Post season analysis

The main discussion board for everything Tulane athletics related.
DfromCT
Tsunami
Posts: 6093
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:50 pm
Location: Stamford, CT
Status: Offline

Fri Dec 01, 2017 9:21 am

winwave wrote:
netshorty wrote:Mixed feelings here. Losing 8 heavy contributors on D is a lot for one year but it's not like we're turning over a killer D. In fact they were terrible statistically.

Rankings (out of 129)
Total Defense - 100, 436 ypg
Yards Per Play - 123, 6.68 ypp
Scoring Defense - 85, 29.2 ppg

Those stats with the offense being 14th in the league with TOP are really bad. In the past we could blame our defense collapses on the fact they were always on the field. Not this year.

By the way, Tulsa and ECU were ranked in the bottom 3 of total D, with Uconn on their heels.
As they say stats are for loser. The staff made a scheme change and it didn't work. The same players a year before weren't that bad.
Moving Aruna to the inside was clearly a mistake, IMHO. His speed and athleticism, which were the two things that got him a D1 scholarship as a "work in progress" would have made him a beast. Again, the staff knows more than I (and probably everyone else here) but this seemed to be a glaring error all season


" For every alum, no matter where they are...I want a football coach that's going to make Saturday something you anticipate and look forward to." --Troy Dannen

Thank you all for your support as my son Zach continues to beat leukemia
User avatar
wave97
Swell
Posts: 1255
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2013 1:08 pm
Status: Offline

Fri Dec 01, 2017 9:45 am

DfromCT wrote:
winwave wrote:
netshorty wrote:Mixed feelings here. Losing 8 heavy contributors on D is a lot for one year but it's not like we're turning over a killer D. In fact they were terrible statistically.

Rankings (out of 129)
Total Defense - 100, 436 ypg
Yards Per Play - 123, 6.68 ypp
Scoring Defense - 85, 29.2 ppg

Those stats with the offense being 14th in the league with TOP are really bad. In the past we could blame our defense collapses on the fact they were always on the field. Not this year.

By the way, Tulsa and ECU were ranked in the bottom 3 of total D, with Uconn on their heels.
As they say stats are for loser. The staff made a scheme change and it didn't work. The same players a year before weren't that bad.
Moving Aruna to the inside was clearly a mistake, IMHO. His speed and athleticism, which were the two things that got him a D1 scholarship as a "work in progress" would have made him a beast. Again, the staff knows more than I (and probably everyone else here) but this seemed to be a glaring error all season
What other option did they have?
User avatar
MicMan
Surge
Posts: 571
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2014 6:00 pm
Status: Offline

Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:04 am

Most college defenses are awful, I'd put all my recruiting eggs in a high-octane offense over defense any day.
netshorty
High Tide
Posts: 380
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 8:41 am
Status: Offline

Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:19 am

winwave wrote:
netshorty wrote:Mixed feelings here. Losing 8 heavy contributors on D is a lot for one year but it's not like we're turning over a killer D. In fact they were terrible statistically.

Rankings (out of 129)
Total Defense - 100, 436 ypg
Yards Per Play - 123, 6.68 ypp
Scoring Defense - 85, 29.2 ppg

Those stats with the offense being 14th in the league with TOP are really bad. In the past we could blame our defense collapses on the fact they were always on the field. Not this year.

By the way, Tulsa and ECU were ranked in the bottom 3 of total D, with Uconn on their heels.
As they say stats are for loser. The staff made a scheme change and it didn't work. The same players a year before weren't that bad.
Uh, ok. Stats are for loser... The stats (and the eyeballs) say we were a bad defense. Not the reason we were a bad defense. You may have inferred that I meant the players weren't good. That's not what I said. But to be clear, you're saying the staff, not the players, are the reason the defense sucked this year? Not necessarily disagreeing, just confirming. And thus, we're worried about losing players this year but sounds like you're saying we should be more worried about retaining a coaching staff that doesn't know how to effectively use their personnel. So why does it even matter if we have a turnover in players? We're not having a turnover in staff, at least not that we know. We can only fall 6 more spots before we are dead ass last in yards per play.
anEngineer
High Tide
Posts: 313
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2015 7:26 pm
Status: Offline

Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:52 am

There are a lot ragging the defense this year, compared to last year. Many of these people have conveniently forgotten the big 3rd down collapses that happen too often last year and cost us games (SMU in particular). Down the stretch this year, we had some HUGE 4th and short stops. That's definitely a case where stats don't tell the story. I am not willing to say this year's defense was "worse" than last year or that next year will be necessarily worse, as a unit. The defense was good enough to keep us in most games this year and make a few big plays and that's all you can ask from a non-elite program.
netshorty
High Tide
Posts: 380
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 8:41 am
Status: Offline

Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:54 am

netshorty wrote:
winwave wrote:
netshorty wrote:Mixed feelings here. Losing 8 heavy contributors on D is a lot for one year but it's not like we're turning over a killer D. In fact they were terrible statistically.

Rankings (out of 129)
Total Defense - 100, 436 ypg
Yards Per Play - 123, 6.68 ypp
Scoring Defense - 85, 29.2 ppg

Those stats with the offense being 14th in the league with TOP are really bad. In the past we could blame our defense collapses on the fact they were always on the field. Not this year.

By the way, Tulsa and ECU were ranked in the bottom 3 of total D, with Uconn on their heels.
As they say stats are for loser. The staff made a scheme change and it didn't work. The same players a year before weren't that bad.
Uh, ok. Stats are for loser... The stats (and the eyeballs) say we were a bad defense. Not the reason we were a bad defense. You may have inferred that I meant the players weren't good. That's not what I said. But to be clear, you're saying the staff, not the players, are the reason the defense sucked this year? Not necessarily disagreeing, just confirming. And thus, we're worried about losing players this year but sounds like you're saying we should be more worried about retaining a coaching staff that doesn't know how to effectively use their personnel. So why does it even matter if we have a turnover in players? We're not having a turnover in staff, at least not that we know. We can only fall 6 more spots before we are dead ass last in yards per play.
For any loser out there that do like to look at stats, you can find all of our rankings here for 2017: http://stats.ncaa.org/teams/113636
winwave
Wild Pelican
Posts: 12081
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:34 am
Status: Offline

Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:57 am

netshorty wrote:
winwave wrote:
netshorty wrote:Mixed feelings here. Losing 8 heavy contributors on D is a lot for one year but it's not like we're turning over a killer D. In fact they were terrible statistically.

Rankings (out of 129)
Total Defense - 100, 436 ypg
Yards Per Play - 123, 6.68 ypp
Scoring Defense - 85, 29.2 ppg

Those stats with the offense being 14th in the league with TOP are really bad. In the past we could blame our defense collapses on the fact they were always on the field. Not this year.

By the way, Tulsa and ECU were ranked in the bottom 3 of total D, with Uconn on their heels.
As they say stats are for loser. The staff made a scheme change and it didn't work. The same players a year before weren't that bad.
Uh, ok. Stats are for loser... The stats (and the eyeballs) say we were a bad defense. Not the reason we were a bad defense. You may have inferred that I meant the players weren't good. That's not what I said. But to be clear, you're saying the staff, not the players, are the reason the defense sucked this year? Not necessarily disagreeing, just confirming. And thus, we're worried about losing players this year but sounds like you're saying we should be more worried about retaining a coaching staff that doesn't know how to effectively use their personnel. So why does it even matter if we have a turnover in players? We're not having a turnover in staff, at least not that we know. We can only fall 6 more spots before we are dead ass last in yards per play.
To be clear not calling you a loser. Like others I feel the scheme change didn't work for this group. They had never left people wide open like they did this year. Aruna was rendered ineffective. Carroll's production dropped noticeably. So the staff made a bad call and hopefully they come up with a better scheme next season for the players we will have. I'm also hopeful we will get a couple of JC recruits that help with the problems.
Find A Way!
netshorty
High Tide
Posts: 380
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 8:41 am
Status: Offline

