Started By
Message
0
Posted on 7/27/15 at 6:40 pm to jbrau22
quote:
aTm fans have more in common with LSU than any other fan base I've come across
I agree
Posted on 7/27/15 at 7:49 pm to jbrau22
quote:
aTm fans have more in common with LSU than any other fan base
Wish it wasn't so true
Posted on 7/27/15 at 8:20 pm to jbrau22
quote:
quote: I sincerely think that aTm fans have more in common with LSU than any other fan base I've come across
and it will lead to absolute hatred. Nothing riles up two self loathing fan bases like looking into a mirror.
Posted on 7/28/15 at 4:14 am to Jobu93
OP's list was hilarious. Major kudos (a half a year late).
If Steele goes full Steele, that's at least a couple of years away unfortunately. LSU has oodles of defensive talent that's received years of good coaching. They aren't going to forget all that or become less talented simply because Steele gave up one million to WVU and then had a mental breakdown in the locker room. The momentum will keep LSU's D elite for at least a couple of seasons (And honestly the position coaches + talent might keep it elite longer than that).
That said, Chavis is a fantastic coach who'll be great for us.
If Steele goes full Steele, that's at least a couple of years away unfortunately. LSU has oodles of defensive talent that's received years of good coaching. They aren't going to forget all that or become less talented simply because Steele gave up one million to WVU and then had a mental breakdown in the locker room. The momentum will keep LSU's D elite for at least a couple of seasons (And honestly the position coaches + talent might keep it elite longer than that).
That said, Chavis is a fantastic coach who'll be great for us.
Posted on 7/28/15 at 6:50 am to Jobu93
quote:
and it will lead to absolute hatred. Nothing riles up two self loathing fan bases like looking into a mirror.
You have no idea how long I have wanted LSU to have a true rival. Like we used to have with Ole Miss before they went full retard...never go full retard...
Once the sec record starts leveling out a bit more (which by the way when you guys do beat us for the first time I may have to leave the rant for a while bc I know that y'all are gonna have some fun with some of the idiot posters on here lol), I think this will be a game we both circle every year. I do wish we didn't play on Thanksgiving though
Posted on 7/28/15 at 8:11 am to jbrau22
TOP actually does mean game clock, by definition. You can argue that it doesn't necessarily perfectly reflect the actual real time that passes, because the clock stops for injuries, penalties, incompletions and such. But TOP does measure who has the ball when the game clock is running.
I understand that teams with great defenses tend to have good TOP. But Chavis hasn't been one of them. At LSU or at Tennessee.
In 2009, LSU was ranked #107 in time of possession. Chavis still had the #26 Total Defense, and the #11 Scoring Defense.
A year later in 2010, LSU was #57 in TOP, while Chavis had the #12 Total D, and the #11 Scoring D.
Even during the great defense in 2011, LSU was only #26 in TOP.
In 2012 LSU TOP #46. Total D/ScoringD #8/#12
In 2013, LSU TOP: #57, Total D/Scoring D: #15/#21
In 2014, LSU TOP: #9, Total D/Scoring D: #9/#5
LSU had elite TOP in just ONE season of Chavis' tenure.
Also, let's take a look at how Chavis did at Tennessee.
In 2008, the Vols had the #3 Total Defense, and the #10 Scoring Defense. What was their TOP ranking? #98
In 2007, their TOP ranking was even worse, at #103, but Chavis still finished 70/61 in Total/SCoring D.
2006 - TOP #105, Total D/Scoring D #50/#33
2005 - TOP #73, Total D/Scoring D #7/#16
And that's as far back as the NCAA website keeps the TOP stat.
His defensive rankings have ALWAYS outperformed his teams' TOP, often by huge margins. Point being, there is AMPLE evidence to suggest that Chavis isn't dependent on a ball control offense.
The numbers don't lie. The LSU offense, up until last year, just wasn't elite at running the clock. Maybe Fournette is the real deal, and LSU will continue to have equal or greater success. And maybe that will help out Steele. But Chavis has almost never had that kind of support from his offense. Not at Tennessee, and not at LSU. His defenses have always stood on their own.
