Here is why you play everybody vs Auburn and LSU

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawgday166

You know ... when your modeling something most of the time there is a lot of uncertainty. That's why you have to use your brain. As I said earlier you may understand probability and statistics, but it's obvious you don't understand football.

ETA: just getting those results should have caused you to question your GRAs and ICs.

---

I didn’t question it because I came into this year with the belief that second in the west was wide open. Any of the 4 of us, aTm, auburn, or LSU could grab (some with a higher chance than others, but still). Add to that my thought seeing 6 gimmes... yea my data made sense to me.

To put it another way, even if we went 11-1 with a loss to Bama I don’t think it would have been right to call us a top 10 team. I feel the West isn’t that good. Another factor is that once you cross the -500 threshold in gambling on CFB, the favorite wins an obscenely higher amount. So while you may disagree with my values at 99% for certain games, I felt they were reasonable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tbonewannabe

Hell, I question 15% against Bama more than anything else in his probabilities. I would put it at 1% unless their entire team gets the screaming dookies.

---

Lol ... Yea the inputs do seem somewhat weighted towards a desired outcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawgday166

Lol ... Yea the inputs do seem somewhat weighted towards a desired outcome.

---

I was swayed by computer models. They gave us even more of a chance than I did preseason. 7 and I both discussed that being weird.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dantheman4248

I was swayed by computer models. They gave us even more of a chance than I did preseason. 7 and I both discussed that being weird.

---

What I have concluded is most doing the models like Moorhead. FPI loves him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coach007

Why are you making excuses? Why are we moving to 2014? Mullen was hired in 2009 and had major talent on that team and in year 1 SUCKED. Why could he not adapt? He finished once above the ranking of 4th in the SECW...6 of the years at 5th. He finished ranked 2 times. Mullen won 14 games in 2 years. In his first year, he did not beat a top 20 team.

Moorhead is already in a high level. His first season ended rank and you yourself stated he is recruiting well. Moorhead is at 11 wins in his second year. And he has beaten top 20 teams... In fact a top 10 team.


The fact is that his system is a more open one. It's a better offense.

---

Moorhead inherited a much better program than Mullen- that?s not even questionable

2014 was brought up because you said this offense was the best in school history when it?s nowhere close

You are straight trolling now. Well done

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coach34

Moorhead inherited a much better program than Mullen- that?s not even questionable

2014 was brought up because you said this offense was the best in school history when it?s nowhere close

You are straight trolling now. Well done

---

I question it. There was a ton of talent on that team. A LOT of NFL players.

I said the Offense, as in system. It's the last sentence.

This offense, as in system, is light years ahead of Mullen's- And within a year Moorhead was able to get 2 QBs in that can complete passes. That's one more than the former guy. At that rate we will have 18 in the same amount of years. IT will attract more WRs that can catch too. And all of it makes for a better run game. It's a deeper dimension than anything the former HC dreamed of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coach007

I question it. There was a ton of talent on that team. A LOT of NFL players.

I said the Offense, as in system. It's the last sentence.

This offense, as in system, is light years ahead of Mullen's- And within a year Moorhead was able to get 2 QBs in that can complete passes. That's one more than the former guy. At that rate we will have 18 in the same amount of years. IT will attract more WRs that can catch too. And all of it makes for a better run game. It's a deeper dimension than anything the former HC dreamed of.

---

Light years?? I would question that somewhat cause Mullen's type of offense has won 3 Natty's.

In final analysis tho football still comes back to blocking and tackling ... and running and catching. It doesn't matter what kind of offense you run if you don't block. Last year ... we didn't block or catch. That's on the O and Joe. We'll see how this year turns out cause we haven't played anyone real good yet.

My bigger concern with joe is not x and o, but running a program both on and off the field. I think he will get there though.

