Started By
Message
re: Offensive or Defensive Coach?
Posted on 11/30/17 at 4:24 pm to troyt37
Posted on 11/30/17 at 4:24 pm to troyt37
quote:
That is irrelevant to the fact that if you don't have the best defense you can possibly put on the field, you aren't going to win as much as you possibly could. Facts.
I guess we have a different definition of facts. There are a lot more factors at play here and you are oversimplifying our situation. It's fine to say we need to have a great defense. That doesn't happen in a vacuum though. There are other facts that you're refusing to consider, like the fact that we play in a division where it's going to be impossible to field a superior defense to the other teams in the division on a consistent basis. We have never been able to recruit the defensive talent to have a better defense than teams like Alabama, Auburn, and LSU.
The point of hiring an offensive wizard has been explained a thousand times on this board. Trying to focus on defense is just trying to out-Bama Bama. We've tried that and it has failed. We have recent examples, empirical evidence, that shows offense is the way to win at Arkansas.
I feel like you and BoarEd are just going round and round at this point. Ten different people have explained this to you and it's still not getting though for some reason.
1
Posted on 11/30/17 at 4:25 pm to BoarEd
Both
End thread
End thread
Posted on 11/30/17 at 4:29 pm to troyt37
quote:
The other 12 years of championship coaches say hi right back.
I’m not the one making absurd absolute statements like this.
quote:
They want to prove once and for all that Bear Bryant, every other good college football coach, and the very history of college football are wrong
Posted on 11/30/17 at 4:55 pm to Stonehog
No, we don't have a different definition of facts. We have a difference of opinion, but the facts support me, and disprove you.
Obviously there are many other factors at play here, but for all intents and purposes, the better your defense is, the better your team is.
Obviously there are many other factors at play here, but for all intents and purposes, the better your defense is, the better your team is.
Posted on 11/30/17 at 5:10 pm to troyt37
quote:
Obviously there are many other factors at play here, but for all intents and purposes, the better your defense is, the better your team is.
No one has argued that. We're talking specifically about Arkansas...
Posted on 11/30/17 at 6:21 pm to Stonehog
quote:
No one has argued that. We're talking specifically about Arkansas...
But the fact that only 3 out of the last 17 national champions had a defense outside of the top 10 means that there isn't some magical alternative formula to ultimate success. You are either striving to put together a top 10 defense, or you are not serious about winning the SEC, and therefore a championship. It's just a fact.
It doesn't matter if you're Arkansas, Alabama, or Akron.
This post was edited on 11/30/17 at 6:24 pm
Posted on 11/30/17 at 6:28 pm to troyt37
We could have a top 10 defense and still have the 4th or 5th best defense in our division.
Posted on 11/30/17 at 6:43 pm to Stonehog
quote:
We could have a top 10 defense and still have the 4th or 5th best defense in our division.
We were #10 in 2014, second only to LSU in the SEC, I think. But our good luck dictates that we played something like 8 ranked teams that year. Crazy tough year.
Posted on 11/30/17 at 6:48 pm to troyt37
quote:
We were #10 in 2014, second only to LSU in the SEC, I think.
Top 10 defense and we went 6-6. I rest my case.
Posted on 11/30/17 at 6:55 pm to Stonehog
quote:
Top 10 defense and we went 6-6. I rest my case
I could do the work to prove to you that this is an outlier, an exception, rather than the rule, but facts don't seem to be important to your opinions anyway.
If I go back, say 5 years and give you the average win/loss record for the top 10 defenses, will you admit you're wrong?
Posted on 11/30/17 at 7:03 pm to troyt37
We're still just talking about Arkansas. You keep using other teams as examples to prove your point. Again, no one is arguing that having a good defense is a bad thing. 
Posted on 11/30/17 at 7:08 pm to BoarEd
quote:
Would it not behoove us to overload our talent on the defensive side of the ball to the best of our ability, and move to more of a quick strike offense, increasing talent incrementally over a period of years as your defense slowly gains more talented depth? This seems like the logical approach to me.
Arkansas has never been able to overload the defensive side of the ball with talented depth.
On average Arkansas has been able to assemble a top defense every 4-5 years, but never sustain it.
The next HC to recruit talented offensive players and convince them to switch to defense will be the first, every other HC has seen these players transfer out of the program before they were willing to switch sides.
Posted on 11/30/17 at 7:27 pm to Porcine Human
quote:
No point in trying to copy what Mercedes does if you don't have the resources for it.
Absolutely you try to 'copy' it if you dont have the resources, otherwise youd just buy the Mercedes. Arkansas isn't Alabama (sorry John L.), but we want to copy their success as best as possible with our given resources.
Posted on 11/30/17 at 7:41 pm to Stonehog
quote:
We're still just talking about Arkansas. You keep using other teams as examples to prove your point.
So no, you won't admit you're wrong. I did some of the work anyway.
The top 10 defenses in 2016, 2015, and 2014 average win/loss record was 9.56/3.7
quote:
You keep using other teams as examples to prove your point. Again, no one is arguing that having a good defense is a bad thing.
But the apparent prevailing philosophy among fans here is to have the best offense you can have, and do what you can on defense, when historical success in college football says have the best defense you can have, and do what you can on offense. The numbers don't lie.
Posted on 11/30/17 at 7:45 pm to troyt37
You still don't get our main point jesus
Posted on 11/30/17 at 7:49 pm to RazorBroncs
It's impossible for us to copy their method of success. A defense first philosophy here wouldn't work because we'd never recruit well enough - talent defenciencies on defense are far easier to exploit. If you have a bad corner the offense can pick on him all day long because they dictate where the ball goes. If you have a bad receiver, you'll just not throw to him as much, and/or scheme to get him open. The weakness won't be as evident.
This post was edited on 11/30/17 at 7:51 pm
Posted on 11/30/17 at 7:50 pm to troyt37
quote:
So no, you won't admit you're wrong.
Wrong about what exactly?
Posted on 11/30/17 at 7:50 pm to Porcine Human
quote:
You still don't get our main point jesus
Whatever that main point is, if it results in a philosophy that proposes the path to success is through the offense and not the defense, that main point is hogwash. It doesn't matter who you are, what your resources are, or how well you recruit. If your objective is to win more games, history and all the facts dictate an emphasis on defense.
Posted on 11/30/17 at 7:53 pm to Stonehog
quote:
Wrong about what exactly?
That a 6-6 record with a top 10 defense is the exception, rather than the rule. You rested your case on it, remember?
Posted on 11/30/17 at 7:54 pm to troyt37
I can't anymore. You're acting like playing in the SEC West is irrelevant to our situation. You're acting like our recruiting disadvantage compared to the teams in our division doesn't matter. You are disregarding all context.
Page 3 of 7
Latest Arkansas News
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News