I understand that teams with great defenses tend to have good TOP. But Chavis hasn't been one of them. At LSU or at Tennessee.
In 2009, LSU was ranked #107 in time of possession. Chavis still had the #26 Total Defense, and the #11 Scoring Defense.
A year later in 2010, LSU was #57 in TOP, while Chavis had the #12 Total D, and the #11 Scoring D.
Even during the great defense in 2011, LSU was only #26 in TOP.
In 2012 LSU TOP #46. Total D/ScoringD #8/#12
In 2013, LSU TOP: #57, Total D/Scoring D: #15/#21
In 2014, LSU TOP: #9, Total D/Scoring D: #9/#5
LSU had elite TOP in just ONE season of Chavis' tenure.
Also, let's take a look at how Chavis did at Tennessee.
In 2008, the Vols had the #3 Total Defense, and the #10 Scoring Defense. What was their TOP ranking? #98
In 2007, their TOP ranking was even worse, at #103, but Chavis still finished 70/61 in Total/SCoring D.
2006 - TOP #105, Total D/Scoring D #50/#33
2005 - TOP #73, Total D/Scoring D #7/#16
And that's as far back as the NCAA website keeps the TOP stat.
His defensive rankings have ALWAYS outperformed his teams' TOP, often by huge margins. Point being, there is AMPLE evidence to suggest that Chavis isn't dependent on a ball control offense.
The numbers don't lie. The LSU offense, up until last year, just wasn't elite at running the clock. Maybe Fournette is the real deal, and LSU will continue to have equal or greater success. And maybe that will help out Steele. But Chavis has almost never had that kind of support from his offense. Not at Tennessee, and not at LSU. His defenses have always stood on their own.
Posted on 7/28/15 at 10:51 am to Mirthomatic
You are right, I was trying to argue that it doesn't perfectly reflect the actual real time/game situation. I know that I wasn't very clear in that.
No stats tell the whole story...thats what I mean to say. Stats are what they are. If we went by stats, LSU certainly would have lost some games that they indeed won.
I don't think we are in total disagreement here...you actually seem to be making my argument for me and I for you it seems. What I said was that I could see Chavis fielding top 25 d's "according to stats" but not top 10s unless you change philosophies...and your evidence kind of proves this.
I haven't looked up the stats on aTm's TOP under sumlin but I am assuming its pretty up there correct? Like over 50 or 60? The only times Chavis fielded a top 10 defense under those TOP was at tenn in the weak arse east (minus florida at the time).
We are in agreement that Chavis is an excellent defensive coordinator who should do well at aTm just as he would most anywhere he would go. For some reason the sticking point between us is just how well "statistically" and like I said, that doesn't even matter.
So I think it is safe for me to say that Chavis will most likely not field a top ten "statistically" defense at aTm barring a change in philosophy offensively but can field a great defense. Depth is the key thing that aTm needs to continue to build for any defense to be successful with that style of O.
I dunno why this is important to you guys anyways bc we all know you really only would need a top 30 or even 50 d to have a shot to win it all. The only teams that will push you in my opinion is the teams with styles opposite of yours ie Bama, LSU, Arky etc.
This league is so different now. It has left behind all teams trying to do things the same way only better than anyone else to such a diverse field of philosophies. It is way more difficult than ever to go undefeated in this league due to this.
maybe we agree to disagree but if you go back and read what I said earlier, I think we are on the same page, just making different arguments about just how good.
No stats tell the whole story...thats what I mean to say. Stats are what they are. If we went by stats, LSU certainly would have lost some games that they indeed won.
I don't think we are in total disagreement here...you actually seem to be making my argument for me and I for you it seems. What I said was that I could see Chavis fielding top 25 d's "according to stats" but not top 10s unless you change philosophies...and your evidence kind of proves this.
I haven't looked up the stats on aTm's TOP under sumlin but I am assuming its pretty up there correct? Like over 50 or 60? The only times Chavis fielded a top 10 defense under those TOP was at tenn in the weak arse east (minus florida at the time).
