- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: ~~~ESPN Preseason Top 25 Released~~~
Posted on 5/1/12 at 9:39 am to VerlanderBEAST
Posted on 5/1/12 at 9:39 am to VerlanderBEAST
quote:
Alabama shouldn't even be favored. Alabama is nothing but hype, their roster is shite particularly the offensive side of the ball. Alabama is going to thoroughly embarrass themselves in Dallas when people are excepting a top 5 team and they end up struggling just to get 1st downs
You are getting worse with each post.
0
Posted on 5/1/12 at 9:39 am to VerlanderBEAST
quote:
Alabama shouldn't even be favored. Alabama is nothing but hype, their roster is shite particularly the offensive side of the ball. Alabama is going to thoroughly embarrass themselves in Dallas when people are excepting a top 5 team and they end up struggling just to get 1st downs.
This is sarcasm right? You seem very persistent is all.
Posted on 5/1/12 at 9:41 am to King Joey
quote:
Past performance is a really, really big part of predicting future performance (since mostly the same players, coaches and programs will be involved). That has a lot to do with why Ole Miss isn't in many preseason top 10s.
we basically just said the same thing
Posted on 5/1/12 at 9:45 am to Ghostfacedistiller
They loss Trent Richardson + basically every single player that caught pass for them. They are breaking in a new offensive coordinator. If you took an unbiased look at their offense you would realize their offense is going to be incredible shitty. Of course they loss half their defense which is just icing on the cake
Posted on 5/1/12 at 9:47 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Are you suggesting that as a theory, or as a statistical observation? I'm just wondering if you've ever seen (or if anyone's ever done) an actual statistical comparison of points allowed by defenses giving up 200 yards (approximately) with zero turnovers, points allowed by defenses giving up 400 yards (approximately) with 3 or 4 turnovers. My suspicion is that 400 yards with 3 or 4 turnovers would be more likely to surrender fewer points, since the turnovers completely erase 30-40% of scoring opportunities for the opponent, and averaging 20ish yards per possession could easily generate 3 or 4 fgs on drives of about 40 yards or so.
well sure, but it's much more likely to give up fewer points if you allow 200 yards than 400 yards, even with turnovers
However, I suspect even more strongly that the samples would be hard to find since I highly doubt there are many defenses out there giving up 200 yards without grabbing any turnovers. I figure the comparison is more likely 200 yards with 1 or 2 turnovers to 400 yards with 3 or 4 turnovers. Which would almost certainly favor the 200 yards and 1 or 2 turnovers.
Also, he seemed to be talking about passing yards; were you also talking about 200 vs. 400 passing yards? Because if that's the case, I be even more doubtful of your conclusion. Giving up 200 yards passing without any turnovers suggests to me that the opposing team is passing very efficiently, which further suggests an effective running game to set up that passing. And 200 yards passing, plus an effective running game, without any turnovers, is most likely going to generate a good many points.
Posted on 5/1/12 at 9:51 am to rocket31
quote:and
5. Oklahoma
quote:This shite again?
7. Florida St.
quote:
11. West Virginia
Too low
quote:
24. Notre Dame
Legitimate top 25 team this season.
Washington should be in there in my opinion.
Posted on 5/1/12 at 9:51 am to VerlanderBEAST
quote:
They loss Trent Richardson + basically every single player that caught pass for them. They are breaking in a new offensive coordinator. If you took an unbiased look at their offense you would realize their offense is going to be incredible shitty. Of course they loss half their defense which is just icing on the cake
i mean really, who the frick gets drunk at 9:52 in the morning?
Posted on 5/1/12 at 9:53 am to VerlanderBEAST
quote:
They loss Trent Richardson
lacy isn't trich, but he's not a shitty back
you will believe in the spin move by teh end of the year!!!
quote:
Of course they loss half their defense which is just icing on the cake
at this point i think it's safe to say that bama reloads and doesn't rebuild
Posted on 5/1/12 at 9:54 am to Mr. Hangover
quote:
who the frick gets drunk at 9:52 in the morning?
Evidently this guy. He is getting worse by the min.
Posted on 5/1/12 at 9:55 am to VerlanderBEAST
quote:
They loss Trent Richardson + basically every single player that caught pass for them. They are breaking in a new offensive coordinator. If you took an unbiased look at their offense you would realize their offense is going to be incredible shitty. Of course they loss half their defense which is just icing on the cake
lord knows we're no virginia tech.
Posted on 5/1/12 at 9:55 am to King Joey
quote:
Are you suggesting that as a theory, or as a statistical observation?
theory. way too many stats to crunch for this white boy
but if you prevent the offense from moving on the field, they will have a decreased chance of scoring. that's a fact
quote:
My suspicion is that 400 yards with 3 or 4 turnovers would be more likely to surrender fewer points, since the turnovers completely erase 30-40% of scoring opportunities for the opponent,
200 yards will eliminate a ton of drives for the opponent, also though
Posted on 5/1/12 at 9:56 am to rocket31
quote:
12. Michigan State
Interesting since we did lose a very experienced QB in cousins, a top WR in BJ cunningham, a really productive DT in Jerel Worthy. That said, we do have some solid players coming back (Gholston, Johnny Adams, Leveon Bell, to name a few). I just wasn't sure about a top 15 estimated ranking quite yet, top 20 sure.
quote:
25. Florida
Eh, defense should be fantastic, but who knows what the frick will happen on O (new QB, new OC, new starting RB's, etc.). I don't see any issue here.
