One major detail about the '98 team is that it was the invention of the spread option. No one had EVER seen that kind of offense before and had no idea how to defend it. That was really what created the situation. You can only invent something once and 20 years is about 4-5 generations of adjustment. It was the perfect storm of the right coaches and the right personnel. The game and environment has changed too much in 20 years to argue about which team was more talented. It's different times calling for diferent personnel. The team now is much more D1 talented than when Fritz got here; that's all you can ask with regard to talent. It's also way better coached. Is it as well-coached as it could be; probably not, but that's a different argument.DfromCT wrote: ↑Fri Nov 23, 2018 12:47 pmSorry, but that 1998 team was WAY more talented than what we have in 2018. We had 3 QBs that were better than any on the current roster. 2 RB's that were, at worst, as good as any we now have, Bernard Robertson and Corey Sewell were better OL than any on our roster. JuJan Dawson was a better WR than Encalade or Mooney. Our secondary on D was better, as were our LB's and placekickers.Wave755 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 22, 2018 8:43 amBut, we don’t have a Shaun King?Dave breslin wrote: ↑Thu Nov 22, 2018 8:01 am We are as athletic and as good as the ‘98 team but running a vanilla O. After beating Navy-we do need a change in O philosophy
In short, there's no comparison of the talent on the '98 team versus the 2018 team. Memories are short, as is the comparison between the '98 and '18 team. Not even close.
Ed Daniels
-
- Riptide
- Posts: 2761
- Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2015 7:26 pm
- Status: Offline
golfnut69 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 21, 2018 5:52 pmLast I checked UTSA 1 Tulane 0..... they were bowl elegible more times in the last 7 years than Tulane.... since the program began they are 38-44, what is Tulane record over the last 82 games ?Profoundwizard wrote: ↑Wed Nov 21, 2018 5:45 pmI think his point is that UTSA sucks and you used to come on here and tell us how they’d soon be a powerhousegolfnut69 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 21, 2018 5:04 pmWhat part of my post did you not understand...I posted they played 3 P5's, none of which Tulane would have beaten.....as far as CUSA record, your point is ?Wave755 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 21, 2018 3:54 pmASU, Baylor & KSU were the only P-5s the Roadrunners played this year and they are 2-5 in the mighty CUSA.golfnut69 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 21, 2018 2:46 pmcould be, but they qualified for a bowl last year, unlike Tulane...3 of the 8 L's were to P5's and they also lost to UAB...played 3 P5's to open the season...gotta admit I thought they would win 6 games this year, but the FIU games screwed that upWave755 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 21, 2018 2:28 pmNow, now, alright 'Nut, it could be worse, we could be Frank Wilson's UTSA Roadrunners who have now lost 5 in a row and are 3-8, CUSA 2-5,golfnut69 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 21, 2018 2:03 pmI think Ruse gets his play calls from this tape, they are just not as successful
https://digitallibrary.tulane.edu/islan ... EKRAlzJQx4
UTSA is a better football program than Tulane. They are 1-0 against us, and have seen more success since they have been around. Is amazing how we are turning our noses up at C-USA teams after we struggled in the same conference. That ugly performance and crapshoot loss to UTSA still bothers me. I do think we would beat them this year if we played them, but I could be absolutely incorrect on that pick.
I hope we can even the score vs UTSA soon.
Ball Sumrall!
-
- Wild Pelican
- Posts: 13039
- Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:50 pm
- Location: Stamford, CT
- Status: Offline
Except we unveiled that offense in 1997, and there was something called game tape invented way back in the 1930's and widely used by every D1 program in the 1990s. Other programs ran similar spread offenses earlier in the decade, none quite like we did. The opposition just couldn't stop us. We were in better shape and ran a hurry up to the line O. The team may be more talented now than it was when Coach Fritz got here, but it's not a more talented team than our 1998 team. If it were, it would be pathetic to have these results, as the schedule is not that difficult in a year that the AAC is not as strong as the past few years.anEngineer wrote: ↑Fri Nov 23, 2018 2:20 pmOne major detail about the '98 team is that it was the invention of the spread option. No one had EVER seen that kind of offense before and had no idea how to defend it. That was really what created the situation. You can only invent something once and 20 years is about 4-5 generations of adjustment. It was the perfect storm of the right coaches and the right personnel. The game and environment has changed too much in 20 years to argue about which team was more talented. It's different times calling for diferent personnel. The team now is much more D1 talented than when Fritz got here; that's all you can ask with regard to talent. It's also way better coached. Is it as well-coached as it could be; probably not, but that's a different argument.DfromCT wrote: ↑Fri Nov 23, 2018 12:47 pmSorry, but that 1998 team was WAY more talented than what we have in 2018. We had 3 QBs that were better than any on the current roster. 2 RB's that were, at worst, as good as any we now have, Bernard Robertson and Corey Sewell were better OL than any on our roster. JuJan Dawson was a better WR than Encalade or Mooney. Our secondary on D was better, as were our LB's and placekickers.Wave755 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 22, 2018 8:43 amBut, we don’t have a Shaun King?Dave breslin wrote: ↑Thu Nov 22, 2018 8:01 am We are as athletic and as good as the ‘98 team but running a vanilla O. After beating Navy-we do need a change in O philosophy
In short, there's no comparison of the talent on the '98 team versus the 2018 team. Memories are short, as is the comparison between the '98 and '18 team. Not even close.
