Can we ban anyone that says we are a young team?

[HancockCountyDog]

I've read this a few times since Saturday night and I just assume it is dumb posters who can't read a depth chart.

We are not a young team. Not even close.

WRs - Guidry, Thomas, Zuber all seniors, Mitchell and Payton Juniors.
OL - Phillips, Williams seniors, Parker, Stewart, Eiland Juniors
TE - Green - senior, Jones - Junior
RB - Hill - Junior, Gibson - Senior
QB - Stevens - senior, Shrader freshman

DL - Rivers, Adams, Authry Spencer - seniors, Kobe - junior, Lovett, Crumedy freshman
LB - Gay, Thompson Juniors, Washington, Lewis, Shimar - seniors
CB - Smitherman, Senior - Dantzler - Junior
FS - Morgan, Junior - Murhphy Guidry Sophomore
SS - Andrews, Cole - Seniors

Our punter and kicker are juniors.

We have some freshman helping out in backup roles (Emerson, Jarrian Jones, Witherspoon, Brule) but anyone spouting that we are young is just full of shit.

Carry on.

[Coursesuper]

Que up Double Naught.

[msstate7]

We excuse. That's what we do

[dantheman4248]

Is there honestly anyone excusing Saturday night other than 007?

[QuadrupleOption]

Autry and Gay haven't played much so that's a bit misleading. We're not young overall, but we ARE playing a lot of freshmen on the defensive side and you see the results.

ETA: Not excusing but it is facts. Just like our 1995 defense was atrocious but got a lot better over the next 2-3 years, I hope to see the same pattern here.

[Pollodawg]

Young and experienced are not the same thing, really.

[Prediction? Pain.]

I'm here to take the Ban Me Challenge! Youth, youth, and more youth!! Excuses!!!

Obviously not. Saturday's turd was no more excusable or pleasant than Auburn 2017 (where we gave up more yards per play (9.13!) than in any other game since 2009 except one) or Georgia 2017 or Bama 2016 (or 2012) or Arkansas 2016 (gave up 9.87 yards per play, the most Arkansas has had in an SEC game since at least 2009) or 2011 or any of our other recent turds.

But replace "young" with "inexperienced" and one could indeed make a legitimate point.

Going solely with "returning starters" metrics -- which aren't as predictive or informative as they should be -- and we're the second-most inexperienced team in the SEC, per Phil Steele's returning starters rankings (https://philsteele.com/2019/07/22/complete-breakdown-of-every-cfb-teams-returning-starters-2/). If you want to add Willie Gay's absence to the numbers, we'd drop to 106th nationally and even lower if you're just looking at defensive starters.

That's tough even without looking behind the numbers further. But here's a potentially more relevant number: our team's % of returning tackles (https://philsteele.com/2019/06/29/of-tackles-returning-3/). Before the season started, our returning defensive players accounted for 49% of our tackles last year. That ranked us at 11th in the SEC and 104th nationally. What happens when you take away Gay (the team's sixth leading tackler in 2018), Autry, and M. Murphy? That takes our percentage down to 41.5%. That's 122nd nationally and 13th in the conference.

Bill C.'s fancypants "returning production" stats show the same thing. Before taking into account the suspensions, he had our returning production on D at 56%, which was 90th nationally. He's been keeping track of that stat since 2014 and that's the lowest number we've had in that six-year span. I don't know how much further we drop when you take out Gay, Autry, and Murphy's 66 combined tackles, six TFLs, five sacks, two interceptions, and two pass breakups, but I'm guessing it'd be similar to the drop in Phil Steele's numbers.

(As you can imagine, losing a QB like Fitz also accounted for pretty low returning offensive production, too. Per Steele, we're 103rd in returning yards (https://philsteele.com/2019/06/27/2019-of-yards-returning/). But so it goes when you change QBs. That's just the nature of the beast.)

So yeah. "Young" is probably the wrong word as you pointed out. But "inexperienced," at least on D? That's a different story.