Sec West is brutal, hopefully Joe can balance this roster and we can get some team speed. Losing your QB has hurt this team's production some on offense. Yes Shrader will get better such as last week performance shows, but this offense is better than last years except for some many injuries this year in OL, even Hill got banged up, plus his back up running backs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coach34

Moorhead inherited a much better program than Mullen- that?s not even questionable

2014 was brought up because you said this offense was the best in school history when it?s nowhere close

You are straight trolling now. Well done

---

Neither was last year's offense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawgday166

Light years?? I would question that somewhat cause Mullen's type of offense has won 3 Natty's.

In final analysis tho football still comes back to blocking and tackling ... and running and catching. It doesn't matter what kind of offense you run if you don't block. Last year ... we didn't block or catch. That's on the O and Joe. We'll see how this year turns out cause we haven't played anyone real good yet.

---

Yeah 007 is looking on the bright side. I don't know if he is going so far that way because you have several people saying Joe is Croom level bad. The truth is, the verdict is still out. We don't truly know what we have in Joe yet. We know he can beat the shit out of bad teams and he is recruiting well. We know he has the ability to outcoach some guys (AU and A&M) but also look like a deer in the headlights (UK, UF, and LSU). We saw both of those with Mullen so I am not ready to just throw Joe to the wayside yet because we are just as likely to get a Morris or Pruitt as we are a Dabo Swinney.

We know that Joe was kind of stuck with Fitz as the starter but Fitz had an uphill battle being out until August. Fitz looked a lot better the back half of the season when he had been in the offense for a while. This year it is a little hard to judge the team because of the injury to Stevens causing a freshman to start (never a good thing in the SEC) along with all of the suspensions and along with all of the freshmen at DT. This is a line of scrimmage league and having that many freshmen on the Dline is a HUGE disadvantage. We had Chris Jones and Jeffrey Simmons who didn't start as freshmen and none of the guys out there now are that level.

We just need to get to a bowl game this year and continue to recruit. If nothing else, the cupboard will not be bare of talent. We should see what kind of team Joe really will put on the field next year unless we self impose the damn Death Penalty for someone getting a free pair of shoes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coach007

I question it. There was a ton of talent on that team. A LOT of NFL players.

I said the Offense, as in system. It's the last sentence.

This offense, as in system, is light years ahead of Mullen's- And within a year Moorhead was able to get 2 QBs in that can complete passes. That's one more than the former guy. At that rate we will have 18 in the same amount of years. IT will attract more WRs that can catch too. And all of it makes for a better run game. It's a deeper dimension than anything the former HC dreamed of.

---

10 future NFL players contributed on Defense in '09 and 4 on offense - including our all-time leading rusher. But, we had a QB who regressed under a new system and wasn't a fit for what the coach wanted to do on offense and that cost us a couple of games that were winnable (LSU, Houston). That offense was also sloppy and were #11 in the SEC in fumbles and INTs, and sputtered at times in games you thought we should have blown people out (MTSU, Vandy). Then, in 2010, we have a lot of those guys back, got a QB who fit the system, and after a slow start (1-2) rattled off a pretty good season.

A couple of points I'm trying to make - there are many similarities between the Croom/Mullen transition and the Mullen/Moorhead transition then I think many people should look at. A lot of that involves learning your team and talents, figuring out the league, and understanding your own strengths and weaknesses as a coach and staff. It can cost teams winnable games as they work their way thru it. Also - as time moves on we tend to remember a lot more of the "good" then the "bad" - and some of that comes out when people talk about '09. People remember us "competing" in games that we hadn't before, but forget other things. A case in point is Tyson Lee. While Lee was by no means an SEC QB - he was a 1st team JUCO All-American QB, who had been a relatively effective game manager in '08. In fact he had arguably been the most productive QB in the Croom Error (I know that doesn't say much), throwing for the most yards in a single season, had the second most TD passes, and the highest QB rating. Most people viewed him as one of the few bright spots of '08, a team leader, and someone who should adjust to the new offense. He then went from 7 TD/5 INT in '08 to 4 TD/14INT in '09. His yards and comp% were about the same, but obviously he was out of his element on offense and he suffered in making the throws needed. Not to mention the beating he took at 5'9" trying to run read-option plays and make the correct read and pitches.

