Started By
Message
re: First to make the playoffs: LSU or A&M
Posted on 1/16/15 at 2:05 pm to Spaceball 1
Posted on 1/16/15 at 2:05 pm to Spaceball 1
quote:
But what's more likely, Chavis improves our schemes and the ad improves?
This is where some of you Ags are really showing your ignorance. Chavis' scheme isn't some mastermind plan. It's as basic a scheme as there is. When you have NFL caliber players all over the two deep you get defenses like LSU had in 2011-2012. When you don't you get ones like 2009 and 2013.
Despite what you may think, aTm doesn't have the talent or the depth that LSU had even in the worst years under Chavis.
quote:
But what's more likely, Chavis improves our schemes and the ad improves? Or Harris/Jennings develop into solid QBs under Cameron. Both are certainly possible but the former is far more probable.
You mean the guy who's coaches up some of the best in the NFL? I'll give him another year before saying he can't develop LSU's.
Again though, your assuming LSU's QBs won't progress at all, while Chavis will magically make you defensive players better. Aren't all the position coaches the same as before? If so, why would you think any players will improve more than they would before Chavis? He coaches LBs, not DBs and DL. Player development is on the position coaches, not the DC.
This post was edited on 1/16/15 at 2:09 pm
1
Posted on 1/16/15 at 2:07 pm to hawgfaninc
Tigers, easy.
Posted on 1/16/15 at 2:08 pm to RB10
I have been trying to explain the same thing but they seem not to get it
Posted on 1/16/15 at 2:09 pm to hawgfaninc
It's starting to feel like the 1900's for Arkansas
Posted on 1/16/15 at 2:12 pm to Wicked Pissah
quote:
I have to believe there will be an entirely new playoff system before either of them sniff one.
That very well may be only three years away.
Oh and LSU.
This post was edited on 1/16/15 at 2:13 pm
Posted on 1/16/15 at 2:13 pm to hawgfaninc
Definitely the University of LSU
This post was edited on 1/16/15 at 2:14 pm
Posted on 1/16/15 at 2:17 pm to hawgfaninc
The one thing I learned in the 90's watching A&M's wrecking crew defense is that the phrase "defense wins championsips" is complete and utter bullshite.
To win, one must score. To score, one usually needs a productive offense (unless you are playing Florida
). One who has an offense that can score points is much more likely to win than one who does not.
I know. Ground-breaking analysis here but stay with me.
One can have the best defense in the world, and hold opponents to 0 for 4 quarters, but with no offensive production, the D will eventually fatigue in OT.
It follows that one is more likely to win with high-power offense and shitty defense than a stifling defense and shitty offense.
We peen tuckers know from experience. A team feturing the Wreckin' Crew with a Cory Pulig-led offense sucked arse. Did nothing.
Any team that can score frequently has much better odds that a team that can't.
Now imagine...a powerful offense AND defense? I know, right? That's pretty much the idea, isn't it? Ground breaking.
But, the real point I would like to make should be made using the Socratic Method. So, to that end, the real point of all of this will come from each of you. All you need to do is fill in the blank:
_____________®
To win, one must score. To score, one usually needs a productive offense (unless you are playing Florida
). One who has an offense that can score points is much more likely to win than one who does not. I know. Ground-breaking analysis here but stay with me.
One can have the best defense in the world, and hold opponents to 0 for 4 quarters, but with no offensive production, the D will eventually fatigue in OT.
It follows that one is more likely to win with high-power offense and shitty defense than a stifling defense and shitty offense.
We peen tuckers know from experience. A team feturing the Wreckin' Crew with a Cory Pulig-led offense sucked arse. Did nothing.
Any team that can score frequently has much better odds that a team that can't.
Now imagine...a powerful offense AND defense? I know, right? That's pretty much the idea, isn't it? Ground breaking.
But, the real point I would like to make should be made using the Socratic Method. So, to that end, the real point of all of this will come from each of you. All you need to do is fill in the blank:
_____________®
Posted on 1/16/15 at 2:20 pm to KaiserSoze99
Everything in your post under this:
is utterly retarded.
quote:
Posted by KaiserSoze99 on 1/16 at 2:17 pm to hawgfaninc
is utterly retarded.
This post was edited on 1/16/15 at 2:22 pm
Posted on 1/16/15 at 2:21 pm to RB10
You didn't fill in the blank.
Posted on 1/16/15 at 2:23 pm to northalabamacracker
quote:
AnM
Correct answer, maybe, who really knows?
Posted on 1/16/15 at 2:23 pm to KaiserSoze99
Read between the lines 
Posted on 1/16/15 at 2:41 pm to LSUNV
quote:
Posted by Draconian Sanctions on 1/16 at 2:03 pm to Spaceball 1 quote: But I'd still argue that we can expect more improvement from our defense than you will from your offense. Well that's about as homertastic as it gets. A&M will never have a great D with that offense and believe it or not Chavis is not a miracle worker. Sure they won't be *as* bad but expecting your defense to be what he did at LSU is delusional and shows that you don't really understand football. This post was edited on 1/16 at 2:04 pm Reply • Options • Back to Top • Refresh
I said in my first post I think an avg defense is good enough to get us in with our offense. I don't expect his results while at LSU but I do expect a top 50 D.
And Clemson had the number 1 Defense, so it's wrong to assume our offense dictates a bad D.
Posted on 1/16/15 at 2:47 pm to hawgfaninc
quote:
I want to say LSU since recent history shows they're an elite team
I stopped right here.
Great thread, OP.
Posted on 1/16/15 at 2:47 pm to hawgfaninc
an LSU thread? well this is odd
Posted on 1/16/15 at 2:53 pm to Spaceball 1
quote:
And Clemson had the number 1 Defense, so it's wrong to assume our offense dictates a bad D
Clemson was 34th in TOP (31:23)
aTm was 125th (26:14)
ETA: Clemson was also 54th in scoring and 61st in total offense. So, they weren't driving up and down the field, or scoring a bunch of points on quick strikes, yet they were possessing the ball for over 1/2 of the game. I think it's time to put the "Clemson is a HUNH offense" argument to rest.
This post was edited on 1/16/15 at 3:04 pm
Posted on 1/16/15 at 3:00 pm to Easternrio
quote:
Lsu is not in decline folks. The sooner yal realize this the easier it will be
8 wins. How many times has that happened to y'all in the past 15 years? Y'all are definitely in decline. The sooner y'all realize this the easier it'll be.
Posted on 1/16/15 at 3:01 pm to TeLeFaWx
Hi lil bro
Posted on 1/16/15 at 3:04 pm to hawgfaninc
Rhetorical question.
Posted on 1/16/15 at 3:05 pm to TeLeFaWx
quote:
8 wins. How many times has that happened to y'all in the past 15 years? Y'all are definitely in decline. The sooner y'all realize this the easier it'll be
Welcome to the #tdecline lounge Aggy. Take a seat in your regular booth. The VIP section is reserved for programs that actually accomplished something before sinking into obscurity.
This post was edited on 1/16/15 at 3:08 pm
Posted on 1/16/15 at 3:06 pm to hawgfaninc
quote:
First to make the playoffs: LSU or A&M
Page 3 of 6
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News