This post was edited on 5/1/12 at 9:57 am
Posted on 5/1/12 at 9:58 am to Zamoro10
quote:Oregon and Stanford were the only good teams they played in the last half the season. It seems likely their "dramatic improvement" had as much to do with their competition as it did with them. They struggled against good teams, blew out crappy teams, and won by 2 TDs against mediocre teams. And where they struggled most was on defense, and yet all anyone points to in justifying a #1 ranking is their offensive stars returning. Do y'all expect them to win the 56-48, 38-35, 47-41 shootouts every game this year? I don't. I expect it to pan out largely as it did last year, with them winning most of them but losing one or two of them. And with their schedule, I don't expect 1 or 2 losses to land them at #1.
USC blew everyone out the SECOND HALF of the season except Oregon and Stanford
Teams like Bama, LSU, and maybe Oklahoma are more likely (imo) to top the rankings with a loss, and I find it much more likely that a team like that will finish with 1 or 0 losses than SC finishing undefeated and all of them ending up with at least 1 loss.
I believe that for SC to finish #1, they have to go undefeated and all the SEC teams and other top elite teams have to finish with at least 1 loss. I just don't see that as likely.
Posted on 5/1/12 at 9:59 am to rocket31
It's not a great thing to be preseason #1 - when was the last time a team went wire-to-wire? USC - 2004?
USC is as good as any team out of the Top 5 to be ranked #1. They probably aren't overall top to bottom talented #1 but they have the best skill position players and that sells.
Looking at it as if I were a neutral - I'd be more annoyed if Oregon or Oklahoma were preseason #1.
USC is as good as any team out of the Top 5 to be ranked #1. They probably aren't overall top to bottom talented #1 but they have the best skill position players and that sells.
Looking at it as if I were a neutral - I'd be more annoyed if Oregon or Oklahoma were preseason #1.
Posted on 5/1/12 at 10:02 am to Zamoro10
If Mett had a year under his belt, LSU would be a unanimus preseason # 1. But I agree that USC should be #1 as of now.
Posted on 5/1/12 at 10:03 am to Zamoro10
quote:
I'd be more annoyed if Oregon or Oklahoma were preseason #1.
oklhoma is gonna have to prove themsef i think before they get that kind of love again.
Posted on 5/1/12 at 10:06 am to VerlanderBEAST
quote:
Alabama shouldn't even be favored
Ok
quote:
Alabama is nothing but hype
Maybe...we'll find out, though
quote:
their roster is shite particularly the offensive side of the ball
McCarron is a decent QB, and Lacy has shown signs of being a productive RB. Not exactly shite right there.
Posted on 5/1/12 at 10:08 am to King Joey
quote:
Past performance is a really, really big part of predicting future performance (since mostly the same players, coaches and programs will be involved). quote]
USC finished 11-2 last year, ranked #6 in the AP, they were ineligible for the coaches poll due to probation. You are not using past performance as a guide, you are just cherry picking games because of bias.
USC gave up 17 or fewer points in all but 4 games. The 2 Az games and 2 games against top 5 teams.
[quote] didn't mock them. I simply pointed out that they gouged the shite out of SC's defense, particularly on the ground, and that SC has lost 3/4s of that defensive line (including a 1st rounder at DE).
You said they score 56 without mentioning the game went into 3OT's. Past games with multiple OT's tell us that tends to distort scores and stats. Though Stanford had 186 yds rushing. That's not a good defensive game, but not epically bad either. I think Bama gave up more than that to 1AA Ga So in regulation.
Do you judge LSU's pass defense bashed solely on the WVU game?
quote:
I'm just saying that predicting it is a reach at this point that is not supported by reasonable analysis
Actually its your view that's not supported by reasonable analysis. You are supporting your view based on basiclly 2 games, 2 of which were ealrt in the year and look more like outliers. The other was against a top 5 team that went into 3 OT's. USC finished last year #6. going from that top the top 1-2 is not really a reach.
quote:
It's not bias, it's completing the picture. Those bad games did happen, and they happened to SC, and most of the guys on that SC team that those losses happened to will be back again this year.
Its completely biased because you have just proved you don't even know the whole picture
quote:
So stumbling early to an Arizona State or Arizona, or anyone else at any point in the season, will almost certainly prevent them from being #1. And there just isn't much reason to expect them not to falter along the way like they did repeatedly last season.
They beat Arizona BTW, they just gave up a lot of points, that happens from time to time. If you want to argue they don't have a great D, fine, but that doesn't mean they Just as 2011 Alabama had most of their guys back from a team that lost 3 games in 2010 including blowing a 24 point lead at home to Auburn. Was that reason to not rank them high in 2011?
USC had the same amount of loses in 2011 as LSU did in 2010, why is it a reach to expect a young team with a lot of key guys, including their QB back to step up if not bias?
Posted on 5/1/12 at 10:13 am to LSUbase13
quote:
7. Florida St.
This shite again?
Exactly, it's good for a laugh, though
Posted on 5/1/12 at 10:17 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:I don't see anything like @Florida, @Akansas, South Carolina and @Auburn on SC's schedule. They are on the road at Stanford, and have ND at home. Maybe @Utah? I don't see ND and Utah as any better than any of those four teams on our schedule, and I see them as very likely to be much worse than at least a couple of them. Arkansas and South Carolina both finished 11-2 and in the top 5 and top 10 respectively. And their big gun opponent, Stanford, did just lose the #1 overall pick QB who led them to every single winning season they've had in over a decade.
take out the word Oregon and replae it with Alabama (or LSU) and you can say the same thing about LSU (or Alabama's) schedule
quote:Yes. But what is also not the same is having a Sun Belt or FCS team be the 8th, 9th or 10th most challenging opponent on your schedule, and having Notre Dame be the 3rd (maybe 4th, but maybe 2nd depending on if Stanford can survive without Luck) most challenging opponent on your schedule.
They are a BCS level team, I know its fashionable to bash them, but playing them is not the same as scheduling Sun Belt or FCS teams.
Page 8 of 20
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News