" If you laugh, you think, and you cry, that's a full day.." Jimmy V
-
- Wild Pelican
- Posts: 13039
- Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:50 pm
- Location: Stamford, CT
- Status: Offline
My post said against FBS competition. Both of our numbers are wrong. Since arriving, this staff is 11-21 versus FBS competition and 11-18 versus the AAC. I still say we're closer to the top 10 of FCS than we are the top 10 of FBS.RobertM320 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 23, 2018 1:26 pm
Bad math, Dave. Last I CHECKED, this staff is 14-21, 10-13 in the last two years. Also, 7-8 in conf the last two seasons in the best conf outside the P5. And I'll guarantee I can find more than 20 FBS schools with worse records over the last 3 seasons.
" If you laugh, you think, and you cry, that's a full day.." Jimmy V
Unfortunately, you are speaking the truth.DfromCT wrote: ↑Fri Nov 23, 2018 3:46 pmRobertM320 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 23, 2018 1:26 pm
Bad math, Dave. Last I CHECKED, this staff is 14-21, 10-13 in the last two years. Also, 7-8 in conf the last two seasons in the best conf outside the P5. And I'll guarantee I can find more than 20 FBS schools with worse records over the last 3 seasons.
My post said against FBS competition. Both of our numbers are wrong. Since arriving, this staff is 11-21 versus FBS competition and 11-18 versus the AAC. I still say we're closer to the top 10 of FCS than we are the top 10 of FBS.
Ball Sumrall!
That statement is probably true for about 80 FBS programs and maybe more.DfromCT wrote: ↑Fri Nov 23, 2018 3:46 pmMy post said against FBS competition. Both of our numbers are wrong. Since arriving, this staff is 11-21 versus FBS competition and 11-18 versus the AAC. I still say we're closer to the top 10 of FCS than we are the top 10 of FBS.RobertM320 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 23, 2018 1:26 pm
Bad math, Dave. Last I CHECKED, this staff is 14-21, 10-13 in the last two years. Also, 7-8 in conf the last two seasons in the best conf outside the P5. And I'll guarantee I can find more than 20 FBS schools with worse records over the last 3 seasons.
-
- Swell
- Posts: 1737
- Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 8:51 pm
- Status: Offline
The statement that we are as talented as ‘98 is to keep the psyche of our current players level. We’ve bashed them more because they are poorly coached on O. We’re better off than the CJ era but we are not getting the best out of our players on O. The scheme is bland and we can’t win without a deceptive offense. Unless we recruit from the Tulane Primate Center, we will always be deficient compared to most other schools
- RobertM320
- Green Wave
- Posts: 9893
- Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 8:18 pm
- Location: Covington, LA
- Contact:
- Status: Offline
DfromCT wrote: ↑Fri Nov 23, 2018 3:46 pmMy post said against FBS competition. Both of our numbers are wrong. Since arriving, this staff is 11-21 versus FBS competition and 11-18 versus the AAC. I still say we're closer to the top 10 of FCS than we are the top 10 of FBS.RobertM320 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 23, 2018 1:26 pm
Bad math, Dave. Last I CHECKED, this staff is 14-21, 10-13 in the last two years. Also, 7-8 in conf the last two seasons in the best conf outside the P5. And I'll guarantee I can find more than 20 FBS schools with worse records over the last 3 seasons.
