AU had BO, the Heisman and a 8-4 record and a loss to uat.
The following year AU replaced the QB and BO (a Heisman Trophy winner) and went 10-2 with a win over uat. And were within a couple of water hoses and a Gimpy Bell of playing for the whole enchilada. (and phuk McGinity too....little sumbitch)
AU also had some new faces on D in '86, I just do not want to go look them up
WAR EAGLE
:bar:
very good work there ea.
-
I'll be at that Championship gala.
It's a funny game. Sometimes you win. Sometimes you lose. Sometimes it rains.
-
It's a funny game. Sometimes you win. Sometimes you lose. Sometimes it rains.
(http://i482.photobucket.com/albums/rr185/johnofbham/assorted/t62819796.gif)
That's right!
-
Kaos,
I think your theory of historical precedent has a very key divider to it. It matters 100% what you're replacing. There is no way to know to an exact degree, but you have a good idea when a player is "adequate" , a "liability", or is a "difference maker".
For example. When Texas replaced Chris Simms, everyone everywhere knew Texas wouldn't drop off, because Simms had been merely "adequate" at best. It was very reasonable to assume Texas could be at least "adequate" again the next season, even before seeing what the Chance Mock/Vince Young combo was capable of.
To me, Alabama 2009 actually goes with the "rule", and is not an exception to the rule. The fact is, John Parker Wilson wasn't a special talent. He was more "adequate" than a "difference maker", so replacing him with "adequate" was not going to create a huge drop off at the position.
2008 Wilson - 121 passer rating, 57.9 completion %, 2243 yds.
2009 McElroy - 140 passer rating, 60.9 completeion %, 2508 yds.
The truth is, if you go back through history, when top programs are dealing with an "adequate" QB (often), replacing him with another "adequate" QB is pretty common. It's actually more of an exception to the rule when they go from "adequate" to "liability".
To me, Todd was adequate, and for someone (me) to expect that Malzahn can come up with at least "adequate" from what we have on the roster seems to me to fall directly under "reasonable", as far as expectations go. Look at what he just did at Tulsa.
In 2007 Paul Smith had a rating of 159 and threw for 5,000 yds. In 2008, Smith is gone and a new guy steps in....David Johnson. In his first year, Johnson has a 178 passer rating and throws over 4,000 yds (they ran the ball 1500 more yards, so the 4000 was still very impressive).
Your "historical" reference applies to situations when a team goes from a David Greene to a DJ Shockley.
Or from an Andre Woodson to a Mike Hartline.
Or from a Sam Bradford to a Landry Jones.
Or from a Vince Young to a Colt McCoy (there's your exception).
Or from a Matt Stafford to a Joe Cox.
Or from an Eli Manning to an Ethan Flatt.
Or from Troy Smith to a Todd Boeckman.
What's more normal is going from a Matt Mauk to a Marcus Randall.
Or from a Joe Ganz to a Zac Lee.
Or an Erik Ainge to a Rick Clausen (and back to an Erik Ainge).
Or from Sean Glennon to a Tyrod Taylor.
Or a Will Proctor to a Cullen Harper.
Or an Andrew Hatch to a Jarrett Lee to a Jordan Jefferson, mixed with some more Jarrett Lee.
We just had Joe Ganz/Will Proctor/Sean Glennon, not Eli Manning/Sam Bradford/Vince Young.
Todd was "fine". To expect to replace him with "fine" seems very reasonable to me.
-
Also, as good as Tate was, I don't know that he was necessarily "special". I think he was very good. He ran hard, he was big, etc. Knowsohn Moreno ran behind a screwed up, 4th string offensive line in 2008, and he still ran 1,400 yards, simply because he was special.
I fully expect Eric Smith, Dontae Aycock, Fannin, and Dyer to fill the void adequately.
We've seen Smith run...and he's good. We know it. He's tough, he runs hard, and he's a load.
To me, Fannin hasn't been used right since his freshman year. He's spent almost no time in the last couple years just lined up in the backfield like a running back with a chance to just run the ball. If he gets time back there, he'll be good as well....we've seen it when he's gotten the chance (5.3 yd/carry in 2007, the last time he was used as an actual running back, and a year in which Lester and Tate averaged 4.2 and 4.5).
We don't know what Dyer and/or Lattimore (should we be so lucky) will turn out to be. But I did the stats in another thread. Based on the last twenty 5-star running backs, getting two gives us a 92% chance that one of them will turn out to be among league leaders (like a Marlon Lucky, Jerious Norwood, Joe McNight, etc) and a 39% chance one of them turns out to be among the nations best (like a Beanie Wells, Jonathan Stewart, Reggie Bush, or Adrian Peterson....all over 900 yards their first full year).
Again, to me, we have plenty of reason to have some expectation that we won't have a big drop off in the rushing department either.
-
Actually, yes there is. It's called "historical precedent."
Based on what most programs experience, you can make a rational, logical argument supported by facts, statistics and trends to show that a step backward is the most likely result by far.
Failure to recognize that reality and adjust expectations to meet it qualifies as delusional.
I said Chizik would win seven or eight games last year based on what he had to work with. You can look it up. About January of last year I told you that.
I'm telling you now (and you can write it down) that if he sustains that level -- seven or eight games -- next season, you should consider that a successful effort on his part. Of course there are qualifiers depending on which games he loses and how dreadful AU looks in those losses, but just maintaining the position would be a win.
I disagree. C
hizik has to win more than seven or eight games. I think the team must show a significant improvement.