Fri Dec 01, 2017 11:09 am

anEngineer wrote:There are a lot ragging the defense this year, compared to last year. Many of these people have conveniently forgotten the big 3rd down collapses that happen too often last year and cost us games (SMU in particular). Down the stretch this year, we had some HUGE 4th and short stops. That's definitely a case where stats don't tell the story. I am not willing to say this year's defense was "worse" than last year or that next year will be necessarily worse, as a unit. The defense was good enough to keep us in most games this year and make a few big plays and that's all you can ask from a non-elite program.
I'm not really sure how you're not willing to say this year's defense was worse than last years. Not from a statistical view but purely from watching them. Don't conveniently forget we had SMU this year on a 3rd and 13 with 2 minutes left and gave up the go ahead touchdown. But the past is the past and agree who knows what next year will bring...
netshorty
High Tide
Posts: 380
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 8:41 am
Status: Offline

Fri Dec 01, 2017 11:32 am

winwave wrote:
netshorty wrote:
winwave wrote:
netshorty wrote:Mixed feelings here. Losing 8 heavy contributors on D is a lot for one year but it's not like we're turning over a killer D. In fact they were terrible statistically.

Rankings (out of 129)
Total Defense - 100, 436 ypg
Yards Per Play - 123, 6.68 ypp
Scoring Defense - 85, 29.2 ppg

Those stats with the offense being 14th in the league with TOP are really bad. In the past we could blame our defense collapses on the fact they were always on the field. Not this year.

By the way, Tulsa and ECU were ranked in the bottom 3 of total D, with Uconn on their heels.
As they say stats are for loser. The staff made a scheme change and it didn't work. The same players a year before weren't that bad.
Uh, ok. Stats are for loser... The stats (and the eyeballs) say we were a bad defense. Not the reason we were a bad defense. You may have inferred that I meant the players weren't good. That's not what I said. But to be clear, you're saying the staff, not the players, are the reason the defense sucked this year? Not necessarily disagreeing, just confirming. And thus, we're worried about losing players this year but sounds like you're saying we should be more worried about retaining a coaching staff that doesn't know how to effectively use their personnel. So why does it even matter if we have a turnover in players? We're not having a turnover in staff, at least not that we know. We can only fall 6 more spots before we are dead ass last in yards per play.
To be clear not calling you a loser. Like others I feel the scheme change didn't work for this group. They had never left people wide open like they did this year. Aruna was rendered ineffective. Carroll's production dropped noticeably. So the staff made a bad call and hopefully they come up with a better scheme next season for the players we will have. I'm also hopeful we will get a couple of JC recruits that help with the problems.
You called me a loser, I used stats in my analysis. It's ok, I have thick skin. But I think you're wrong. Stats and Analytics are not only capable of producing some reasonable measurement of success and failure (granted they don't tell the whole story), but some of dem smart folk use'em to drive decisions (thanks Jeff Lunhow!).
User avatar
RobertM320
Tsunami
Posts: 6443
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 8:18 pm
Location: Destrehan, LA
Contact:
Status: Offline

Fri Dec 01, 2017 11:38 am

winwave wrote:
DfromCT wrote:The same cry was made last year when we lost Marley and Smart. 8 Players is a lot to lose, and Nickerson is the best we've had in the secondary (including Doss) in a long time. It's not like he didn't get beat at all this year. He did, and when we played good QB's with decent WR's, they didn't shy away from him. He's a big loss, for sure. But we're not going to play 3 vs. 11 on that side of the ball.

