Started By
Message
re: Most overrated football coach in the SEC
Posted on 4/23/24 at 10:28 am to 3down10
Posted on 4/23/24 at 10:28 am to 3down10
quote:
Tons of talent leaves every year, that's college football. The transfer portal works both ways.
If you aren't using all your scholarships, that's just Brian Kelly being a bad coach. You grab some 3 stars who are "projects" if nothing else.
We had 39 players on scholarship when he got here, no that's not a typical "tons of talent leaving", thats absurd huge outlier amount leaving. The fact we even were able to get to like 70-72 scholarship players in year 1 was a miracle. He did hit the portal extremely hard, but you arent going to convince 4 people at the same position who are all good to come in at the same time, which is what we really needed in some cases. Thats just not how the portal really works. Sure he could have taken 30 players and gotten close to the scholarship limit, but a lot of those would have been pure fluff and useless to get. We also had a very small freshman class coming in which wasnt his fault either.
This post was edited on 4/23/24 at 10:33 am
3
Posted on 4/23/24 at 10:33 am to thunderbird1100
quote:
Using end of season rankings, which again nobody ever uses when citing Kelly's record against Top 25 teams or Top 10 teams.
Always moving the goalposts. Just saying.
I always use end of season rankings because I'm not going to sit around and pretend beating a 6-7 team is beating a "ranked team" or that a team that finished the season 9-4 and unranked was a "top 10 win".
Maybe you should point out to the people doing those other stats that their stats are kind of bullshite because they aren't using end of season rankings, rather than trying to dismiss me for doing it right.
Most people just use them because it's easier that way. Takes time looking up end of season games, but if you are going to cite just a few games why wouldn't you?
Notre Dames schedules of the 2000's were brutal. Notre Dames schedules of the 2010 were in fact rather easy. They aren't in a conference so they played teams like USC and Michigan every year. And they were good in the 2000's. And they still put in good OOC(meaning not their normal teams) games against top10 opponents every year. Even Stanford was good for awhile under Harbaugh.
By the 2010's, Michigan was not good, USC is and has been in the dumps, etc. They still had somewhat decent "OOC" opponent, but that was about it. And eventually they did the ACC thing but that basically just means playing Clemson every now and then.
Much easier schedules.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 10:35 am to thunderbird1100
Couldn't have a full 85 anyway, they had scholarship limitations due to some NCAA violations. Believe it was 8 but can't remember.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 10:36 am to thunderbird1100
quote:
We had 39 players on scholarship when he got here
About what Tennessee had available Josh’s 1st year. It started around 54 and saw season attrition.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 10:37 am to Smokeyone
quote:
About what Tennessee had available Josh’s 1st year. It started around 54 and saw season attrition.
Link?
Posted on 4/23/24 at 10:38 am to thunderbird1100
quote:
We had 39 players on scholarship when he got here, no that's not a typical "tons of talent leaving", thats absurd huge outlier amount leaving. The fact we even were able to get to like 70-72 scholarship players in year 1 was a miracle. He did hit the portal extremely hard, but you arent going to convince 4 people at the same position who are all good to come in at the same time, which is what we really needed in some cases. Thats just not how the portal really works. Sure he could have taken 30 players and gotten close to the scholarship limit, but a lot of those would have been pure fluff and useless to get. We also had a very small freshman class coming in which wasnt his fault either.
You were not down to 39.
You are talking about the number of people who were available for a bowl game and that number was just how many were available for the game, not how many LSU had on scholarships. The reason was for a variety of issues from injuries, covid, academic, opt outs and transfers.
I don't know how many LSU went down to, but I do know it was not 39.
Dropping down to 60 every year is the default technically. However nobody ever counts it like that because they go ahead and count the next years recruits/transfers. Yet for some reason you aren't.
This post was edited on 4/23/24 at 10:40 am
Posted on 4/23/24 at 10:46 am to SidewalkTiger
quote:
Which service is this?
The one you keep citing, On3.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 10:50 am to 3down10
quote:
You were not down to 39.
We were at like 70 true (non walk on awarded) scholarship players for 2022 after adding 30 from high school/portal. The high school class was only 15 guys and 1 of those was a kicker.
There were very few players he was able to convince to stay here who didnt go to the bowl game (or injuries), its not like it was a dozen or two, it was a few who were in the bucket you speak of. The roster was in complete shambles and it is nothing close to normal turnover. It was an absurd amount of turnover.
