Recent Comments
I like the optimism, but I don't see us having a top 35 offense. I'd be happy with 50-60 after the last few years.
I'd also like to see that specifically against Liberty, BC, Pitt, Syracuse, UNC, LOLUVa, UT, ND, Duke, and Clemson, in no particular order.
But I always get my hopes up...
After looking at last 3 years of national ppg stats, 10 is pushing it, I admit. Obviously you cannot make a direct comparison, but if our O stays healthy and executes, with the talent that is there, I see no reason why we cannot be a top 35 offense.
First year in system sounds like an excuse.
Yes, Memphis was in 4th year, and had a 3 year starter, but I think the transition will be easier than most considering Loeffler's system, that apparently the verbiage is much simplified, and that we have a lot of experience on O.
Also, obviously you cannot make direct comparison. While they faced lesser competition, we probably have more overall talent on O aside from Lynch.
can you explain this more?
The problem with points/drive is that it relies on your defense to get you the football. Points/play more or less takes your defense out of the equation and isolates the offense as much as the offense can be isolated.
My thinking was after an opponents drive, you almost always get the ball back either by a defensive stop or they score (almost because of the occasional on sides kick). In your average game, both teams have the same number of drives (+/- 1, depending on how the clock falls). If you opponents average fewer points per drive, you are probably going to win. Points per play can have a lot of variation with the same result. Team A gets to the line quickly, looks to the sideline and calls a new play, taking the entire play clock, but they are efficient. They score in 10 plays taking ~6 minutes of game time to do so. Team B runs a true hurry up and has a sustained drive getting just enough yardage per play. They take ~6 minutes of game time to score, but run twice as many plays. That scenario results in a tied score, but your points/play is vastly different. However, your points per drive is the same. I guess my original point was that plays per game doesn't have to correlate with who wins. I think points/play is better, but I can think of too many theoretical situations where it is not reflective of which team will win the game. If you're going to pick a stat that will most likely jive with winning games, points per drive comparison between you and your opponent seems like a good pick.
Thanks, this is definitely the beginning which jump starts me into targeting reds on my own. I will hopefully be going down to Beaufort for Thanksgiving Break and will be putting into action what I learned on some hot puppy drum and speckled trout fishing. Next summer, I'm determined to catch my first cobia. So I will definitely try to make some trips down to my buddy's place in Deltaville, since it seems like the Bay holds Cobia for most of the summer. If you need someone to throw some 4" Chartreuse Gulp Swimming Mullet with you, just let me know :) Best of luck to you and hopefully the bite picks up for you!
in that 60 minute sample size, it's only the points that matter in the end.
Outcome and process aren't the same thing. Yards correlate strongly to points. If you're able to move the ball on average you'll put up points, though you may have a game where things go haywire in the red zone. The best way to overcome red zone problems is to get into the red zone over and over.
Someone brought up a GT style of play vs a Clemson style of play and a reason to prioritize points per drive instead of points per play and I can see that, because all the arguments for PPP also applies to PPD.
Clemson 2015-16: .462 points/play (27th)
Clemson 2014-15: .356 points/play (79th)
GT 2014-15: 9th in points/play
When GT is good they rate highly at points/play because their offense puts up numbers and grinds opposing defenses to dust. Last year GT was a dumpster fire. The problem with points/drive is that it relies on your defense to get you the football. Points/play more or less takes your defense out of the equation and isolates the offense as much as the offense can be isolated.
Would one offense be considered better because they got off 75 plays? Would one defense be considered worse because they allowed 75 plays, but no points?
It depends on what those teams did with all those plays. Which is why yards is important.
I think in the return game Newsome and Greene will turn some heads and McClease should help out there as well.
I'm '14. Our first full music privilege (where we could use speakers vice headphones) was for St. Patrick's Day. We were allowed to listen to Irish music for the full week before going to Savannah. One of the juniors tried to chew me out for listening to Van Morrison, U2, The Cranberries, and Donovan, totally unaware that any of those musicians were from Ireland.
If I can have one wish this season, it would be for fewer games where it's under two minutes to go and we're not up by at least two scores.
Specifically against GT, ECU, and Miami.
I used to agree, but after seeing people shit all over the ACC the last few years despite FSU winning the National Championship, being in the playoffs 2 years ago, and then Clemson coming as close to the crystal ball as they did last year, I'm of the complete opposite opinion now.
It doesn't matter what the ACC does, we could roll off 4 straight National Championships, it doesn't fucking matter. The agenda will be that it just proves how top heavy the ACC is and how weak everyone else in the conference is that we're able to have teams do this well and they wouldn't have a prayer in a conference like the SEC where they routinely beat each other up and blah blah blah pfffffffffffffffffft.
it doesn't matter how we do. people will find an excuse to shit all over us, just as they'll find an excuse to prop the SEC up. We'll never get respect as a conference in football. it is just the way it is
I'm team 9000
I'm sure he had them mass produced...in a large batch...like, around 1000 or so
That myth is debunked every bowl season where the SEC doesn't dominate everyone
http://mcubed.net/ncaaf/bowls/conf1.shtml
Hmm... you sure about that? They haven't had a losing bowl record since 2002. In that time the ACC had a losing record 8 times, BIG10 9 times, Big12 6 times and PAC12 twice.