More importantly, other than Hilliard, who was the best RB we've had since maybe Forte, we're bringing almost everyone on the offensive 2 deep depth chart back. On the O-line that may be good or might not be good. But being in Fritz's scheme for a third year means a lot and hopefully we can have a ball control offense that includes enough passing, like we did the later part of this past season, to keep opposing D's off balance and keeps the ball long enough to minimize the time on the field our D has to play. Any D plays a lot better when their offense isn't constantly going 3 and out.
No one cried but they did say he was bigger loss than most thought and that proved true. There was one bad game for Nickerson other than that he played very well. No one said we will play 3vs. 11. But we have suffered significant losses there and hopefully we bring in JC' and grad transfers that the staff is trying to land. That would help overcome the great deal of inexperience we'll face on that side of the ball.
Not disagreeing that we have significant losses. My point is, when the players we're losing now were freshmen and sophomores, no one thought they were as good as what we had then. Over the course of their careers, they grow and mature, and you see the result at the end. Not many are able to be a Nico Marley and start from day 1. Just look at the difference between this year and last for Darnell Mouney.

Bottom line, yes, we will suffer some on D, but it will be from inexperience, not from lack of pure talent. These kids are more talented than the players they're replacing were when they were freshmen. The question is, will this staff develop them to their full potential.
"ASK AND YE SHALL RECEIVE! HANG EM AND BANG EM! HANG EM AND BANG EM!"-- Todd Graffagnini
winwave
Wild Pelican
Posts: 12081
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:34 am
Status: Offline

Fri Dec 01, 2017 12:58 pm

netshorty wrote:
winwave wrote:
netshorty wrote:
winwave wrote:
netshorty wrote:Mixed feelings here. Losing 8 heavy contributors on D is a lot for one year but it's not like we're turning over a killer D. In fact they were terrible statistically.

Rankings (out of 129)
Total Defense - 100, 436 ypg
Yards Per Play - 123, 6.68 ypp
Scoring Defense - 85, 29.2 ppg

Those stats with the offense being 14th in the league with TOP are really bad. In the past we could blame our defense collapses on the fact they were always on the field. Not this year.

By the way, Tulsa and ECU were ranked in the bottom 3 of total D, with Uconn on their heels.
As they say stats are for loser. The staff made a scheme change and it didn't work. The same players a year before weren't that bad.
Uh, ok. Stats are for loser... The stats (and the eyeballs) say we were a bad defense. Not the reason we were a bad defense. You may have inferred that I meant the players weren't good. That's not what I said. But to be clear, you're saying the staff, not the players, are the reason the defense sucked this year? Not necessarily disagreeing, just confirming. And thus, we're worried about losing players this year but sounds like you're saying we should be more worried about retaining a coaching staff that doesn't know how to effectively use their personnel. So why does it even matter if we have a turnover in players? We're not having a turnover in staff, at least not that we know. We can only fall 6 more spots before we are dead ass last in yards per play.
To be clear not calling you a loser. Like others I feel the scheme change didn't work for this group. They had never left people wide open like they did this year. Aruna was rendered ineffective. Carroll's production dropped noticeably. So the staff made a bad call and hopefully they come up with a better scheme next season for the players we will have. I'm also hopeful we will get a couple of JC recruits that help with the problems.
You called me a loser, I used stats in my analysis. It's ok, I have thick skin. But I think you're wrong. Stats and Analytics are not only capable of producing some reasonable measurement of success and failure (granted they don't tell the whole story), but some of dem smart folk use'em to drive decisions (thanks Jeff Lunhow!).
No I really didn't. it's just a saying that implies that the stats can be misleading. Like you I rather go on what I see.
Find A Way!
winwave
Wild Pelican
Posts: 12081
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:34 am
Status: Offline

Fri Dec 01, 2017 1:05 pm

RobertM320 wrote:
winwave wrote:
DfromCT wrote:The same cry was made last year when we lost Marley and Smart. 8 Players is a lot to lose, and Nickerson is the best we've had in the secondary (including Doss) in a long time. It's not like he didn't get beat at all this year. He did, and when we played good QB's with decent WR's, they didn't shy away from him. He's a big loss, for sure. But we're not going to play 3 vs. 11 on that side of the ball.

