Started By
Message
2
Posted on 7/23/16 at 10:21 pm to djsdawg
quote:
Football schemes aren't as difficult to comprehend as you are making it seem, but you don't even understand what apples to oranges means.
Sure I do. I also understand that you're a crawfishing puss cake who cherry picks stats that matter to you in each argument.
It's weak shite and the little respect for your Chubb posts you earned is all but gone now. You should have just stuck to your guns rather than try this bullshite when Herschel vs. Bo gt brought up.
Posted on 7/23/16 at 10:44 pm to RB10
What you mistake for cherry picking is nothing but reasonable analysis you can't refute.
If you truly understood apples vs oranges and football schemes, you would be agreeing with my reasoning instead of calling it stupid.
Sadly, you don't understand the similarities between the Uga and Lsu offenses, but most do.
If you truly understood apples vs oranges and football schemes, you would be agreeing with my reasoning instead of calling it stupid.
Sadly, you don't understand the similarities between the Uga and Lsu offenses, but most do.
Posted on 7/23/16 at 10:52 pm to djsdawg
quote:
What you mistake for cherry picking is nothing but reasonable analysis you can't refute.
If you truly understood apples vs oranges and football schemes, you would be agreeing with my reasoning instead of calling it stupid.
Dude, saying YPC matters sometimes, but not others, is the fricking definition of cherry picking stats.
Posted on 7/23/16 at 10:59 pm to RB10
Context matters and determines cherry picking. What I have said doesn't fit your accusations.
Fact is, Some schemes yield higher ypc than others, kind of like some d schemes yield more sacks. How do you not understand that point?
Consider auburn 2013 and Georgia tech's triple option, and urban Meyer vs pro style. Tell me what these offenses have done for gaining yards per carry vs pro style. Are they good or bad for gaining more yards?
Fact is, Some schemes yield higher ypc than others, kind of like some d schemes yield more sacks. How do you not understand that point?
Consider auburn 2013 and Georgia tech's triple option, and urban Meyer vs pro style. Tell me what these offenses have done for gaining yards per carry vs pro style. Are they good or bad for gaining more yards?
This post was edited on 7/23/16 at 11:03 pm
Posted on 7/23/16 at 11:09 pm to djsdawg
Dude, you're the one claiming "schematic advantage" without a single shred of evidence to back it up. If you want the numbers, look them up yourself.
Posted on 7/23/16 at 11:16 pm to RB10
Evidence has been provided. I gave you 3 examples of offensive schemes that have increased yards per carry.
Why do they do it? They have more than one legit running option that must be accounted for. The less a D can focus on a primary rb, the more room that rb should have. It's simple math.
Why do they do it? They have more than one legit running option that must be accounted for. The less a D can focus on a primary rb, the more room that rb should have. It's simple math.
Posted on 7/23/16 at 11:21 pm to djsdawg
quote:
Evidence has been provided. I gave you 3 examples of offensive schemes that have increased yards per carry.
1. You cherry picked one year for Auburn under Gus while ignoring the other two where their team YPC was nothing special. Coincidence?
2. Urban Meyers' Ohio State teams haven't averaged better than 5.75 YPC yet. In addition, his 2008, 2009 and 2010 teams never averaged more the 6. LSU just averaged 6.1 in 2015.
Your "schematically advantage" is looking more and more like a "better running back" advantage with each post.
ETA: I get what you're trying, and I emphasize trying, to say. You think the threat of the running QB inflates the running back's numbers for those teams. Fact is, you're wrong.
Ezekiel Elliot is the only RB with an extremely high YPC who also had over 100 carries in the season. That has much more to do with him being a top 5 draft pick than Urban's scheme.
This post was edited on 7/23/16 at 11:31 pm
Posted on 7/24/16 at 12:24 am to RB10
quote:
You cherry picked one year for Auburn under Gus while ignoring the other two where their team YPC was nothing special. Coincidence?
Your cherry picking accusations haven't been true yet. Lets compare Auburn 2008-2015 instead:
Auburns avg ypc national rank in 2010, 2013, and 2014 = 6.0
Auburns avg ypc national rank in 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012, and 2015 = 59.4
The difference of 53.4 is no coincidence. A difference so drastic wouldnt happen without the schematic advantages of adding an extra runner into the mix.
Posted on 7/24/16 at 12:27 am to djsdawg
quote:
Auburns avg ypc national rank in 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012, and 2015 = 59.4
The difference of 53.4 is no coincidence. A difference so drastic wouldnt happen without the schematic advantages of adding an extra runner into the mix.
