In the comments of the earlier post on strength of schedule, someone wanted me to elaborate on how by weeks prior to a game affects the the overall strength of the schedule.
Long story short, an off week prior to a game definitely makes an impact on that particular game, no doubt about it. The recuperation time is different, the practice schedule is often different, etc. It's hard to make the argument that it doesn't make an impact.
But exactly what kind of an impact does it make?
Sometimes a team seemingly plays better following an off-week, and sometimes they seemingly regress, so there is no set fixed response to take into account.
Moreover, you would probably run into a situation where off weeks have different impacts depending on when they occur. Obviously, an off week in the second week of the season is very different than an off week in the ninth week.
Beyond that, when you play one of the Sisters of the Poor, it's effectively an off-week for all intents and purposes. How does that go into account?
Again, I'm not saying that bye weeks don't have an impact in this sense, but to be quite frank I really just do not see any way to legitimately quantify it in terms of an overall strength of schedule rating.
I suppose this could be a textbook example of the first half of the old saying that, "Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."
Showing posts with label Commentary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Commentary. Show all posts
Friday, August 17, 2007
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
2007 Defense: Expect The Unexpected
Ten years ago, Mary Schmich penned a fine column for the Chicago Tribune, and in it dispensed the following advice:
Often times, you should expect the unexpected. The things you think will be major problems often times never come to fruition, and things you never think about suddenly pop up and cause havoc.
Take our team in 2006, for example.
Going into the season, everyone knew that the running game would be fine and that the offensive line would play much better, but the real concern was at quarterback with John Parker Wilson. As it turned out, though, Ken Darby showed up overweight and out of shape, which resulted in a poor running game, the line continued to struggle, and John Parker Wilson had a solid year. On defense, despite key losses, people thought that Ramzee Robinson would anchor a good secondary, Terrance Jones would step in and adequately replace the out-going Demeco Ryans, Juwan Simpson would blossom in full, and the real concern was at middle linebacker. As it turned out, of course, Robinson struggled greatly against every quality receiver he faced and the secondary was relatively poor. Terrance Jones was a shell of Demeco Ryans, and that was when he was healthy, Juwan Simpson had a poor year as both a player and a leader, and the main pre-season, concern, middle linebacker, turned into the best player on the entire defense with the rise of Prince Hall.
And now we are here with the 2007 season just 17 days away, and nearly everyone cites the defense as a major concern. Generally speaking, the argument is that the front seven is in major trouble, but the secondary will be very strong.
As they say, though, expect the unexpected. Don't be surprised if the exact opposite of what is expected unfolds in 2007.
The front seven, surprisingly enough, has the potential to be a good, solid unit. I know you hear all of the doom and gloom, but it's nonetheless true. Just follow me.
At defensive end, we are pretty strong. Wallace Gilberry is a four-year starter, and one of the better pure defensive ends in the conference. He is experienced, and plays with as much as heart as you will see from anyone. Moreover, with the right scheme, he can rush the passer, and is a very good defender against the run, something that can't be said of a lot of the more glamorous defensive ends in this conference. Bobby Greenwood will start opposite Gilberry, and he too is a good player. He is very talented, no doubt there, has good size and he has looked well in Fall practice. This is the same guy who made several freshman All-America teams, don't forget that.
At linebacker, it's actually a surprisingly strong group.
Prince Hall returns, and he was a beast a year ago. Honestly, he was the best player on our defense as a redshirt freshman, and he played most of the year overweight and out of shape. As Coach Kines said, he was about a biscuit away from putting his hand on the ground (i.e. moving to defensive end). For 2007, however, Hall has dropped about twenty pounds and is in noticeably the best condition he's been in since he arrived at the Capstone. Better conditioning and a year of experience should only make Hall an even better player.
Rolando McClain is a true freshman, but it is not absurd to expect good things out of him. Physically, he is about as gifted of an athlete as you will find. He is massive (6'4 and 255 pounds), but is also very athletic. Moreover, he's a smart kid, and an extremely hard worker. Beyond that, he is impressing everyone in Fall camp thus far. In fact, yesterday Nick Saban even specifically praised McClain at length, and any time the Nicktator doles out praise to anyone, you should take notice. You almost feel wary of saying it this early in his career, but objectively speaking, McClain has legitimate NFL caliber talent. He's young, but he will start and should be productive.
Zeke Knight will start at outside linebacker, and he too has loads of talent. The truth is, Zeke Knight is one of the most talented players on the entire roster. He's very big, strong, and quick. He was a top-notch recruit out of high school, and could have played for anyone. And now he's finally where he should have been all along: linebacker. Moreover, for the first time in his career, he's healthy now that the heart murmur has been corrected. He, too, has looked good in Fall practice, and a productive year, at the very least, can be expected from him. And honestly, given his freakish athletic abilities, Knight could very well turn into a playmaker.
Keith Saunders will man the Jack position, and he's a fifth-year senior with a good deal of experience. We'll eventually have better players at the Jack position, but we shouldn't be overly concerned with Saunders. He's a solid player, and he fared quite well at the Jack position during the A-Day game, and will likely have a solid senior season.
The only real concern in the front seven is the nose tackle. Bryan Motley will almost certainly start there, and he has some potential on down the road. Unfortunately, at the moment, he is also young, undersized, and inexperienced. It's just not going to be pretty on the interior defensive line, no two ways about it. With that in mind, however, the harsh truth of the matter is that we have been piss-poor on the interior defensive line ever since Jarrett Johnson, Kenny King, and Kindal Moorehead graduated after the 2002 campaign. At bottom, we have relatively poor players replacing relatively poor players.
