Started By
Message
re: Does Chavis need a ball control offense, with elite Time of Possession?
Posted on 7/8/15 at 9:14 pm to Nguyening
Posted on 7/8/15 at 9:14 pm to Nguyening
what he needs more than anything is lockdown corners, great to Elite MLB, and great DE pass rushers.
i would say of the 5 players he needs most to run his defense A&M has 1 of them.
i would say of the 5 players he needs most to run his defense A&M has 1 of them.
2
Posted on 7/8/15 at 9:15 pm to SammyTiger
Lots of overrated DCs getting hired last year and making fanbases have to change their pants.
Yet nothing will change.
Yet nothing will change.
Posted on 7/8/15 at 9:20 pm to Dlab2013
You sound very bitter
Posted on 7/8/15 at 10:51 pm to TheDrunkenTigah
quote:
but the real point I was trying to make is in a game as random as football you can't just draw conclusions from rankings and stats.
I would agree that stats don't represent the totality of information on performance. You learn a lot from watching a team, too. But you can't watch ALL games of ALL 120-odd teams. The only way you can compare performances across all of football is by stats.
If you're saying that Chavis isn't a sure thing, then I agree, because there are no sure things. But I think it's fair to say that Aggie fans are justified in being very optimistic.
Posted on 7/9/15 at 1:58 am to SammyTiger
quote:
i would say of the 5 players he needs most to run his defense A&M has 1 of them.
Lockdown Corners:
DeVante Harris has the potential with better coaching
Brandon Williams has the speed but is very raw
Nick Harvey has the potential with better coaching
Roney Elam has the potential but needs more size
Great to Elite MLB:
A.J. Hilliard is a great linebacker who, were he not injured in game 1 last year, would have changed the tone of the linebacking corps
Otaro Alaka has the potential with better coaching
Claude George has the potential
Dwayne Thomas definitely has the potential
Great DE Pass Rushers:
Myles Garrett - Check
Daeshon Hall - Potential now that he's in the right position
James Lockhart - Great, but not elite yet
This post was edited on 7/9/15 at 1:58 am
Posted on 7/9/15 at 8:36 am to Nguyening
Yes all defensive coordinators need this. I have yet to see a hurry up, spread em out defense worth a flip. Not because of the coach but because on defense you react, on offense you execute what you already know you're gonna do. It is much more exhausting playing defense. Look at these teams all over the country and show me one that has great defense
Baylor-no
Auburn-no
A&M- no
Lots of Big 12 twelve teams
Oregon
Clemson to a degree
Look at ball control offenses and where the D ranks
LSU
Stanford
Bama
FSU
Its not a Chavis thing, it a scheme thing that no coordinator is gonna have success with.
Baylor-no
Auburn-no
A&M- no
Lots of Big 12 twelve teams
Oregon
Clemson to a degree
Look at ball control offenses and where the D ranks
LSU
Stanford
Bama
FSU
Its not a Chavis thing, it a scheme thing that no coordinator is gonna have success with.
Posted on 7/9/15 at 8:55 am to Roses of Crimson
quote:
Look at these teams all over the country and show me one that has great defense
.
.
.
Clemson to a degree
Clemson finished #1 in Total Defense and #3 in Scoring Defense.
TCU in the pass-happy B12 finished #18 in Total D, and #8 in Scoring D.
It can be done. It HAS been done.
Posted on 7/9/15 at 8:56 am to Roses of Crimson
quote:
Yes all defensive coordinators need this. I have yet to see a hurry up, spread em out defense worth a flip. Not because of the coach but because on defense you react, on offense you execute what you already know you're gonna do. It is much more exhausting playing defense. Look at these teams all over the country and show me one that has great defense
Baylor-no
Auburn-no
A&M- no
Lots of Big 12 twelve teams
Oregon
Clemson to a degree
Look at ball control offenses and where the D ranks
LSU
Stanford
Bama
FSU
Its not a Chavis thing, it a scheme thing that no coordinator is gonna have success with.
This....
Posted on 7/9/15 at 8:58 am to Restomod
quote:
This....
"was debunked in the very next post," is how that sentence ends.
Posted on 7/9/15 at 9:02 am to Mirthomatic
quote:
"was debunked in the very next post," is how that sentence ends.
Yeah, not really
Posted on 7/9/15 at 9:07 am to Restomod
quote:
Yeah, not really
Lulz.
A: "X can't happen."
B: "Actually, here are two examples of X happening."
A: "The empirical evidence of X happening does nothing to refute my claim that X can't happen."
Posted on 7/9/15 at 9:21 am to Mirthomatic
quote:
"was debunked in the very next post," is how that sentence ends.
Posted on 7/9/15 at 9:31 am to TheDrunkenTigah
OK, I'm legit trying to understand the disconnect. The claim was made that you can't have a great defense with a spread happy offense, and Clemson was specifically identified as an example. Despite the fact that Clemson had the #1 Total D and #3 Scoring D.
And TCU, one of those B12 teams, who actually had Mike Leach disciples running their offense, had a top 10 scoring defense.