Last I checked, this staff is 11-24, and 8-24 versus FBS competition. That is not only bad, it's one of the bottom 10-20 in FBS over that span.[/quote]
No, your post is wrong, mine's not. We're 14-21 overall, not 11-24. We're 11-21 against FBS, not 8-24. We're 8-15 vs AAC since this staff arrived, but considering his first season was mostly all with CJ's players, I looked at the trend. I specifically SAID, the LAST TWO SEASONS we are 7-8 against AAC, and 10-13 overall. And I never disagreed that we're closer to the top of FCS than we are of FBS, but that's NOT what you said. You said we're in the bottom 20 of FBS, and I said you're wrong. Technically, anyone below #70 in the power rankings fits that definition, which would include UAB, Wake Forest, San Diego St, USF, SMU, USM, Louisville and Oregon State among others.
http://www.espn.com/college-football/st ... eamratings
"That mantra is the only consistent thing that never needs to ever change for the rest of this program’s existence because that is all that matters & as long as that keeps occurring, everything will handle itself" -- Nick Anderson
-
- Swell
- Posts: 1737
- Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 8:51 pm
- Status: Offline
What part of mediocrity are we fighting about? We had a prez who wrote a comic book on excellence by investing $3.67 in athletics. I believe that Fritz started this race 5 miles behind the starting line. It’s still not an excuse for being or accepting mediocrity. Beat Navy and we’ve “inched” forward. But just an inch
-
- Wild Pelican
- Posts: 13039
- Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:50 pm
- Location: Stamford, CT
- Status: Offline
That is a post I can agree with Dave. We're fighting about less than where we all want to be.Dave breslin wrote: ↑Fri Nov 23, 2018 7:45 pm What part of mediocrity are we fighting about? We had a prez who wrote a comic book on excellence by investing $3.67 in athletics. I believe that Fritz started this race 5 miles behind the starting line. It’s still not an excuse for being or accepting mediocrity. Beat Navy and we’ve “inched” forward. But just an inch
" If you laugh, you think, and you cry, that's a full day.." Jimmy V
-
- Tsunami
- Posts: 7493
- Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:27 pm
- Status: Online
+1,000. Fritz definitely started 5 mile behind, thanks to Cowen. But we can’t blame Cowen for the mindless Scrum Ball offense we’ve run throughout this season—that’s on Fritz and Ruse. But according to Ed Daniels, that’s OK.Dave breslin wrote: ↑Fri Nov 23, 2018 7:45 pm What part of mediocrity are we fighting about? We had a prez who wrote a comic book on excellence by investing $3.67 in athletics. I believe that Fritz started this race 5 miles behind the starting line. It’s still not an excuse for being or accepting mediocrity. Beat Navy and we’ve “inched” forward. But just an inch
Tulane is the University of Louisiana
Well stated.Dave breslin wrote: ↑Fri Nov 23, 2018 7:45 pm What part of mediocrity are we fighting about? We had a prez who wrote a comic book on excellence by investing $3.67 in athletics. I believe that Fritz started this race 5 miles behind the starting line. It’s still not an excuse for being or accepting mediocrity. Beat Navy and we’ve “inched” forward. But just an inch
BAYWAVE&Sophandros are SPINELESS COWARDS
YOU NEED LEVERAGE TO BE PROACTIVE!
Small time facilities for small time programs
6-4-23:Now all of the mistakes Tulane has made finally catches up with them as they descend to CUSAAC.
YOU NEED LEVERAGE TO BE PROACTIVE!
Small time facilities for small time programs
6-4-23:Now all of the mistakes Tulane has made finally catches up with them as they descend to CUSAAC.
Yep.HoustonWave wrote: ↑Fri Nov 23, 2018 9:34 pm+1,000. Fritz definitely started 5 mile behind, thanks to Cowen. But we can’t blame Cowen for the mindless Scrum Ball offense we’ve run throughout this season—that’s on Fritz and Ruse. But according to Ed Daniels, that’s OK.Dave breslin wrote: ↑Fri Nov 23, 2018 7:45 pm What part of mediocrity are we fighting about? We had a prez who wrote a comic book on excellence by investing $3.67 in athletics. I believe that Fritz started this race 5 miles behind the starting line. It’s still not an excuse for being or accepting mediocrity. Beat Navy and we’ve “inched” forward. But just an inch
BAYWAVE&Sophandros are SPINELESS COWARDS
YOU NEED LEVERAGE TO BE PROACTIVE!