You obviously werent following very closely like many LSU fans back then but the roster was truly in complete shambles going into (the year) 2022, with very little help from high school coming because a ton of those commits we did get jumped ship during the season which was sucking and left Kely with like just over a dozen commits by the time he was hired just weeks before signing day. He added Harold Perkins to that class which was a coup to even get a guy like that that late in the process (3nd signing day).
This post was edited on 4/23/24 at 10:57 am
Posted on 4/23/24 at 10:52 am to 3down10
quote:
You were not down to 39.
You are talking about the number of people who were available for a bowl game and that number was just how many were available for the game, not how many LSU had on scholarships. The reason was for a variety of issues from injuries, covid, academic, opt outs and transfers.
I don't know how many LSU went down to, but I do know it was not 39.
It was 42.
Boutte, Bech, Maason Smith, and John Emery were injured and returned the next season.
Bech was scratched right before the game so it was actually 38 available for the bowl game.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 10:56 am to Smokeyone
quote:
About what Tennessee had available Josh’s 1st year. It started around 54 and saw season attrition.
Scholarship numbers aren't as meaningful as they use to be really. Not since the transfer portal.
Back in the day it hurt a lot because you would have to develop your players over years. So if you lose scholarships/players, that's going to set you back a good bit in the future because you won't have as many developed players for those classes.
Now it's hardly a punishment or big deal because you can just get already developed players from the transfer portal. The main thing you are missing then is some depth.
It still sucks, but it's not the punishment it use to be. Sanctions use to be a bitch, now it seems to barely affect most teams.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 10:57 am to SidewalkTiger
quote:
It was 42.
Boutte, Bech, Maason Smith, and John Emery were injured and returned the next season.
Bech was scratched right before the game so it was actually 38 available for the bowl game.
Dropping down to 60 every year is the default technically. However nobody ever counts it like that because they go ahead and count the next years recruits/transfers. Yet for some reason you aren't.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 11:02 am to 3down10
quote:
Scholarship numbers aren't as meaningful as they use to be really. Not since the transfer portal.
Back in the day it hurt a lot because you would have to develop your players over years. So if you lose scholarships/players, that's going to set you back a good bit in the future because you won't have as many developed players for those classes.
Now it's hardly a punishment or big deal because you can just get already developed players from the transfer portal. The main thing you are missing then is some depth.
It still sucks, but it's not the punishment it use to be. Sanctions use to be a bitch, now it seems to barely affect most teams.
It definitely is easier these days but theres also more to fill these days than ever before as a result of the portal. As they say, the portal may giveth, but it also taketh away. You didnt really have to concern yourself with say 35-40 players leaving all at once before the transfer portal, now you do have to worry about that potentially happening.
But fact is, if a team has 70 scholarship players, they are on a different playing field than one that has the 85. Sure the starters could get lined up relatively closely, but the depth is going to be drastically different at some positions for sure and injuries will kill the team with 70 players way more than the team with 85.
Like I said, even with the portal, it's taken us 3 years now to get back to the full 85 because thats just how low the roster got and to properly build a roster back up you dont Deion Sanders 50 guys in with 3/4's of them being crap players.
This post was edited on 4/23/24 at 11:04 am
Posted on 4/23/24 at 11:03 am to 3down10
quote:
Dropping down to 60 every year is the default technically. However nobody ever counts it like that because they go ahead and count the next years recruits/transfers. Yet for some reason you aren't.
Are you failing to realize the difference between 40 and 60 here or does that need to be pointed out to you again? There is a massive difference between dropping down to 60 vs. 40. There's a ton more holes to fill, and what you're also not recognizing is the freshman class coming for us when we were at the 40 was extremely small, so there was very little "coming in" when Kelly got hired. Again just poor timing all around as he wasnt going to add like 10 more players to a recruiting class very late in the cycle with most being high quality.
This post was edited on 4/23/24 at 11:07 am
Posted on 4/23/24 at 11:04 am to 3down10
quote:
Dropping down to 60 every year is the default technically. However nobody ever counts it like that because they go ahead and count the next years recruits/transfers. Yet for some reason you aren't.
The reason is because we're discussing how many scholarship players were actually on the team once Kelly took over.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 11:27 am to SidewalkTiger
quote:
The reason is because we're discussing how many scholarship players were actually on the team once Kelly took over.
Ok, so special rules for counting the number of scholarship players a team has because Brian Kelly took over a team.
Nobody is going to be dumb enough to sit around and pretend like DeBoer took over a roster of less than 60 and had to build it back up.
Because it's bullshite.