More importantly, other than Hilliard, who was the best RB we've had since maybe Forte, we're bringing almost everyone on the offensive 2 deep depth chart back. On the O-line that may be good or might not be good. But being in Fritz's scheme for a third year means a lot and hopefully we can have a ball control offense that includes enough passing, like we did the later part of this past season, to keep opposing D's off balance and keeps the ball long enough to minimize the time on the field our D has to play. Any D plays a lot better when their offense isn't constantly going 3 and out.
No one cried but they did say he was bigger loss than most thought and that proved true. There was one bad game for Nickerson other than that he played very well. No one said we will play 3vs. 11. But we have suffered significant losses there and hopefully we bring in JC' and grad transfers that the staff is trying to land. That would help overcome the great deal of inexperience we'll face on that side of the ball.
Not disagreeing that we have significant losses. My point is, when the players we're losing now were freshmen and sophomores, no one thought they were as good as what we had then. Over the course of their careers, they grow and mature, and you see the result at the end. Not many are able to be a Nico Marley and start from day 1. Just look at the difference between this year and last for Darnell Mouney.

Bottom line, yes, we will suffer some on D, but it will be from inexperience, not from lack of pure talent. These kids are more talented than the players they're replacing were when they were freshmen. The question is, will this staff develop them to their full potential.
Wilson ,Franklin and Nickerson played from the get go. Nickerson and Franklin had to be redshirted for a year early b/c of injuries. Jackson had cancer and took awhile .Carroll got playing time on a regular basis relatively early. As far as the talent of these younger players you are strictly basing that off of recruiting rankings. The only one who has showed on the field as far as the freshman is Sample.
Find A Way!
User avatar
GreenPuddleSplash
Surge
Posts: 979
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2015 10:58 am
Location: Lower Garden District
Status: Offline

Fri Dec 01, 2017 1:26 pm

winwave wrote:
RobertM320 wrote:
winwave wrote:
DfromCT wrote:The same cry was made last year when we lost Marley and Smart. 8 Players is a lot to lose, and Nickerson is the best we've had in the secondary (including Doss) in a long time. It's not like he didn't get beat at all this year. He did, and when we played good QB's with decent WR's, they didn't shy away from him. He's a big loss, for sure. But we're not going to play 3 vs. 11 on that side of the ball.

More importantly, other than Hilliard, who was the best RB we've had since maybe Forte, we're bringing almost everyone on the offensive 2 deep depth chart back. On the O-line that may be good or might not be good. But being in Fritz's scheme for a third year means a lot and hopefully we can have a ball control offense that includes enough passing, like we did the later part of this past season, to keep opposing D's off balance and keeps the ball long enough to minimize the time on the field our D has to play. Any D plays a lot better when their offense isn't constantly going 3 and out.
No one cried but they did say he was bigger loss than most thought and that proved true. There was one bad game for Nickerson other than that he played very well. No one said we will play 3vs. 11. But we have suffered significant losses there and hopefully we bring in JC' and grad transfers that the staff is trying to land. That would help overcome the great deal of inexperience we'll face on that side of the ball.
Not disagreeing that we have significant losses. My point is, when the players we're losing now were freshmen and sophomores, no one thought they were as good as what we had then. Over the course of their careers, they grow and mature, and you see the result at the end. Not many are able to be a Nico Marley and start from day 1. Just look at the difference between this year and last for Darnell Mouney.