Small time facilities for small time programs
6-4-23:Now all of the mistakes Tulane has made finally catches up with them as they descend to CUSAAC.
YOU NEED LEVERAGE TO BE PROACTIVE!
Small time facilities for small time programs
6-4-23:Now all of the mistakes Tulane has made finally catches up with them as they descend to CUSAAC.
- RobertM320
- Green Wave
- Posts: 9893
- Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 8:18 pm
- Location: Covington, LA
- Contact:
- Status: Offline
No one has said we don't want better, I just don't understand why everyone expects overnight success. For every UCF or Cincinnati, there's 40 other schools that didn't improve, or have regressed over the past few seasons. My only point has been, we ARE improving. Not as fast as some people like, but we could be Louisville, North Carolina, or Arkansas. If fact, for D's benefit, if you take a look at the S&P+ rankings below, we actually ARE closer to the top ten than we are to the top FCS schools. Tulane (-3.0) is 22.7 better than #130 UConn (-25,7), but only 21.9 behind #7 UCF (+18.9).
Reality is, there's a small gap between team 30 and team 90. Until we reach a point where we start getting Top 25 votes periodically, being 45th is no different than being 85th. Its a few freak plays over the course of a season: a game ending missed FG off the uprights, a Banks being stopped an inch from the end zone, a dropped pass in the end zone, one questionable PI call on a winning drive. That's the difference between 5-6 and 8-3. If we had won WF, UAB, and SMU, would you really think we're that much better? We'd still have the same offensive style. Nothing would have changed. Our record would be better, but would the team really be? Just like everyone has said, if the 2013 team played the same schedule we played this year, they would have won 3-4 games not seven. I'm looking at the team, and the team is far better than we were when Fritz was hired at the end of 2015. We just need to continue improving.
https://www.sbnation.com/college-footba ... 18-week-13
Reality is, there's a small gap between team 30 and team 90. Until we reach a point where we start getting Top 25 votes periodically, being 45th is no different than being 85th. Its a few freak plays over the course of a season: a game ending missed FG off the uprights, a Banks being stopped an inch from the end zone, a dropped pass in the end zone, one questionable PI call on a winning drive. That's the difference between 5-6 and 8-3. If we had won WF, UAB, and SMU, would you really think we're that much better? We'd still have the same offensive style. Nothing would have changed. Our record would be better, but would the team really be? Just like everyone has said, if the 2013 team played the same schedule we played this year, they would have won 3-4 games not seven. I'm looking at the team, and the team is far better than we were when Fritz was hired at the end of 2015. We just need to continue improving.
https://www.sbnation.com/college-footba ... 18-week-13
"That mantra is the only consistent thing that never needs to ever change for the rest of this program’s existence because that is all that matters & as long as that keeps occurring, everything will handle itself" -- Nick Anderson
-
- Tsunami
- Posts: 7493
- Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:27 pm
- Status: Online
And given all that—where might we be with even a little creative and reactive play calling. Everything you outline above only highlights how frustrating this season has been, no matter how it ends up today. We have been close this season, and because of the play calling this season is just one big missed opportunity.RobertM320 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 8:00 am No one has said we don't want better, I just don't understand why everyone expects overnight success. For every UCF or Cincinnati, there's 40 other schools that didn't improve, or have regressed over the past few seasons. My only point has been, we ARE improving. Not as fast as some people like, but we could be Louisville, North Carolina, or Arkansas. If fact, for D's benefit, if you take a look at the S&P+ rankings below, we actually ARE closer to the top ten than we are to the top FCS schools. Tulane (-3.0) is 22.7 better than #130 UConn (-25,7), but only 21.9 behind #7 UCF (+18.9).
Reality is, there's a small gap between team 30 and team 90. Until we reach a point where we start getting Top 25 votes periodically, being 45th is no different than being 85th. Its a few freak plays over the course of a season: a game ending missed FG off the uprights, a Banks being stopped an inch from the end zone, a dropped pass in the end zone, one questionable PI call on a winning drive. That's the difference between 5-6 and 8-3. If we had won WF, UAB, and SMU, would you really think we're that much better? We'd still have the same offensive style. Nothing would have changed. Our record would be better, but would the team really be? Just like everyone has said, if the 2013 team played the same schedule we played this year, they would have won 3-4 games not seven. I'm looking at the team, and the team is far better than we were when Fritz was hired at the end of 2015. We just need to continue improving.
