Started By
Message
re: Reality
Posted on 10/31/16 at 10:29 am to WG_Dawg
Posted on 10/31/16 at 10:29 am to WG_Dawg
quote:
He sucks hind quarters at tackle.
but isn't that the point? I realize we are limited at OT, but I think if the OL is as bad as many lead us to believe you would put Pyke in where he has NFL Starter talent. How much worse can someone else be if Pyke "sucks hind quarters" at tackle? It doesn't appear as if they are even considering anybody else.
So, essentially our whole OL sucks because the coaching staff is playing everybody out of position, instead of at least playing the C, and guards in their natural, normal positions. And, while playing out of position the suck at the position they are playing?
Think about it. Does this make sense?
2
Posted on 10/31/16 at 10:32 am to DawgsLife
quote:
So, essentially our whole OL sucks because the coaching staff is playing everybody out of position, instead of at least playing the C, and guards in their natural, normal positions. And, while playing out of position the suck at the position they are playing?
It sort of depends on the alternative. Pyke playing tackle with Gaillard at guard may very well be better than Baker at tackle and Pyke at guard, for example.
Posted on 10/31/16 at 10:43 am to Crowknowsbest
quote:
It sort of depends on the alternative. Pyke playing tackle with Gaillard at guard may very well be better than Baker at tackle and Pyke at guard, for example.
So they would suck worse?
I would at least have to try it in a game type situation. Crap, I realize the importance of the tackle position in the pass game, but we seem to run the ball up the middle an inordinate amount, so it seems we should have some of our strongest OL in the middle.
Nobody liked Theus last year, and said Houston was a waste, but losing them makes our OL much worse. Our current Olinemen did not get any better than they were last year. We have two guys that are capable of playing very well at guard and we take them and make them tackles....and...they can't play tackle worth a crap, but we keep them there because.....because....
Posted on 10/31/16 at 10:44 am to DawgsLife
When your roster has no sec tackles, you are automatically forced to play with guys who are out of position.
Posted on 10/31/16 at 10:50 am to djsdawg
quote:
When your roster has no sec tackles, you are automatically forced to play with guys who are out of position.
Fine. So play your best players you have at their best positions and then two other guys that suck at tackle. Instead we play everybody out of position, and even you admit they all suck. makes perfect sense.
Look. I was happy with the progress I saw Saturday. I saw improvement in several areas. The year is done. I feel like we will probably go something like 6-6. Don't you think it would be a good time to break out some of the bigger, younger OLinemen and get them some experience? Instead we keep trotting out the same crap show every single week. (These are y'alls words, not mine) If what you are doing sucks, then try something different, you know?
Posted on 10/31/16 at 10:52 am to RD Dawg
quote:
change the narrative but that's your MO and I who argued that we didn't play an easy schedule in '15?We obvoiusly did.BTW '16 will probably end up as easier. But so are you saying now that you didn't say this the "worse roster since the mid 90's" or this was the "worse roster of the 2000's"?
This schedule is gonna have to get much easier to get close to 55th toughest.
I know I said that about our schedule, but I can't confirm if I said that about our roster, but it's not far off from the truth either way.
Posted on 10/31/16 at 10:58 am to djsdawg
quote:
This schedule is gonna have to get much easier to get close to 55th toughest.
Auburn, GT and Kentucky seem to be better than they were last year. Kentucky actually looks legit at times. South Carolina looks improved.
Vanderbilt is worse, Ole Miss is MUCH worse than Alabama last year, Nicholls is awful, North Carolina is not as good as their record indicates and Missouri is much worse.
It will be interesting to see where the SOS shakes out at the end of the year. Kentucky should lose at least two more games.
Posted on 10/31/16 at 11:11 am to DawgsLife
quote:
So they would suck worse?
Sounds like it
Posted on 10/31/16 at 11:12 am to DawgsLife
Leave it to the services to make even SOS confusing. I see a ranking, (Sagarin) then I see where they take different attribute to figure in (Stuff like recent games get more weight) then a combination of three different methods...so you have to pick which method to use. It appears as if they give more weight to the overall method, since it is the one the site itself ranks the teams.
If this is the case....
Georgia shows a 55 this year, and a 61 last year.
If this is the case....
Georgia shows a 55 this year, and a 61 last year.
This post was edited on 10/31/16 at 11:14 am
Posted on 10/31/16 at 12:05 pm to DawgsLife
There are at least 4 different SOS sites that you can use and none use
the same formulas or outliers. Its not an exact science.
Sagrin is not the end all/be all for statistical rankings.
the same formulas or outliers. Its not an exact science.
Sagrin is not the end all/be all for statistical rankings.
Posted on 10/31/16 at 12:19 pm to djsdawg
Yeah. I saw that. but even with Sagarin, they have 5 different ways you can go. I guess anything to confuse an old fool like me!
Posted on 10/31/16 at 12:19 pm to RD Dawg
quote:
There are at least 4 different SOS sites that you can use and none use
the same formulas or outliers. Its not an exact science.
Yeah, even Sagarin had 5 different rankings for a year.
Posted on 10/31/16 at 12:31 pm to DawgsLife
Sagarin has one SOS going on each week. I can't think of another SOS site that can go back to 1998.
Page 5 of 5
Latest Georgia News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News