That's why we got rid of Tuberville, right? Tuberville was done fielding championship caliber teams, so we went out and searched for a coaching staff that will lead us to championships.
Chizik doesn't get a year two of building.
-
Whatever........Championship!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
JAD: Compelling argument. I could buy it if we were replacing one or the other. Not both. If Burns, Caudle, Rollison, Smith, Fannin, McCalebb, Trotter or Aycock were better than the "adequate" they would have played this year. Well except Trotter.
How many of those teams were replacing both the leading rusher and leading passer regardless of how adequate or inadequate -- or record setting -- they were?
That's the basis of my positon. Both. Not one.
-
JAD: Compelling argument. I could buy it if we were replacing one or the other. Not both. If Burns, Caudle, Rollison, Smith, Fannin, McCalebb, Trotter or Aycock were better than the "adequate" they would have played this year. Well except Trotter.
I remember seeing a #18, #32, #27 and a #23 playing....a lot. Maybe my eyes aren't what they used to be or it could've been another player wearing #23 that had back to back 100 yards rushing.
-
*sigh*
I liked thngs better when children might be seen but were rarely heard
-
*sigh*
I liked thngs better when children might be seen but were rarely heard
*Burn*
-
How many of those teams were replacing both the leading rusher and leading passer regardless of how adequate or inadequate -- or record setting -- they were?
That's the basis of my positon. Both. Not one.
How much of the "leading passer", and "leading rusher" roles were attributable to Gus Malzhan and the play calling this year, versus simply the talent of the particular person in that role?
Did Todd, or Tate perform equally as well under the former offensive staff, or schemes?
They progressed, and performed in their first year under this staff. Is it not reasonable to assume that one, or more of the players taking over could perform equally, or better?
-
K, you're right, replacing both is a bigger challenge. However, just because a younger guy played less than the senior, that doesn't mean they aren't as good or are equally "adequate".
Beanie Wells was limited in carries because Pittman was the older guy. Moreno redshirted at Georgia simply becausw they had older guys they thought could get the job done. Terrell Pryor started the year playing a few plays at a time while the senior Beockman started. Since they weren't redshirting Pryor, they eventually switched to him. Even Bo waited his turn to some extent.
I'm on my phone, so I'm done with the examples, but you get what I mean. Just because a younger guy doesn't play much, it doesn't mean they aren't equally capable...sometimes it just means it's not their time yet.
Adrian Peterson and Herschel are pretty rare. Most guys, even the Bradfords, Vince Youngs, and Leinarts of the world waited behind guys whom they were better than.
-
What the phuk is this? 5 pages and it's still on topic?
Blasphemy!!
-
How much of the "leading passer", and "leading rusher" roles were attributable to Gus Malzhan and the play calling this year, versus simply the talent of the particular person in that role?
Did Todd, or Tate perform equally as well under the former offensive staff, or schemes?
They progressed, and performed in their first year under this staff. Is it not reasonable to assume that one, or more of the players taking over could perform equally, or better?
In a word? No.
It's perfectly acceptable to hope that this is the case, but nothing but wishful thinking -- failed wishful thinking we've experienced multiple times over the last 20 years -- to expect or assume as much.
-
In a word? No.
It's perfectly acceptable to hope that this is the case, but nothing but wishful thinking -- failed wishful thinking we've experienced multiple times over the last 20 years -- to expect or assume as much.
Yes you're correct, the world is infact flat. The moon is also made of cheese.
-
Yes you're correct, the world is infact flat. The moon is also made of cheese.
Could you hand the phone to a rock, please? It might make more sense than you.
-
Could you hand the phone to a rock, please? It might make more sense than you.
And I'm the dumbass?
-
I remember seeing a #18, #32, #27 and a #23 playing....a lot. Maybe my eyes aren't what they used to be or it could've been another player wearing #23 that had back to back 100 yards rushing.
You saw #18 playing? I saw him on the field. I'm not sure Todd could have done worse running. If #18 touches the ball again, we are in trouble.
-
What the phuk is this? 5 pages and it's still on topic?
Blasphemy!!
The fucking world is coming to an end.
-
What the phuk is this? 5 pages and it's still on topic?
Blasphemy!!
You're Ghey.
-
In a word? No.
It's perfectly acceptable to hope that this is the case, but nothing but wishful thinking -- failed wishful thinking we've experienced multiple times over the last 20 years -- to expect or assume as much.
Fine. I guess this does fit the pessimistic mentality that you project exclusively. Maybe you can look at as a realist, and therefore, you're guided only by what trends and historical precedent allows you. That's what you're doing. Okay. I guess that's the primary difference in how you approach this, and how some other folks do. You're not alone here. I'm not alone here.
As much as it's prudent to follow guidelines, trends and precedent and other situations, some situations allow you to look at the individual variables that make up the situation. It won't always leave you on a parallel with trends and will be open to opinion. It won't always be wishful thinking, except to those not capable of thinking outside the trends and precedent.
If all this was ruled exclusively by numbers, trends and precedent, there would be no need for discussion. We might as well shut down the boards and let the statisticians do their thing, sit back, and just watch what we know will already happen.
-
IMO, Fannin would be toting the ball if that shoulder could absorb some straight on contact. I'm not a doctor, but I remember that Will Herring was never the same player after his surgery. How many times have you heard someone say that Fannin was our best player. McCalleb cannot bang. Smith was all the talk last Spring.
And Chris Todd was a forgotten man this time last season.
-
And I'm the dumbass?
Yes.
-
If #18 touches the ball again, we are in trouble.
Why do you hate Wes Byrum?