https://www.sbnation.com/college-footba ... 18-week-13
Tulane is the University of Louisiana
I understand Tulane will run the "spread" today with 6 foot line splits, no RB's and 5 WR'sHoustonWave wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 9:48 amAnd given all that—where might we be with even a little creative and reactive play calling. Everything you outline above only highlights how frustrating this season has been, no matter how it ends up today. We have been close this season, and because of the play calling this season is just one big missed opportunity.RobertM320 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 8:00 am No one has said we don't want better, I just don't understand why everyone expects overnight success. For every UCF or Cincinnati, there's 40 other schools that didn't improve, or have regressed over the past few seasons. My only point has been, we ARE improving. Not as fast as some people like, but we could be Louisville, North Carolina, or Arkansas. If fact, for D's benefit, if you take a look at the S&P+ rankings below, we actually ARE closer to the top ten than we are to the top FCS schools. Tulane (-3.0) is 22.7 better than #130 UConn (-25,7), but only 21.9 behind #7 UCF (+18.9).
Reality is, there's a small gap between team 30 and team 90. Until we reach a point where we start getting Top 25 votes periodically, being 45th is no different than being 85th. Its a few freak plays over the course of a season: a game ending missed FG off the uprights, a Banks being stopped an inch from the end zone, a dropped pass in the end zone, one questionable PI call on a winning drive. That's the difference between 5-6 and 8-3. If we had won WF, UAB, and SMU, would you really think we're that much better? We'd still have the same offensive style. Nothing would have changed. Our record would be better, but would the team really be? Just like everyone has said, if the 2013 team played the same schedule we played this year, they would have won 3-4 games not seven. I'm looking at the team, and the team is far better than we were when Fritz was hired at the end of 2015. We just need to continue improving.
https://www.sbnation.com/college-footba ... 18-week-13
Be a Hero Today.... Adopt a Shelter Pet... The Beatles once sang "Can't Buy Me Love"... I disagree, unconditional Love can be bought, for the nominal adoption fee at your local Pet Shelter !
-
- Tsunami
- Posts: 7493
- Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:27 pm
- Status: Online
Now we’re talking. Shock the world, and Beat Navy.golfnut69 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 9:54 amI understand Tulane will run the "spread" today with 6 foot line splits, no RB's and 5 WR'sHoustonWave wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 9:48 amAnd given all that—where might we be with even a little creative and reactive play calling. Everything you outline above only highlights how frustrating this season has been, no matter how it ends up today. We have been close this season, and because of the play calling this season is just one big missed opportunity.RobertM320 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 8:00 am No one has said we don't want better, I just don't understand why everyone expects overnight success. For every UCF or Cincinnati, there's 40 other schools that didn't improve, or have regressed over the past few seasons. My only point has been, we ARE improving. Not as fast as some people like, but we could be Louisville, North Carolina, or Arkansas. If fact, for D's benefit, if you take a look at the S&P+ rankings below, we actually ARE closer to the top ten than we are to the top FCS schools. Tulane (-3.0) is 22.7 better than #130 UConn (-25,7), but only 21.9 behind #7 UCF (+18.9).
Reality is, there's a small gap between team 30 and team 90. Until we reach a point where we start getting Top 25 votes periodically, being 45th is no different than being 85th. Its a few freak plays over the course of a season: a game ending missed FG off the uprights, a Banks being stopped an inch from the end zone, a dropped pass in the end zone, one questionable PI call on a winning drive. That's the difference between 5-6 and 8-3. If we had won WF, UAB, and SMU, would you really think we're that much better? We'd still have the same offensive style. Nothing would have changed. Our record would be better, but would the team really be? Just like everyone has said, if the 2013 team played the same schedule we played this year, they would have won 3-4 games not seven. I'm looking at the team, and the team is far better than we were when Fritz was hired at the end of 2015. We just need to continue improving.
https://www.sbnation.com/college-footba ... 18-week-13
Tulane is the University of Louisiana
Add no huddle to the list.golfnut69 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 9:54 amI understand Tulane will run the "spread" today with 6 foot line splits, no RB's and 5 WR'sHoustonWave wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 9:48 amAnd given all that—where might we be with even a little creative and reactive play calling. Everything you outline above only highlights how frustrating this season has been, no matter how it ends up today. We have been close this season, and because of the play calling this season is just one big missed opportunity.RobertM320 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 8:00 am No one has said we don't want better, I just don't understand why everyone expects overnight success. For every UCF or Cincinnati, there's 40 other schools that didn't improve, or have regressed over the past few seasons. My only point has been, we ARE improving. Not as fast as some people like, but we could be Louisville, North Carolina, or Arkansas. If fact, for D's benefit, if you take a look at the S&P+ rankings below, we actually ARE closer to the top ten than we are to the top FCS schools. Tulane (-3.0) is 22.7 better than #130 UConn (-25,7), but only 21.9 behind #7 UCF (+18.9).