We are in agreement that Chavis is an excellent defensive coordinator who should do well at aTm just as he would most anywhere he would go. For some reason the sticking point between us is just how well "statistically" and like I said, that doesn't even matter.
So I think it is safe for me to say that Chavis will most likely not field a top ten "statistically" defense at aTm barring a change in philosophy offensively but can field a great defense. Depth is the key thing that aTm needs to continue to build for any defense to be successful with that style of O.
I dunno why this is important to you guys anyways bc we all know you really only would need a top 30 or even 50 d to have a shot to win it all. The only teams that will push you in my opinion is the teams with styles opposite of yours ie Bama, LSU, Arky etc.
This league is so different now. It has left behind all teams trying to do things the same way only better than anyone else to such a diverse field of philosophies. It is way more difficult than ever to go undefeated in this league due to this.
maybe we agree to disagree but if you go back and read what I said earlier, I think we are on the same page, just making different arguments about just how good.Posted on 7/28/15 at 12:10 pm to jbrau22
I agree with you that it will be harder for Chavis to field truly statistically elite defenses given the nature of our offense. And I agree that we aren't that far apart in what we're saying. I think were we differ is not that Chavis will likely have success, just how much. And for that, time will tell.
On a separate note, I've appreciated your posts on this thread. Even when disagreeing, it's been a pleasure to discuss this with you.
On a separate note, I've appreciated your posts on this thread. Even when disagreeing, it's been a pleasure to discuss this with you.
Posted on 7/28/15 at 12:18 pm to Mirthomatic
agreed...its far easier to have rational football discussions here than it is on my teams baord 
Posted on 7/28/15 at 12:33 pm to jbrau22
A self-aware LSU fan on tRant, huh?
Pretty sure that is one of the signs talked about in Revelation. The end is nigh, friends.
Pretty sure that is one of the signs talked about in Revelation. The end is nigh, friends.
Posted on 7/28/15 at 12:35 pm to jbrau22
You've been a great addition to our board
Posted on 7/28/15 at 12:38 pm to jbrau22
not to interject an overly obvious point but it always seems to be missed in these conversations....
Good defenses are highly correlated with TOP not just because of the style of offense. A defense that forces a 3 and out means the other team isn't eating up clock. Sumlin's view is that TOP is a byproduct of good play (on both sides of the ball), not the reverse. Thus, TOP itself is a meaningless statistic to try to "win." My understanding is Chavis shares this view
Good defenses are highly correlated with TOP not just because of the style of offense. A defense that forces a 3 and out means the other team isn't eating up clock. Sumlin's view is that TOP is a byproduct of good play (on both sides of the ball), not the reverse. Thus, TOP itself is a meaningless statistic to try to "win." My understanding is Chavis shares this view
Posted on 7/28/15 at 12:49 pm to tmc94
quote:
Good defenses are highly correlated with TOP not just because of the style of offense. A defense that forces a 3 and out means the other team isn't eating up clock. Sumlin's view is that TOP is a byproduct of good play (on both sides of the ball), not the reverse. Thus, TOP itself is a meaningless statistic to try to "win." My understanding is Chavis shares this view
This post was edited on 7/28/15 at 12:53 pm
Posted on 7/28/15 at 1:57 pm to Roger Klarvin
Thanks Sarge. And Roger, it's just like aTm...we have some great fans IRL but the ones who get on the interwebz are retards for the most part lol...heck if i didn't come on here and really see what y'all are like and just read the secr then I would think y'all were nuts too
Posted on 7/28/15 at 1:59 pm to tmc94
and tmc I totally agree. there is a correlation (*sp) between the two. TOP is not exclusively an offensive stat. However, a team with an offense that controls the football AND a defense that is great would tend to lead to a higher TOP, no?
Posted on 7/28/15 at 2:00 pm to tmc94
*double post* 
This post was edited on 7/28/15 at 2:01 pm
Posted on 7/28/15 at 2:44 pm to jbrau22
agree 100% it would! My point is a bit different though. What I'm saying is who cares?