Again, I'm not defending anything. A&M returned a comparatively low portion of their D and they haven't completely imploded in any of their games yet. They're 6th in the SEC in yards-per-play allowed so far. Still early, of course, but given that they've played AU and Clemson, that's not too shabby. (Granted that their on-paper talent is basically identical to AU's and Clemson's, inexperienced or not . . . . But whatever.) I guess my point is that I don't think we can just flatly discount our lack of experience on D right now, especially without Gay, who may be our best defensive player regardless of position, an experienced DT, and a quality reserve in the secondary (especially given our safety play thus far).

But man, I hope Shoop can get it figured out. Because when he was down a bunch of dudes at UT in 2016, stuff got ugly -- and I mean really, really, really ugly -- before the season ended.

[MetEdDawg]

Young and experienced are not the same thing, really.

This is the correct answer. Go through the list of starters and tell me how many of them have more than 2 years of 2 deep playing time? That number is really small

[Commercecomet24]

I'm here to take the Ban Me Challenge! Youth, youth, and more youth!! Excuses!!!

Obviously not. Saturday's turd was no more excusable or pleasant than Auburn 2017 (where we gave up more yards per play (9.13!) than in any other game since 2009 except one) or Georgia 2017 or Bama 2016 (or 2012) or Arkansas 2016 (gave up 9.87 yards per play, the most Arkansas has had in an SEC game since at least 2009) or 2011 or any of our other recent turds.

But replace "young" with "inexperienced" and one could indeed make a legitimate point.

Going solely with "returning starters" metrics -- which aren't as predictive or informative as they should be -- and we're the second-most inexperienced team in the SEC, per Phil Steele's returning starters rankings (https://philsteele.com/2019/07/22/complete-breakdown-of-every-cfb-teams-returning-starters-2/). If you want to add Willie Gay's absence to the numbers, we'd drop to 106th nationally and even lower if you're just looking at defensive starters.

That's tough even without looking behind the numbers further. But here's a potentially more relevant number: our team's % of returning tackles (https://philsteele.com/2019/06/29/of-tackles-returning-3/). Before the season started, our returning defensive players accounted for 49% of our tackles last year. That ranked us at 11th in the SEC and 104th nationally. What happens when you take away Gay (the team's sixth leading tackler in 2018), Autry, and M. Murphy? That takes our percentage down to 41.5%. That's 122nd nationally and 13th in the conference.

Bill C.'s fancypants "returning production" stats show the same thing. Before taking into account the suspensions, he had our returning production on D at 56%, which was 90th nationally. He's been keeping track of that stat since 2014 and that's the lowest number we've had in that six-year span. I don't know how much further we drop when you take out Gay, Autry, and Murphy's 66 combined tackles, six TFLs, five sacks, two interceptions, and two pass breakups, but I'm guessing it'd be similar to the drop in Phil Steele's numbers.

(As you can imagine, losing a QB like Fitz also accounted for pretty low returning offensive production, too. Per Steele, we're 103rd in returning yards (https://philsteele.com/2019/06/27/2019-of-yards-returning/). But so it goes when you change QBs. That's just the nature of the beast.)

So yeah. "Young" is probably the wrong word as you pointed out. But "inexperienced," at least on D? That's a different story.

Again, I'm not defending anything. A&M returned a comparatively low portion of their D and they haven't completely imploded in any of their games yet. They're 6th in the SEC in yards-per-play allowed so far. Still early, of course, but given that they've played AU and Clemson, that's not too shabby. (Granted that their on-paper talent is basically identical to AU's and Clemson's, inexperienced or not . . . . But whatever.) I guess my point is that I don't think we can just flatly discount our lack of experience on D right now, especially without Gay, who may be our best defensive player regardless of position, an experienced DT, and a quality reserve in the secondary (especially given our safety play thus far).

But man, I hope Shoop can get it figured out. Because when he was down a bunch of dudes at UT in 2016, stuff got ugly -- and I mean really, really, really ugly -- before the season ended.