I'd be interested in knowing how that is not, at a minimum, an illustration that the "no spread teams have great defenses" claim is just a general rule that has some notable exceptions. And if A&M has a top 5 defensive coordinator, as you yourself admitted, I honestly don't know why the Aggies can't also be one of those exceptions.
And TCU, one of those B12 teams, who actually had Mike Leach disciples running their offense, had a top 10 scoring defense.
I'd be interested in knowing how that is not, at a minimum, an illustration that the "no spread teams have great defenses" claim is just a general rule that has some notable exceptions. And if A&M has a top 5 defensive coordinator, as you yourself admitted, I honestly don't know why the Aggies can't also be one of those exceptions.
Posted on 7/9/15 at 9:47 am to Mirthomatic
Clemson and TCU were 34th and 47th, respectively, in time of possession last year.
Aggies were 125th.
Aggies were 125th.
Posted on 7/9/15 at 9:54 am to Mirthomatic
quote:
OK, I'm legit trying to understand the disconnect.
The disconnect is you can't pick and choose when you want to use "empirical" evidence. I have already illustrated that the same empirical evidence can be used to support the exact opposite of what you're asserting.
Simply put, you're trying to cherry pick numbers that are confounded by dozens of variables. This is akin to using the transitive property to pick wins, it just flat-out doesn't apply to football. I readily admitted the numbers can be made to lie. You're trying to argue against an opinion with an opinion by disguising it as empirical fact, and even then you have to qualify it as an exception to the "rule." I don't know how else to explain it.
Posted on 7/9/15 at 10:11 am to TheDrunkenTigah
quote:
The disconnect is you can't pick and choose when you want to use "empirical" evidence. I have already illustrated that the same empirical evidence can be used to support the exact opposite of what you're asserting.
Simply put, you're trying to cherry pick numbers that are confounded by dozens of variables. This is akin to using the transitive property to pick wins, it just flat-out doesn't apply to football. I readily admitted the numbers can be made to lie. You're trying to argue against an opinion with an opinion by disguising it as empirical fact, and even then you have to qualify it as an exception to the "rule." I don't know how else to explain it.
Who is "cherry picking"? Not me. An example of cherry picking would be to say that A&M has more national championships than Alabama (if you exclude all the years in which Alabama won the national championship).
In this case, I merely identified the examples of teams which refute the claim. Here is what Roses of Crimson said:
quote:
Look at these teams all over the country and show me one that has great defense
I did exactly what he asked me to do. Check that. I did DOUBLE what he asked me to do.
If the claim had been "Defenses of spread teams generally aren't good or elite," then I would have no quarrel. But that wasn't the claim.
The defensive rankings of Clemson and TCU are not "opinions". The amount of yards and points the two defenses surrendered are empirical facts. And it is an empirical fact that Clemson surrendered fewer yards, per game, than any other defense.
Now you can say these empirically factual stats are IRRELEVANT to the discussion of quality of defense, but THAT ITSELF is an opinion. One which I do not share.
Posted on 7/9/15 at 10:33 am to Nguyening
Our 2013 defense was a complete joke. Some of those rankings are misleading
Posted on 7/9/15 at 11:07 am to Mirthomatic
quote:
The defensive rankings of Clemson and TCU are not "opinions". The amount of yards and points the two defenses surrendered are empirical facts. And it is an empirical fact that Clemson surrendered fewer yards, per game, than any other defense.
It's an empirical fact that both Clemson and TCU were superior to aTm in Rushing offense, 3rd down conversions, time of possession, Defensive 3rd down conversions, Total defense, and Scoring defense.
You'll need much more than a new DC to make up the deficiencies in all these areas. Clemson and TCU are successful because they realize you have to be balanced on offense to field a competitive defense. Sumlin will have to revamp the offense as well, which defeats the purpose of trying to point out HUNH spread teams that can field a great defense.
Posted on 7/9/15 at 11:14 am to chilge1
quote:
You'll need much more than a new DC to make up the deficiencies in all these areas. Clemson and TCU are successful because they realize you have to be balanced on offense to field a competitive defense. Sumlin will have to revamp the offense as well, which defeats the purpose of trying to point out HUNH spread teams that can field a great defense.
Sounds like youre saying Sumlin should have hired someone to beef up the run game, eh?
quote:
Utah offensive coordinator Dave Christensen has accepted an offer to join Texas A&M as its offensive line coach/run game coordinator, a source told FOX Sports on Thursday afternoon.
LINK
Posted on 7/9/15 at 11:52 am to chilge1
Plus this ...
is actually incorrect.
Last year A&M had the #82 rushing attack, at 149.9 yards per game. Clemson? The #88 rushing attack, at 146.5 ypg. And Clemson averaged a paltry 3.53 yards per rush, compared w/ A&M's 4.63 yards per rush.
quote:
It's an empirical fact that both Clemson and TCU were superior to aTm in Rushing offense
is actually incorrect.
Last year A&M had the #82 rushing attack, at 149.9 yards per game. Clemson? The #88 rushing attack, at 146.5 ypg. And Clemson averaged a paltry 3.53 yards per rush, compared w/ A&M's 4.63 yards per rush.
Page 8 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News