Bottom line, yes, we will suffer some on D, but it will be from inexperience, not from lack of pure talent. These kids are more talented than the players they're replacing were when they were freshmen. The question is, will this staff develop them to their full potential.
Wilson ,Franklin and Nickerson played from the get go. Nickerson and Franklin had to be redshirted for a year early b/c of injuries. Jackson had cancer and took awhile .Carroll got playing time on a regular basis relatively early. As far as the talent of these younger players you are strictly basing that off of recruiting rankings. The only one who has showed on the field as far as the freshman is Sample.
Win, Carroll was dinged up for the greater part of last half of the season, maybe that had some role in him being almost nonexistent? Also, I think we saw some good stuff from Chase so I’d at least lump him in with Mr. sample. Yes he had frosh mistakes, but he still played pretty well for being a frosh..
winwave
Wild Pelican
Posts: 12081
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:34 am
Status: Offline

Fri Dec 01, 2017 1:31 pm

I could see including Chase but as I noted elsewhere he may be better suited with a move to LB.
Find A Way!
User avatar
RobertM320
Tsunami
Posts: 6443
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 8:18 pm
Location: Destrehan, LA
Contact:
Status: Offline

Fri Dec 01, 2017 1:54 pm

winwave wrote: Wilson ,Franklin and Nickerson played from the get go. Nickerson and Franklin had to be redshirted for a year early b/c of injuries. Jackson had cancer and took awhile .Carroll got playing time on a regular basis relatively early. As far as the talent of these younger players you are strictly basing that off of recruiting rankings. The only one who has showed on the field as far as the freshman is Sample.
They played from the get go because the talent in front of them was even worse. We're finally getting to the point where we're able to redshirt most of our freshman class. It used to be everyone complained because we weren't able to give our FR the chance to get bigger, stronger, and acclimated to college life. Now when they don't play its a bad thing?
"ASK AND YE SHALL RECEIVE! HANG EM AND BANG EM! HANG EM AND BANG EM!"-- Todd Graffagnini
winwave
Wild Pelican
Posts: 12081
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:34 am
Status: Offline

Fri Dec 01, 2017 4:36 pm

Actually there wasn't much complaining about the defense under CJ and LW. It's obvious you don't want to give these guys any credit. That's your right. One could say well if these seniors were so bad the freshman must be awful if they couldn't beat them out by your logic above. No one said they didn't want our freshman to RS. You're making things up there.
Find A Way!
User avatar
RobertM320
Tsunami
Posts: 6443
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 8:18 pm
Location: Destrehan, LA
Contact:
Status: Offline

Fri Dec 01, 2017 5:34 pm

win, I agree the defense was very good under LW. You wont get an argument from me there. Nowhere did I say these guys don't deserve credit for what they've done. What I'm saying is we got more out of them than the raw talent that was there. That's a tribute to the job LW did. And the current class has more RAW talent than the group that's graduating, based on the ratings created by the people who get paid to do this. It remains to be seen if this staff can develop them as fully as LW did the previous classes.

And yes, we were so bad in the Toledo years that CJ and LW had to play guys as freshmen instead of redshirting them.
"ASK AND YE SHALL RECEIVE! HANG EM AND BANG EM! HANG EM AND BANG EM!"-- Todd Graffagnini
winwave
Wild Pelican
Posts: 12081
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:34 am
Status: Offline

Fri Dec 01, 2017 6:52 pm

I hear ya 320 but these guys weren't here under Turdledo and they came in after CJ and LW were here a couple of years.
Find A Way!
User avatar
nawlinspete
Swell
Posts: 1632
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 7:43 pm
Status: Offline

Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:42 pm

T G W F

Thank goodness for Willie Fritz and his STAFF.

NFM
Once and Again, With Smart Choices and a Bit Of Patience
golfnut69
Green Wave
Posts: 7686
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 9:38 am
Status: Offline

Sat Dec 02, 2017 8:33 am

nawlinspete wrote:T G W F

Thank goodness for Willie Fritz and his STAFF.

NFM
I think the biggest and most impressive improvement in year 2 ....A totally different Mind Set... and I think it will carry over to this years recruiting efforts....
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 !
Post Reply