Started By
Message
0
Posted on 2/6/15 at 10:51 am to Mirthomatic
quote:
So now your argument is that all of Chavis's success is due to his assistants? Don't just HINT at an argument, you need to actually MAKE one.
There's no way you're actually this stupid. Then again, every post you've made in this thread proves otherwise.
You make claims that Chavis is the only reason LSU's defense was good. Yet, you ignore the fact that LSU fielded good defenses years prior to Chavis' arrival.
You make claims that LSU will see a significant falloff on D, yet ignore the fact that Chavis' ENTIRE STAFF is still in Baton Rouge. You really can't be dumb enough to believe that Chavis was the sole reason for LSU's defensive success, can you?
You claim Chavis gave LSU top 10
Defenses most of the time, when in reality, he only did this twice in 6 years.
I know facts aren't a high priority in your posting, but at least make an effort there little fella.
quote:
see now that you must have realized this, since you went back and edited your post
Now this is cute. Did you not notice the uppercase "ETA" in my post. Do you know what that means? I'm guessing not.
This post was edited on 2/6/15 at 10:54 am
Posted on 2/6/15 at 10:57 am to RB10
I don't think LSU defense suffers for a minute. They have a hell of a D-Staff. LSU has reloaded on both sides of the ball and will be tough on Defense in the years to come.
If LSU can solve the QB position they will be in the hunt for a title, that's how I see it.
If LSU can solve the QB position they will be in the hunt for a title, that's how I see it.
Posted on 2/6/15 at 10:57 am to GRTiger
quote:
Just for the sake of making sure you have all your facts, LSU finished inside the top 10 in defense 3 out of 6 years under Chavis. One of those, we finished in the bottom half of the West.
At the end of the day, Scoring Defense is what matters. Here are those rankings:
2014: 5
2013: 21
2012: 12
2011: 2
2010: 11
2009: 11
That averages out to 10.3 repeating, which is close enough to 10 for me.
And before anyone trots out LSU's "TOP" offense that protects the defense, here's the TOP rankings for those same years:
2014: 9th
2013: 57th
2012: 46th
2011: 26th
2010: 57th
2009: 107th
Chavis's defenses were great, and they were great on their own merits.
Posted on 2/6/15 at 11:04 am to Mirthomatic
quote:
That averages out to 10.3 repeating, which is close enough to 10 for me.
That's fine, but not in line with your original statement. Like I said, just giving you the facts.
And I am not one who is glad Chavis is gone. I think he was awesome, and will be some form of good with Aggy. But the only reason some LSU fans can say some of the things they've said regarding his departure is because he has enough games where defense played a large part in the loss on which they can focus.
Defense was terrible against MSU this year. Despite the poor offense, defense could have gotten a stop and win against Bama (2012 all over again), and Chavis just gave up against ND. That's 3 potential wins (11-2) that is easy to point at the D.
In 2013, the defense was actually more of a liability than the offense, as hard as that is to believe with LSU. And in 2012, the Bama game was the defense. So it's not unfounded that some are looking forward to a change.
Posted on 2/6/15 at 11:08 am to boddagetta
quote:
What a fricktarded post! Duke didn't leave. QB will be an upgrade. RB production will be the same. Dismukes is the biggest loss but the O - line as a whole should be better.
Hard to rely on Aubie's assessments of their team, fan consensus was 2014 Auburn was supposed to be their best team in a while.
Posted on 2/6/15 at 11:09 am to Mirthomatic
quote:
And before anyone trots out LSU's "TOP" offense that protects the defense, here's the TOP rankings for those same years:
aTm under Sumlin (3 years):
Average TOP Rank - 114th
Average TOP per game - < 27 minutes.
LSU in Chavis' tenure (6 years):
Average TOP rank - 50th
Average TOP per game - > 30 minutes.
So, saying TOP isn't going to be a factor is just dead wrong.
Posted on 2/6/15 at 11:14 am to RB10
quote:
You make claims that Chavis is the only reason LSU's defense was good. Yet, you ignore the fact that LSU fielded good defenses years prior to Chavis' arrival.
LSU's defenses were good w/ Pelini and Muschamp, sure. I don't think Steele is in their class, and I don't think he's in Chavis's class. If you think he is, that's fine, and time will tell. But your insistence that LSU can just carry on w/ your incumbent assistants and Steele is EXACTLY what I'm talking about when I say you're going to find out how good Chavis really was.
quote:
You claim Chavis gave LSU top 10
Defenses most of the time, when in reality, he only did this twice in 6 years.
I know facts aren't a high priority in your posting, but at least make an effort there little fella.
As stated in my previous post, Chavis's average scoring D rank was 10.3
Here were the Scoring D ranks for Kevin Steele's Clemson units:
2011: 81
2010: 13
2009: 25
But let's not count that abysmal thrashing by WVU against Steele. So instead of giving up 410 points in 14 games, let's say he just gave up 340 points in 13 games. That comes out to an average of 26.2 ppg, which would have been good enough for 61st in the country.
So his average Scoring D rank was 33.
Those enough facts for ya, "little fella"?