I don't doubt LSU was down scholarships, but you guys exaggerate this shite more than you do the size of your penis.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 11:31 am to thunderbird1100
quote:
Are you failing to realize the difference between 40 and 60 here or does that need to be pointed out to you again? There is a massive difference between dropping down to 60 vs. 40. There's a ton more holes to fill, and what you're also not recognizing is the freshman class coming for us when we were at the 40 was extremely small, so there was very little "coming in" when Kelly got hired. Again just poor timing all around as he wasnt going to add like 10 more players to a recruiting class very late in the cycle with most being high quality.
It's not 40 and 60. You never hear anyone say "Well we are down to 60 scholarships" at the end of the year, because it's stupid to think of your scholarships numbers in that way. You always add in your future recruits/transfers. When you say 40, people are thinking 40 out of 85, not 40 of out 60.
Did you once here anyone say "DeBoer took over with less than 60 recruits and had to rebuild Alabama"? Hell no, because it's dumb. You count the recruits and transfers.
Why do you need to exaggerate the numbers? The real number for LSU was in the 70s. So why don't you explain the difference between 40 and 70 to me.
This post was edited on 4/23/24 at 11:44 am
Posted on 4/23/24 at 12:02 pm to 3down10
quote:
It's not 40 and 60. You never hear anyone say "Well we are down to 60 scholarships" at the end of the year, because it's stupid to think of your scholarships numbers in that way. You always add in your future recruits/transfers. When you say 40, people are thinking 40 out of 85, not 40 of out 60.
Did you once here anyone say "DeBoer took over with less than 60 recruits and had to rebuild Alabama"? Hell no, because it's dumb. You count the recruits and transfers.
Like you said, typical turnover puts you around 60.
LSU was closer to 40.
That's 20 more true freshman or transfers you're relying on than the typical team.
20 more players that are new to your program.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 12:02 pm to 3down10
quote:
It's not 40 and 60. You never hear anyone say "Well we are down to 60 scholarships" at the end of the year, because it's stupid to think of your scholarships numbers in that way. You always add in your future recruits/transfers. When you say 40, people are thinking 40 out of 85, not 40 of out 60.
Did you once here anyone say "DeBoer took over with less than 60 recruits and had to rebuild Alabama"? Hell no, because it's dumb. You count the recruits and transfers.
Like you said, typical turnover puts you around 60.
LSU was closer to 40.
That's 20 more true freshman or transfers you're relying on than the typical team.
20 more players that are new to your program.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 12:02 pm to 3down10
quote:
Why do you need to exaggerate the numbers? The real number for LSU was in the 70s. So why don't you explain the difference between 40 and 70 to me.
Good lord you are full of useless word vomit.
The entire point here is we had way low number of scholarship players outside of normal (As much as you want to make it seem like it was not that far from normal), it was nowhere close to normal the turnover we experienced.
To get to 70 scholarship players by the time 2022 season rolled around we added 30 through high school/portal (15 each) and the high school class is not Kelly's fault at all because it was essentially almost over by the time he took over things, so its not he could have added 10 guys to the recruiting class in the late cycle.
You seem to want to blame Kelly for somehow not getting a full complement of players for the 22 season but nobody was getting a full complement of players for us that season unless they just filled the roster full of crap from the portal or some 2/3 stars leftover from high school. Again, when you experience massive turnover, like Deion created at Colorado last offseason, the worst thing you can do is add a bunch of crap from the portal to get near the 85 and expect good things to happen. They went 4-8 after adding like 50 from the portal.
It's a lot easier to hand pick the 5-10 guys from the portal you really want vs. taking 30 from the portal you "need" just to have a functioning team.
This post was edited on 4/23/24 at 12:06 pm
Posted on 4/23/24 at 1:08 pm to SidewalkTiger
quote:
Like you said, typical turnover puts you around 60.
LSU was closer to 40.
That's 20 more true freshman or transfers you're relying on than the typical team.
20 more players that are new to your program.
But nobody frames it that way ever. Nobody says their team drops down to 60 scholarship players in order to make room for the 25 new recruits(avg obviously).
Kelly was hired at the end of November specifically so he could finish out the class and get transfers etc. He was coach before all those transfers. He finished the class, the players that got you to the 70s were part of that class.
But instead, it's just "he was handed this amount of scholarships 2 months after he was hired and we aren't going to count the class for the year"
What the actual frick are you guys talking about right now? Is this how desperate you are to come up with favorable things to say about your coach?
This post was edited on 4/23/24 at 1:09 pm
Page 10 of 12
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News