Now you know we don't let facts get in the way of a good meltdown***

I agree with you on all the facts and especially that Shoop and Joe need to get this figured out quick. The UT game is pretty much a must win and we have to go at least 2-2 in October.

[Lord McBuckethead]

This is the correct answer. Go through the list of starters and tell me how many of them have more than 2 years of 2 deep playing time? That number is really small

Bingo. Someone that actually understands what it means to be either "young or old". It is generally a statement that outlines how much "experience" you have. You can have an old team of 22 sophomores and be experienced as hell if they all have 12-15 starts under their belts. You also can be young if you are starting 22 seniors that have never started before.

[Lord McBuckethead]

I'm here to take the Ban Me Challenge! Youth, youth, and more youth!! Excuses!!!

Obviously not. Saturday's turd was no more excusable or pleasant than Auburn 2017 (where we gave up more yards per play (9.13!) than in any other game since 2009 except one) or Georgia 2017 or Bama 2016 (or 2012) or Arkansas 2016 (gave up 9.87 yards per play, the most Arkansas has had in an SEC game since at least 2009) or 2011 or any of our other recent turds.

But replace "young" with "inexperienced" and one could indeed make a legitimate point.

Going solely with "returning starters" metrics -- which aren't as predictive or informative as they should be -- and we're the second-most inexperienced team in the SEC, per Phil Steele's returning starters rankings (https://philsteele.com/2019/07/22/complete-breakdown-of-every-cfb-teams-returning-starters-2/). If you want to add Willie Gay's absence to the numbers, we'd drop to 106th nationally and even lower if you're just looking at defensive starters.

That's tough even without looking behind the numbers further. But here's a potentially more relevant number: our team's % of returning tackles (https://philsteele.com/2019/06/29/of-tackles-returning-3/). Before the season started, our returning defensive players accounted for 49% of our tackles last year. That ranked us at 11th in the SEC and 104th nationally. What happens when you take away Gay (the team's sixth leading tackler in 2018), Autry, and M. Murphy? That takes our percentage down to 41.5%. That's 122nd nationally and 13th in the conference.

Bill C.'s fancypants "returning production" stats show the same thing. Before taking into account the suspensions, he had our returning production on D at 56%, which was 90th nationally. He's been keeping track of that stat since 2014 and that's the lowest number we've had in that six-year span. I don't know how much further we drop when you take out Gay, Autry, and Murphy's 66 combined tackles, six TFLs, five sacks, two interceptions, and two pass breakups, but I'm guessing it'd be similar to the drop in Phil Steele's numbers.

(As you can imagine, losing a QB like Fitz also accounted for pretty low returning offensive production, too. Per Steele, we're 103rd in returning yards (https://philsteele.com/2019/06/27/2019-of-yards-returning/). But so it goes when you change QBs. That's just the nature of the beast.)

So yeah. "Young" is probably the wrong word as you pointed out. But "inexperienced," at least on D? That's a different story.

Again, I'm not defending anything. A&M returned a comparatively low portion of their D and they haven't completely imploded in any of their games yet. They're 6th in the SEC in yards-per-play allowed so far. Still early, of course, but given that they've played AU and Clemson, that's not too shabby. (Granted that their on-paper talent is basically identical to AU's and Clemson's, inexperienced or not . . . . But whatever.) I guess my point is that I don't think we can just flatly discount our lack of experience on D right now, especially without Gay, who may be our best defensive player regardless of position, an experienced DT, and a quality reserve in the secondary (especially given our safety play thus far).

But man, I hope Shoop can get it figured out. Because when he was down a bunch of dudes at UT in 2016, stuff got ugly -- and I mean really, really, really ugly -- before the season ended.

Damn sir. That was great, and on par with the level of research and common sense we need on this board. Please tell OP how you did this.