Reality is, there's a small gap between team 30 and team 90. Until we reach a point where we start getting Top 25 votes periodically, being 45th is no different than being 85th. Its a few freak plays over the course of a season: a game ending missed FG off the uprights, a Banks being stopped an inch from the end zone, a dropped pass in the end zone, one questionable PI call on a winning drive. That's the difference between 5-6 and 8-3. If we had won WF, UAB, and SMU, would you really think we're that much better? We'd still have the same offensive style. Nothing would have changed. Our record would be better, but would the team really be? Just like everyone has said, if the 2013 team played the same schedule we played this year, they would have won 3-4 games not seven. I'm looking at the team, and the team is far better than we were when Fritz was hired at the end of 2015. We just need to continue improving.
https://www.sbnation.com/college-footba ... 18-week-13
Boy those were the days!
Be proactive, being reactive is for losers..
Tulane Class of 1981
Tulane Class of 1981
sadly SC wuz invovedtpstulane wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 10:35 amAdd no huddle to the list.golfnut69 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 9:54 amI understand Tulane will run the "spread" today with 6 foot line splits, no RB's and 5 WR'sHoustonWave wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 9:48 amAnd given all that—where might we be with even a little creative and reactive play calling. Everything you outline above only highlights how frustrating this season has been, no matter how it ends up today. We have been close this season, and because of the play calling this season is just one big missed opportunity.RobertM320 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 8:00 am No one has said we don't want better, I just don't understand why everyone expects overnight success. For every UCF or Cincinnati, there's 40 other schools that didn't improve, or have regressed over the past few seasons. My only point has been, we ARE improving. Not as fast as some people like, but we could be Louisville, North Carolina, or Arkansas. If fact, for D's benefit, if you take a look at the S&P+ rankings below, we actually ARE closer to the top ten than we are to the top FCS schools. Tulane (-3.0) is 22.7 better than #130 UConn (-25,7), but only 21.9 behind #7 UCF (+18.9).
Reality is, there's a small gap between team 30 and team 90. Until we reach a point where we start getting Top 25 votes periodically, being 45th is no different than being 85th. Its a few freak plays over the course of a season: a game ending missed FG off the uprights, a Banks being stopped an inch from the end zone, a dropped pass in the end zone, one questionable PI call on a winning drive. That's the difference between 5-6 and 8-3. If we had won WF, UAB, and SMU, would you really think we're that much better? We'd still have the same offensive style. Nothing would have changed. Our record would be better, but would the team really be? Just like everyone has said, if the 2013 team played the same schedule we played this year, they would have won 3-4 games not seven. I'm looking at the team, and the team is far better than we were when Fritz was hired at the end of 2015. We just need to continue improving.
https://www.sbnation.com/college-footba ... 18-week-13
Boy those were the days!
Be a Hero Today.... Adopt a Shelter Pet... The Beatles once sang "Can't Buy Me Love"... I disagree, unconditional Love can be bought, for the nominal adoption fee at your local Pet Shelter !
- RobertM320
- Green Wave
- Posts: 9893
- Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 8:18 pm
- Location: Covington, LA
- Contact:
- Status: Offline
I don't disagree. But we knew Fritz' style going in. He's not Rich Rod, and never professed to be.HoustonWave wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 9:48 am
And given all that—where might we be with even a little creative and reactive play calling. Everything you outline above only highlights how frustrating this season has been, no matter how it ends up today. We have been close this season, and because of the play calling this season is just one big missed opportunity.
"That mantra is the only consistent thing that never needs to ever change for the rest of this program’s existence because that is all that matters & as long as that keeps occurring, everything will handle itself" -- Nick Anderson
Asking for a winning record in year three against our schedule with a down year for the conference, especially our Division, is not asking for overnight success by any stretch of the imagination. He didn't come into an empty cupboard. He came into a poorly coached team. He chose to direct Abraham away. He's now the leader in passing percentage in the country. The lack of discipline three years in is unacceptable. The staff needs changes and nothing today changes that.