I'm not saying that Dan inherited a better situation, or a better team or talent, just that transitions take time and aren't as cut and dry as people want to believe sometimes. People aren't certain Joe will work out, but at the same point in 2010 when we were 1-2 people weren't sure Dan was going to make it either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrunswickDawg

10 future NFL players contributed on Defense in '09 and 4 on offense - including our all-time leading rusher. But, we had a QB who regressed under a new system and wasn't a fit for what the coach wanted to do on offense and that cost us a couple of games that were winnable (LSU, Houston). That offense was also sloppy and were #11 in the SEC in fumbles and INTs, and sputtered at times in games you thought we should have blown people out (MTSU, Vandy). Then, in 2010, we have a lot of those guys back, got a QB who fit the system, and after a slow start (1-2) rattled off a pretty good season.

A couple of points I'm trying to make - there are many similarities between the Croom/Mullen transition and the Mullen/Moorhead transition then I think many people should look at. A lot of that involves learning your team and talents, figuring out the league, and understanding your own strengths and weaknesses as a coach and staff. It can cost teams winnable games as they work their way thru it. Also - as time moves on we tend to remember a lot more of the "good" then the "bad" - and some of that comes out when people talk about '09. People remember us "competing" in games that we hadn't before, but forget other things. A case in point is Tyson Lee. While Lee was by no means an SEC QB - he was a 1st team JUCO All-American QB, who had been a relatively effective game manager in '08. In fact he had arguably been the most productive QB in the Croom Error (I know that doesn't say much), throwing for the most yards in a single season, had the second most TD passes, and the highest QB rating. Most people viewed him as one of the few bright spots of '08, a team leader, and someone who should adjust to the new offense. He then went from 7 TD/5 INT in '08 to 4 TD/14INT in '09. His yards and comp% were about the same, but obviously he was out of his element on offense and he suffered in making the throws needed. Not to mention the beating he took at 5'9" trying to run read-option plays and make the correct read and pitches.

I'm not saying that Dan inherited a better situation, or a better team or talent, just that transitions take time and aren't as cut and dry as people want to believe sometimes. People aren't certain Joe will work out, but at the same point in 2010 when we were 1-2 people weren't sure Dan was going to make it either.

---

Don't start bringing facts into this. Don't you know Dan took over a team of 5 foot 110 lb white boys and turned them into a team competing with Bama. Joe took over the 1984 Chicago Bears and barely got to the Outback Bowl.

Joe's own words, "we want to elevate the program from good to great".... I didn't say it he did...........I'm giving him a chance to prove it, but I have my doubts after 17 games. Would love for him to prove me wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homedawg

Joe's own words, "we want to elevate the program from good to great".... I didn't say it he did...........I'm giving him a chance to prove it, but I have my doubts after 17 games. Would love for him to prove me wrong.

---

If Joe hadn't ran his mouth as much as he did when he got here, people would probably give him more slack. I think he either believed in the fact he could get Fitz to 60-65% passing or that Fitz was better than he was. Both of those assumptions were wrong whether it was a coaching issue, QB + WR issue, or some of both.

I will say with Tommy at QB, the offense looked a lot more consistent than it did last year. Shrader looked better against UK than he did against KSU. It could be just knowing he was the starter or just got some of the jitters out against KSU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coach007

Both are beatable.

Auburn:

- They are the most over rated team in history.
- QB is throwing 52%
- No real rushing threat
- have to protect the outside.



LSU:

- gave up 120 to 1 RB this weekend from Vandy. In total, they gave up 145 yards rushing. With Hill, Gibson (who was almost ready for todays game) and Stevens keeping them honest, we ca slow down or limit the LSU offense and touches.

- You would think that Our home stadium, crowd and our defense would be up to the task of getting some stops.


Those games get you in the poll and ranked high.

We should be able to beat Ark, Ole Miss, UT, TAMU and Abilene without them. Why not give ourselves a chance?

---

I needed a good laugh!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homedawg

I needed a good laugh!!!

---

Yikes, lol.

His anthology of posts are going age like a box of fine wine...