Gus was the HC or OC in three of these seasons......You're arguing against yourself at this point.
quote:
08-11: 32.75
12-15: 10.25
08-11: No Name Runnings Backs
12-15: NFL starters Carlos Hyde and Ezekiel Elliot
quote:
08-09: 3.5
10-11: 64.5
Both Urban Meyer, so I will ask again.....If the scheme is all that matters why is the same coach having such discrepancies?
This post was edited on 7/24/16 at 12:36 am
Posted on 7/24/16 at 12:29 am to RB10
quote:
Urban Meyers' Ohio State teams haven't averaged better than 5.75 YPC yet. In addition, his 2008, 2009 and 2010 teams never averaged more the 6.
Ohio State:
08-11: 32.75
12-15: 10.25
A difference of 22.50 is no coincidence as well.
UF:
08-09: 3.5
10-11: 64.5
10-15: 76.5
You know these differences of 61.0 and 73.0 aren't coincidences.
Posted on 7/24/16 at 12:37 am to djsdawg
See my above post. You keep listing good years and bad years under the same coach. I'm starting to wonder if you realize that proves your point to be wrong.
Posted on 7/24/16 at 12:43 am to RB10
quote:
Gus was the HC or OC in three of these seasons......You're arguing against yourself at this point.
The point is Auburn didnt have a legit extra runner in any of those 5 seasons listed, while the 2010, 13, and 14 teams did. Thats why the difference of 53.4 is not a coincidence.
Posted on 7/24/16 at 12:46 am to djsdawg
quote:
The point is Auburn didnt have a legit extra runner in any of those 5 seasons listed, while the 2010, 13, and 14 teams did. Thats why the difference of 53.4 is not a coincidence
Kiehl Frazier in 2011 was a dual threat QB. He just wasn't any good. Same for Jeremy Johnson.
So, should we circle back to my point that it's the players as much as the scheme, or?
This post was edited on 7/24/16 at 12:47 am
Posted on 7/24/16 at 12:49 am to RB10
quote:
You keep listing good years and bad years under the same coach. I'm starting to wonder if you realize that proves your point to be wrong.
I compared Ohio State under Urban vs Ohio State without Urban. Thats a fair comparison that only proves my point.
Same goes with a comparison of UF under Urban and Tebow vs UF without Urban and Tebow.
Posted on 7/24/16 at 12:52 am to RB10
quote:
Kiehl Frazier in 2011 was a dual threat QB. He just wasn't any good. Same for Jeremy Johnson.
Hence the word "legit". You should know what the Gus offense needs to run all over folks. The better runner the extra threat is, the more room the RB's have to gain yards. Cam and Nick had an obvious impact on the RB's. A lot like Tebow did at UF to be honest.
Posted on 7/24/16 at 12:55 am to djsdawg
quote:
I compared Ohio State under Urban vs Ohio State without Urban. Thats a fair comparison that only proves my point.
Not when you follow it up with:
quote:
Same goes with a comparison of UF under Urban and Tebow vs UF without Urban and Tebow.
So, Urban only needs a Heisman winning QB or a future NFL running back? Got it.
Again dude, if their schemes are so RB friendly, they would be so every year and not just the ones that they have talented players. This entire argument is stupid. You made a dumb statement about Bo only having a much better YPC than Herschel because of the scheme and have done the opposite of back it up. You've shown that these coaches' schemes aren't what made their RBs good, it was the RBs themselves and having great players around them.
You win most Chubb vs. Fournette arguments with stats, but you've lost this one using those same exact stats. Just give it up.
Posted on 7/24/16 at 12:57 am to RB10
quote:
So, should we circle back to my point that it's the players as much as the scheme, or?
So, Urban only needs a Heisman winning QB or a future NFL running back? Got it.
Again dude, if their schemes are so RB friendly, they would be so every year and not just the ones that they have talented players.
Yes, lets test that idea. Lets compare UF's Demps and Rainey with and without Tebow:
08/09: 7.36 ypc
10/11: 5.30 ypc
Thats not a coincidence.
This post was edited on 7/24/16 at 1:02 am
Posted on 7/24/16 at 12:59 am to Dawgsontop34
Missouri's defense didn't stop Arkansas from scoring 28. Truth is, Missouri's defense was only good against shitty Eastern Division teams.
Posted on 7/24/16 at 1:06 am to djsdawg
So they were good two years, with a heisman winner at QB, and bad one year without him......All under Urban......So it isn't only the scheme, but the talent as well.
Got it.
Got it.
This post was edited on 7/24/16 at 1:07 am
Page 3 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News