[msstate7]

https://247sports.com/LongFormArticle/SEC-football-2019-oldest-youngest-teams-134100251/#134100251_1

[Prediction? Pain.]

https://247sports.com/LongFormArticle/SEC-football-2019-oldest-youngest-teams-134100251/#134100251_1

That article's a great illustration of the youth-experience dichotomy, 7. Per that article, we're one of the "oldest" teams in the SEC and Alabama is the "youngest." But Alabama still returned more than we did: They're 63rd nationally in Bill C.'s "returning production" rankings and we're 90th (pre-suspensions), they're 73rd nationally in returning starters and we're 90th (before accounting for Gay's suspension), they're 74th in returning % of tackles and we're 104th (again, pre-suspensions), and they're 42nd in returning offensive yards while we're 103rd.

Age, while no doubt great for physical development, knowledge of the offensive and defensive systems, maturity, etc., doesn't necessarily correlate to actual in-game experience. In our case this year, that's especially true.

[HancockCountyDog]

That article's a great illustration of the youth-experience dichotomy, 7. Per that article, we're one of the "oldest" teams in the SEC and Alabama is the "youngest." But Alabama still returned more than we did: They're 63rd nationally in Bill C.'s "returning production" rankings and we're 90th (pre-suspensions), they're 73rd nationally in returning starters and we're 90th (before accounting for Gay's suspension), they're 74th in returning % of tackles and we're 104th (again, pre-suspensions), and they're 42nd in returning offensive yards while we're 103rd.

Age, while no doubt great for physical development, knowledge of the offensive and defensive systems, maturity, etc., doesn't necessarily correlate to actual in-game experience. In our case this year, that's especially true.

I think the distinction I'm trying to make is that some fans will scream youth in an attempt to convince people that thought this year sucks, just wait until these young pups mature and are hell on wheels in 2020 and 2021. IT is an old con game for posters who don't like the present but are attempting to give an excuse to the current coach, while building up hope for the future.

We certainly lost a bunch of production from last year, but we are a program that develops players and keeps kids in the program 4-5 years for the most part. Being a developmental program, and having juniors and seniors at the starting spots, that is what is expected. The concern that I have is that I don't see a ton of players pushing for playing time beyond the ones I mentioned.

One thing I didn't say, I think we have found a QB in Schrader that is going to be very good for us, assuming he can stay healthy. He has taken an absolute beating so far this year, and we are only 25% finished with the SEC schedule. I really hope we limit the runs with him, we don't need him getting hammered game in and game out.

[BrunswickDawg]

I think the distinction I'm trying to make is that some fans will scream youth in an attempt to convince people that thought this year sucks, just wait until these young pups mature and are hell on wheels in 2020 and 2021. IT is an old con game for posters who don't like the present but are attempting to give an excuse to the current coach, while building up hope for the future.

We certainly lost a bunch of production from last year, but we are a program that develops players and keeps kids in the program 4-5 years for the most part. Being a developmental program, and having juniors and seniors at the starting spots, that is what is expected. The concern that I have is that I don't see a ton of players pushing for playing time beyond the ones I mentioned.

One thing I didn't say, I think we have found a QB in Schrader that is going to be very good for us, assuming he can stay healthy. He has taken an absolute beating so far this year, and we are only 25% finished with the SEC schedule. I really hope we limit the runs with him, we don't need him getting hammered game in and game out.

Good points. I think something our fans are going to have to come to grips with is that we are still a developmental program. That means our record will still be cyclical, misses in recruiting can have bigger effects on us than our peers, and we will have seasons like this. Period. I don't like it, but you would think that after 2011, 2013, 2016, and now people would understand it better. Are we a good football team right now? Nope. Were we good in those other down years? Nope. What we can't afford is missing bowls and having back-to-back 6-6 type seasons. Being a developmental program also means our margin for error in our "up" seasons is razor thin. An injury, fluke turnovers, or a coaching transition (even just a DC or OC, let alone a HC) can be the difference between 8 and 10 wins - like last season.

And this realization is not a Moorhead defense, it's a reality check. Joe has some big time things needing to be fixed if he wants to make it beyond 2020. Barring a big collapse he will get that opportunity.