In OOC since 2000 the SEC is 25-13 vs PAC12, 36-23 vs Big12, 38-25 vs Big10 and 79-53 vs ACC. You gotta have your head up your ass to not see they are top to bottom the best in college football.
okay for starters, our avg ppg is inflated by blowout wins over craptastic teams
second, VT's offense played a tougher defensive schedule than Memphis' offense so you can't make a direct correlation.
Third, Memphis was in their 4th year in the same system and they had a 3 year starter who was picked in the first round of the NFL draft as their QB.
to expect VT's offense to make a 6-10 ppg improvement based solely on skewed stats from last year from two very different teams who played two very different schedules just doesn't make any sense. Don't get your hopes up.
This offense isn't likely to look like the 31st* ranked offense Memphis had.
*2015 fei ratings for offense
I think it's pretty obvious we're going to disagree no matter what, but my whole point is that the owners already agreed to contract guidelines through the bargaining agreement. There is a current market value that includes things like how a signing bonus is structured and what offset language is used. When owners strong-arm negotiations like this, they know that the player usually can't afford to hold out to do what's best for themselves and future players. They have intense pressure to be a "team player" from the fans/media and also need to get into camp for their own development. Teams know this, and slowly push down market value through numerous concessions over the years so that contracts go further and further into their favor. It's an abuse of power that happens to be technically legal. You can say all you want that they have every right to do it, and you're not wrong, but we should at least call it what it is. It's greedy and short sighted and done at the expense of the players who have a very small window of time where they can earn money to provide for themselves and their family.
I don't think Bosa and his agent are martyrs, and they're ultimately acting in their own self-interest, but that doesn't make them wrong.
Except it's not because they have measurably more talent and everyone just blocks out when they abuse teams from other conferences and scream selective stats when they have a bad bowl season. If you think playing NC state/BC/Pitt/Virginia/Syracuse/Duke is comparable to the talent of a Texas A&M or Georgia or Florida or Tennessee is comparable you're out of your damn mind.
I forgot that one - Leg.
I'm not saying that the ACC is comparable to the SEC
but the SEC is definitely top heavy (Bama is legitimately the best team in the country..no denying that..pretty much everyone and their brother will agree)
but there are also teams that are beatable and then the bottom feeders
Is the SEC better than the ACC top to bottom. From a purely talent perspective, yeah, probably. Overall, if the teams met on the field, I think it's much closer than the talent gap would suggest. Is Alabama the best team in the country? Yes, certainly. But if LSU, Florida, Auburn, Ole Miss, Georgia, Tennessee, Arkansas played UNC, Pitt, Louisville, VT, Miami, FSU, Clemson I bet the ACC wins half of those games. The SEC's pack might be half a step up from the ACC's pack. The ACC's floor is (thanks UVA) lower than the SEC's and the SEC's ceiling (Bama) transcends all of the rest of college football. The ACC's ceiling (Clemson, possibly FSU, UNC) is somewhere between the SEC's ceiling and the SEC's pack. If not for the hype train the SEC has been riding for the better part of the last decade (thanks mostly to Urban's Florida, Les's LSU, and Saban's Bama) the talent distribution might be more even across the conferences and the SEC wouldn't be regarded as the seriously dominant conference everyone seems to think they are.
It bugs me that every fan of every school in the SEC seems to think that just because they are in the SEC they are better than any team not in the SEC. That is a logical fallacy. Just because the SEC has been home to so many champions (Bama, mostly) in the last decade doesn't mean that Arkansas is a championship caliber team. But that is the line of thinking for every fan in that conference. Tennessee fans don't take VT seriously, not because we have been a 6-7 win team for the last 3 years but because they are in the SEC. If they didn't take us seriously because we have sucked for the last few years, fine. But it pisses me off that they are dismissing us (even though they only had 2 more wins than us last year) because they are favored to win the SEC East so any team not in the SEC is clearly beneath them.
I would love to see Clemson either lose to FSU, GT and USCe, or to us in the ACCCG, but I will always root for the ACC to get into and win the playoffs, as much for the money that gets VT as the respect for the conference. I want their fans to think they are all that when we finally get a chance to smack them down. If we play you, I want you to beat every non-common opponent. But thats just me.
The SOS is a function of SEC perception. All the schools are PERCEIVED to be better and therefore their SOS is better. That myth is debunked every bowl season where the SEC doesn't dominate everyone.
I think you need to watch: Talk to your kids about the SEC myth
A very fair point. Honestly, I hope so many people join that he runs out of the dang goodies and has to get more.
to be fair, Joe has gotten like 100 new members in the last week so that's a lot of swag to send out.
I think our new offense could allow a potential for 3-7 additional points per game on average
Last year Memphis averaged 40.2 ppg, while VT averaged 31.0 ppg. I'm expecting more like a 6-10 ppg improvement over last year. We've got experience and intelligence and talent at every position. It all comes down to whether or not our new/newish QB can execute. Honestly, with the talent and Fuente's ability to scheme, he might have an easier job than any of our past QB's.
Honestly didn't expect much... the plays they did show were so zoomed in that you couldn't even tell what the formation and pre snap motion was.
Smart in terms of football, sucks for the fans. Good thing football is in 10 days!