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 seasonwinwave wrote: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.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.
Post season analysis
-
- Wild Pelican
- Posts: 13047
- Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:50 pm
- Location: Stamford, CT
- Status: Offline
" If you laugh, you think, and you cry, that's a full day.." Jimmy V
What other option did they have?DfromCT wrote: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 seasonwinwave wrote: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.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.
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.winwave wrote: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.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.
-
- Riptide
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2015 7:26 pm
- Status: Offline
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.
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/113636netshorty wrote: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.winwave wrote: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.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.
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.netshorty wrote: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.winwave wrote: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.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.
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.
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...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.
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!).winwave wrote: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.netshorty wrote: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.winwave wrote: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.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.
- RobertM320
- Green Wave
- Posts: 9894
- Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 8:18 pm
- Location: Covington, LA
- Contact:
- Status: Offline
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.winwave wrote: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.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.
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.
"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
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.netshorty wrote: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!).winwave wrote: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.netshorty wrote: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.winwave wrote: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.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.
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.
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.RobertM320 wrote: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.winwave wrote: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.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.
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.
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.
- GreenPuddleSplash
- Swell
- Posts: 1434
- Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2015 10:58 am
- Location: Lower Garden District
- Status: Offline
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 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.RobertM320 wrote: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.winwave wrote: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.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.
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.
I could see including Chase but as I noted elsewhere he may be better suited with a move to LB.
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: 9894
- Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 8:18 pm
- Location: Covington, LA
- Contact:
- Status: Offline
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?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.
"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
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.
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: 9894
- Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 8:18 pm
- Location: Covington, LA
- Contact:
- Status: Offline
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.
And yes, we were so bad in the Toledo years that CJ and LW had to play guys as freshmen instead of redshirting them.
"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
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.
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.
- nawlinspete
- Riptide
- Posts: 2943
- Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 7:43 pm
- Status: Offline
T G W F
Thank goodness for Willie Fritz and his STAFF.
NFM
Thank goodness for Willie Fritz and his STAFF.
NFM
President Fitts , B of A , it's put up or forever hold your peace time . Make Tulane ATHLETICS relevant and top 30 again .
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....nawlinspete wrote:T G W F
Thank goodness for Willie Fritz and his STAFF.
NFM
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 !