Posted on 2/6/15 at 11:18 am to Mirthomatic
quote:
Those enough facts for ya, "little fella
Once again you fail to acknowledge the fact that Steele not only will have more talent than he did at Clemson, but he has Chavis' entire staff, plus Orgeron, to work with.
I'm sure you believe that doesn't make a difference though. You seem to honestly believe Chavis was the only reason LSU's defense has been so good.
This post was edited on 2/6/15 at 11:20 am
Posted on 2/6/15 at 11:21 am to RB10
Posted on 2/6/15 at 11:25 am to GRTiger
I appreciate you wanting to deal w/ facts.
This is largely what I'm talking about. Could the defense have played better in 2014 and 2012 against Bama? Sure. But it also could have played much, much, much worse. I think you take your defense for granted, as if it's just always going to be good. That's not the case.
You focus on the stops the defense DIDN'T get, ignoring or downplaying all the stops they did. Holding Bama to 21 and 20 (OT) points is a big accomplishment.
quote:
Despite the poor offense, defense could have gotten a stop and win against Bama (2012 all over again),
.
.
.
In 2013, the defense was actually more of a liability than the offense, as hard as that is to believe with LSU. And in 2012, the Bama game was the defense. So it's not unfounded that some are looking forward to a change.
This is largely what I'm talking about. Could the defense have played better in 2014 and 2012 against Bama? Sure. But it also could have played much, much, much worse. I think you take your defense for granted, as if it's just always going to be good. That's not the case.
You focus on the stops the defense DIDN'T get, ignoring or downplaying all the stops they did. Holding Bama to 21 and 20 (OT) points is a big accomplishment.
Posted on 2/6/15 at 11:28 am to Mirthomatic
quote:
You focus on the stops the defense DIDN'T get, ignoring or downplaying all the stops they did.
No I'm not. The stops they did get is exactly what leads me to believe the stops they didn't get were possible and even expected in some cases. If all the good the defense did wasn't there, I wouldn't be harping on the ones they should have, but didn't, get.
And y'all would be a lot less excited about getting our coordinator.
Posted on 2/6/15 at 11:28 am to SummerOfGeorge
LSU – ?
Without significant improvement at QB, we're 8-4 or 7-5.
Without significant improvement at QB, we're 8-4 or 7-5.
Posted on 2/6/15 at 11:29 am to RB10
quote:
aTm under Sumlin (3 years):
Average TOP Rank - 114th
Average TOP per game - < 27 minutes.
LSU in Chavis' tenure (6 years):
Average TOP rank - 50th
Average TOP per game - > 30 minutes.
So, saying TOP isn't going to be a factor is just dead wrong.
You DO realize that you first have to demonstrate that TOP significantly affects the performance of Chavis's defense, right? You can't just note that TOP between Sumlin and Miles is different.
When LSU had the 107th ranked TOP, Chavis still had the 11th ranked Scoring D. Whether LSU's TOP was good, average, or terrible, Chavis still had excellent Scoring Defenses. There just isn't the causal link you want to see.
Posted on 2/6/15 at 11:32 am to DuncanIdaho
quote:It's pretty funny to see people say this.
Yeah but everybody has figured out Malzahn's offense now.
In 2009, it was only successful because nobody had seen it before. In 2010, it was only successful because of Cam Newton. In 2011, everyone had it figured out (HAHAHA). In 2013, it was only successful because Auburn got lucky. In 2014, well...what's their excuse for 2014? What will be their excuse for 2015?
Posted on 2/6/15 at 11:34 am to Mirthomatic
quote:
You DO realize that you first have to demonstrate that TOP significantly affects the performance of Chavis's defense, right? You can't just note that TOP between Sumlin and Miles is different
This is pretty much common knowledge. Just because you don't understand the correlation between TOP and quality defense, doesn't mean it's untrue.
There's a reason all experts point to TOP as one of the best ways an offense can help out a defense.
Posted on 2/6/15 at 11:36 am to Mr. McStinkington
quote:
Alabama - down
quote:
Auburn - up
quote:
Ole Miss - down
MSU - down
quote:
A&M - down
quote:
LSU - up
Arkansas - up
This post was edited on 2/6/15 at 11:37 am
Posted on 2/6/15 at 11:36 am to RB10
quote:
Once again you fail to acknowledge the fact that Steele not only will have more talent than he did at Clemson, but he has Chavis' entire staff, plus Orgeron, to work with.
I'm sure you believe that doesn't make a difference though. You seem to honestly believe Chavis was the only reason LSU's defense has been so good.
Steele will have more talent, but he's also facing much more talent. In the ACC, FSU had more talent than Clemson, but then there was a huge drop-off after that. The offensive firepower that Bama/Auburn/A&M alone is much greater than any trio of schools Steele faced in his old conference.
Look, I'm not saying LSU's defense is going to fall off a cliff. But a fall to merely a top 30 defense would cause a significant effect on the record.
Posted on 2/6/15 at 11:37 am to Mirthomatic
quote:
But a fall to merely a top 30 defense would cause a significant effect on the record.
There is literally no chance LSU's defense isn't in the top 10 nationally next season.
Posted on 2/6/15 at 11:38 am to BayouBengals03
quote:
There is literally no chance LSU's defense isn't in the top 10 nationally next season.
I wish I cared enough to bookmark this
Page 5 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News