BAYWAVE&Sophandros are SPINELESS COWARDS
YOU NEED LEVERAGE TO BE PROACTIVE!
Small time facilities for small time programs
6-4-23:Now all of the mistakes Tulane has made finally catches up with them as they descend to CUSAAC.
YOU NEED LEVERAGE TO BE PROACTIVE!
Small time facilities for small time programs
6-4-23:Now all of the mistakes Tulane has made finally catches up with them as they descend to CUSAAC.
- RobertM320
- Green Wave
- Posts: 9893
- Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 8:18 pm
- Location: Covington, LA
- Contact:
- Status: Offline
"Against our schedule" BS. We had the 4th toughest schedule in all of G5. If you go by winning percentage it was the 16th toughest in FBS. We didn't have a schedule full of patsies like the 2013 schedule did. Yes, its a down year for the AAC, and we're still better than every other G5 conf.winwave wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 3:29 pm Asking for a winning record in year three against our schedule with a down year for the conference, especially our Division, is not asking for overnight success by any stretch of the imagination. He didn't come into an empty cupboard. He came into a poorly coached team. He chose to direct Abraham away. He's now the leader in passing percentage in the country. The lack of discipline three years in is unacceptable. The staff needs changes and nothing today changes that.
"That mantra is the only consistent thing that never needs to ever change for the rest of this program’s existence because that is all that matters & as long as that keeps occurring, everything will handle itself" -- Nick Anderson
- RobertM320
- Green Wave
- Posts: 9893
- Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 8:18 pm
- Location: Covington, LA
- Contact:
- Status: Offline
And his team is 5-5 and not bowl eligible yet, against a schedule far easier than ours.He chose to direct Abraham away. He's now the leader in passing percentage in the country.
"That mantra is the only consistent thing that never needs to ever change for the rest of this program’s existence because that is all that matters & as long as that keeps occurring, everything will handle itself" -- Nick Anderson
First people want to rail against the P5 but when convenient want to invoke the G5. It wasn't as easy as the 2013 schedule but that's a very low bar. There were several more to win this year and we didn't get them. The winning % thing is a joke. We watched a lot of bad football this season. Good coaching would have got us at least 8 wins against this schedule. we can back and forth all night on it if you want but I'd rather enjoy the win.RobertM320 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 3:33 pm"Against our schedule" BS. We had the 4th toughest schedule in all of G5. If you go by winning percentage it was the 16th toughest in FBS. We didn't have a schedule full of patsies like the 2013 schedule did. Yes, its a down year for the AAC, and we're still better than every other G5 conf.winwave wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 3:29 pm Asking for a winning record in year three against our schedule with a down year for the conference, especially our Division, is not asking for overnight success by any stretch of the imagination. He didn't come into an empty cupboard. He came into a poorly coached team. He chose to direct Abraham away. He's now the leader in passing percentage in the country. The lack of discipline three years in is unacceptable. The staff needs changes and nothing today changes that.
BAYWAVE&Sophandros are SPINELESS COWARDS
YOU NEED LEVERAGE TO BE PROACTIVE!
Small time facilities for small time programs
6-4-23:Now all of the mistakes Tulane has made finally catches up with them as they descend to CUSAAC.
YOU NEED LEVERAGE TO BE PROACTIVE!
Small time facilities for small time programs
6-4-23:Now all of the mistakes Tulane has made finally catches up with them as they descend to CUSAAC.
He leads the nation in passing %. We could use that especially against the weak defenses we played this year.He's done his part. His teams problems are elsewhere. His performance helps overcome those weaknesses. as for the schedule he's gone against 6 Bowl eligible teams to use your metric.RobertM320 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 3:36 pmAnd his team is 5-5 and not bowl eligible yet, against a schedule far easier than ours.He chose to direct Abraham away. He's now the leader in passing percentage in the country.
Last edited by winwave on Sat Nov 24, 2018 3:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
BAYWAVE&Sophandros are SPINELESS COWARDS
YOU NEED LEVERAGE TO BE PROACTIVE!
Small time facilities for small time programs
6-4-23:Now all of the mistakes Tulane has made finally catches up with them as they descend to CUSAAC.
YOU NEED LEVERAGE TO BE PROACTIVE!
Small time facilities for small time programs
6-4-23:Now all of the mistakes Tulane has made finally catches up with them as they descend to CUSAAC.