In 2012 A&M's most lopsided game was the complete annihilation of Auburn on the plains. A&M scored 42 points in the 1st half, a touchdown on every single possession until the final possession when we ran out the clock with a 42-7 halftime lead. A&M rushed 48 times for 352 yards in the game. A&M's TOP was 30:38 to Auburn 29:22. TOP was utterly meaningless.
My point is that TOP is an effect, not a cause. Winning causes your TOP to be better than normal thus creating the relationship. A&M's philosophy may lead to a baseline of 25 minutes TOP but when we win it averages 28 (making up numbers here). LSU's baseline may be 35 but winning yields 38. In both cases, when you win, you end up with a higher TOP than normal because you controlled the game. And thus simple memes are created showing the correlation between the two.
But if you focused on TOP, tried to win it by as large a margin as possible, you would use what you consider to be suboptimal strategy - running when a pass play is more effective; slowing your tempo when going fast might catch the defense off-guard; bleeding the clock allowing the opposing team rest. You likely would in fact win TOP by a larger amount but in so doing, you reduce your odds of actually winning the game.
TOP is an overly simplistic data point that lacks real meaning. In short, it's an absolute red herring
In 2012 A&M's most lopsided game was the complete annihilation of Auburn on the plains. A&M scored 42 points in the 1st half, a touchdown on every single possession until the final possession when we ran out the clock with a 42-7 halftime lead. A&M rushed 48 times for 352 yards in the game. A&M's TOP was 30:38 to Auburn 29:22. TOP was utterly meaningless.
My point is that TOP is an effect, not a cause. Winning causes your TOP to be better than normal thus creating the relationship. A&M's philosophy may lead to a baseline of 25 minutes TOP but when we win it averages 28 (making up numbers here). LSU's baseline may be 35 but winning yields 38. In both cases, when you win, you end up with a higher TOP than normal because you controlled the game. And thus simple memes are created showing the correlation between the two.
But if you focused on TOP, tried to win it by as large a margin as possible, you would use what you consider to be suboptimal strategy - running when a pass play is more effective; slowing your tempo when going fast might catch the defense off-guard; bleeding the clock allowing the opposing team rest. You likely would in fact win TOP by a larger amount but in so doing, you reduce your odds of actually winning the game.
TOP is an overly simplistic data point that lacks real meaning. In short, it's an absolute red herring
Posted on 7/28/15 at 3:02 pm to tmc94
TOP doesnt begin to correlate significantly with winning until you get up around 36-37 minutes. Teams that held the ball from 33 to 36 minutes in a game won 58% of the time last year in CFB. From 36-39 minutes, it jumps to over 70%.
So if you hold the ball for about two-thirds of the game, your odds of winning do go up quite a bit. Given that the average game is split roughly 32 to 28 though it usually has miminal impact.
So if you hold the ball for about two-thirds of the game, your odds of winning do go up quite a bit. Given that the average game is split roughly 32 to 28 though it usually has miminal impact.
Posted on 7/28/15 at 3:06 pm to tmc94
I didn't really get all the way back to the discussion, I don't suppose.
If Chavis fields a good defense, our TOP will be better. The more important point is we'll win more. It's quite likely they'll talk about a change in offensive philosophy or whatever as the cause, using stats showing we ran the ball more and had a higher TOP. But the truth is literally nothing could change about our offense but we'll have bigger leads and bleed the clock more frequently and those things happen on their own.
I also think a high powered offense can make defensive stats better. If we get up 21 points on an Arkansas or LSU, they have to change their basic philosophy and force them to do the things they aren't as good at. All the various pieces work together and it can often be difficult to ascertain cause.
If Chavis fields a good defense, our TOP will be better. The more important point is we'll win more. It's quite likely they'll talk about a change in offensive philosophy or whatever as the cause, using stats showing we ran the ball more and had a higher TOP. But the truth is literally nothing could change about our offense but we'll have bigger leads and bleed the clock more frequently and those things happen on their own.
I also think a high powered offense can make defensive stats better. If we get up 21 points on an Arkansas or LSU, they have to change their basic philosophy and force them to do the things they aren't as good at. All the various pieces work together and it can often be difficult to ascertain cause.
Page 4 of 5
Latest Texas A&M News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News