[Political Hack]

Nobody is checking their age when saying they're young. They're looking at Experience levels. When you read "young," think "inexperienced." That's true.

[Commercecomet24]

Good points. I think something our fans are going to have to come to grips with is that we are still a developmental program. That means our record will still be cyclical, misses in recruiting can have bigger effects on us than our peers, and we will have seasons like this. Period. I don't like it, but you would think that after 2011, 2013, 2016, and now people would understand it better. Are we a good football team right now? Nope. Were we good in those other down years? Nope. What we can't afford is missing bowls and having back-to-back 6-6 type seasons. Being a developmental program also means our margin for error in our "up" seasons is razor thin. An injury, fluke turnovers, or a coaching transition (even just a DC or OC, let alone a HC) can be the difference between 8 and 10 wins - like last season.

And this realization is not a Moorhead defense, it's a reality check. Joe has some big time things needing to be fixed if he wants to make it beyond 2020. Barring a big collapse he will get that opportunity.

Great stuff as usual Brunswick. Spot on!

[Cooterpoot]

The problem is we’ve had two of these years the last 4. That goes back to the bad cycling of heavy jucos and signing low reward, high risk players that fall off the roster.

[Prediction? Pain.]

I think the distinction I'm trying to make is that some fans will scream youth in an attempt to convince people that thought this year sucks, just wait until these young pups mature and are hell on wheels in 2020 and 2021. IT is an old con game for posters who don't like the present but are attempting to give an excuse to the current coach, while building up hope for the future.

We certainly lost a bunch of production from last year, but we are a program that develops players and keeps kids in the program 4-5 years for the most part. Being a developmental program, and having juniors and seniors at the starting spots, that is what is expected. The concern that I have is that I don't see a ton of players pushing for playing time beyond the ones I mentioned.

One thing I didn't say, I think we have found a QB in Schrader that is going to be very good for us, assuming he can stay healthy. He has taken an absolute beating so far this year, and we are only 25% finished with the SEC schedule. I really hope we limit the runs with him, we don't need him getting hammered game in and game out.


Good points. I think something our fans are going to have to come to grips with is that we are still a developmental program. That means our record will still be cyclical, misses in recruiting can have bigger effects on us than our peers, and we will have seasons like this. Period. I don't like it, but you would think that after 2011, 2013, 2016, and now people would understand it better. Are we a good football team right now? Nope. Were we good in those other down years? Nope. What we can't afford is missing bowls and having back-to-back 6-6 type seasons. Being a developmental program also means our margin for error in our "up" seasons is razor thin. An injury, fluke turnovers, or a coaching transition (even just a DC or OC, let alone a HC) can be the difference between 8 and 10 wins - like last season.

And this realization is not a Moorhead defense, it's a reality check. Joe has some big time things needing to be fixed if he wants to make it beyond 2020. Barring a big collapse he will get that opportunity.

Good points all around, y'all.

And Brunswick, I hadn't thought about whether one could draw parallels between our experience level this year and those of our other recent "down" years in 2011, 2013, and 2016, two of which were also marked significant upheaval at the QB position. I don't have time to do a deep dive, but I did a quick comparison of those teams' returning tackles and offensive yards with what's happened this year considering the suspensions. Maybe it's telling, maybe it's not. But here you go:

Returning % of tackles (and national rank)

2011: 61.5% (78th)
2013: 64.7% (66th)
2016: 69% (41st)
2019: 41.5% (122nd)

Oddly enough, the 2011 and 2013 defenses were pretty good all things considered, while the 2016 defense was hot garbage. Peter Sirmon, ladies and gents!

Returning yardage (and national rank)

2011: 95.7% (5th)
2013: 70.9% (61st)
2016: 39.5% (113th)
2019: 45.7% (103rd)

After botching things early on (and against Alabama, of course), Mullen did good work with our offense in 2016 under the circumstances. In 2011? Maybe not so much . . . .

It also just occurred to me that the 2019 returning yardage stats include KT's ~620 yards from last year. Lop those off and I'm guessing we're quite a few places lower there, too.