So, when you look at the front seven, it's actually fairly promising. No, they aren't the second coming of the Steel Curtain, but they do have some potential, and should have a relatively solid campaign in 2007. Certainly the interior tackle play is a concern, but as 2004 and 2005 showed, as long as the rest of the front seven plays well, you can make up for poor interior line play. Moreover, considering we will have two very big inside linebackers (one at 235 and the other at 255), that will go a long way to helping shore up the run defense.
Again, the front seven certainly won't be great, but as long as injuries don't hit us particularly hard, it could be relatively productive. All things considered, it should be relatively good against the run, and Saban will use his usual complicated blitz schemes to get pressure on the quarterback.
The pass defense, however, could be a major problem.
For whatever reason, people have this idea that our pass defense in 2006 was good, but that simply is not true, and the advanced statistics made that harsh truth blatantly obvious. Nevertheless, a lot of people believe that notion, and a corollary of that false belief is that our pass defense, particularly with the addition of Saban and his expert tutelage, should be good in 2007.
Unfortunately, it's unlikely to be that easy considering we must replace two starters from a secondary that wasn't particularly good to begin with.
Simeon Castille returns at cornerback, and he should have a good season. Aside from Castille, however, things are uncertain at best. Opposite Castille, no one in particular has stepped up to take the second cornerback spot. All in all, it seems to be a three-way battle between Kareem Jackson, Lionell Mitchell, and Marquis Johnson. Each player brings his a different skill set to the table, but at the moment none of them have stood out and taken the job. Moreover, the scary part is that Jackson and Johnson have never played any meaningful snaps, and Mitchell has only seen time as a nickel corner. It's all just one big question mark as to who starts opposite Simeon Castille.
The safety position, though, is a much bigger concern.
Rashad Johnson and Marcus Carter seem to be the likely starters, and honestly that's not a particularly good thing.
Johnson plays hard, but it's difficult to see him becoming more than just a replacement-level player. He is a former walk-on, and honestly his specialty may very well be special teams more than anything else. As mentioned earlier, he plays hard, but generally speaking there was just little-to-no production from him in 2006. Despite playing over 400 snaps, he registered only 26 tackles, no sacks, no interceptions, and no passes broken up. The Tennessee game provides a great example: despite Ainge throwing almost 50 passes and Johnson playing 60 snaps, he ended up with only two tackles (one solo, one assist), and no passes defensed of any kind. He seems like a good kid and a tough player, but there's just not much production to speak of from him.
Marcus Carter, while highly touted out of high school, is probably one of the worst safeties in the conference, and honestly he would be on the bench at most other SEC schools. He saw little meaningful playing time in 2004 and 2005, was terrible a year ago in 2006 as a part-time starter, and he looked just as bad at the A-Day game. He struggles in run support (see Keiland William's 38-yard touchdown run in the LSU game), plays with hesitance, and is poor in terms of pass coverage.
The harsh truth of the matter is that neither of these two guys are particularly good, and neither of them are "winning" starting jobs, so to speak. In reality, it's just that no one better has came along to beat them out, unfortunately. Honestly, we greatly need some other players to step up at safety. Michael Ricks could have probably started almost immediately, but he did not qualify. Justin Woodall is incredibly talented, but at the moment he still has not been able to crack the starting lineup. Corey Reamer has good size, but he's never been healthy, and doesn't seem to be contending for any meaningful playing time. Moreover, after knee surgery, his speed is a concern, which was probably one reason Saban experimented with him at linebacker in the Spring. Chris Lett could perhaps do it, but he hasn't practiced all Fall from complications with diabetes, so he is almost certainly going to redshirt. The truth is, if most practice reports are to be believed, Saban and company have tried a lot of different combinations at safety, and to this point nothing seems to be working particularly well.
All told, there are just a lot of problems regarding both safety positions, and unless someone else steps up over the next couple of weeks, those problems are likely to manifest themselves in a bad way once the regular season begins. With Carter and Johnson as the starters, at best they are serviceable players, and at worst they are major liabilities.
The truth be told, Saban will need to work his magic on these guys in terms of fundamentals, and also create a good bit of pressure on the quarterback for the Crimson Tide secondary to play near where most people think it will.
At the end of the day, things don't always turn out like you think. Don't be surprised if the front seven plays relatively well and the secondary struggles.
"Don’t worry about the future; or worry, but know that worrying is as effective as trying to solve an algebra equation by chewing bubblegum. The real troubles in your life are apt to be things that never crossed your worried mind; the kind that blindside you at 4pm on some idle Tuesday."All told, that's good advice for life in general. But it's also pretty good advice for the game of football as well.
Often times, you should expect the unexpected. The things you think will be major problems often times never come to fruition, and things you never think about suddenly pop up and cause havoc.
Take our team in 2006, for example.
Going into the season, everyone knew that the running game would be fine and that the offensive line would play much better, but the real concern was at quarterback with John Parker Wilson. As it turned out, though, Ken Darby showed up overweight and out of shape, which resulted in a poor running game, the line continued to struggle, and John Parker Wilson had a solid year. On defense, despite key losses, people thought that Ramzee Robinson would anchor a good secondary, Terrance Jones would step in and adequately replace the out-going Demeco Ryans, Juwan Simpson would blossom in full, and the real concern was at middle linebacker. As it turned out, of course, Robinson struggled greatly against every quality receiver he faced and the secondary was relatively poor. Terrance Jones was a shell of Demeco Ryans, and that was when he was healthy, Juwan Simpson had a poor year as both a player and a leader, and the main pre-season, concern, middle linebacker, turned into the best player on the entire defense with the rise of Prince Hall.
And now we are here with the 2007 season just 17 days away, and nearly everyone cites the defense as a major concern. Generally speaking, the argument is that the front seven is in major trouble, but the secondary will be very strong.
As they say, though, expect the unexpected. Don't be surprised if the exact opposite of what is expected unfolds in 2007.
The front seven, surprisingly enough, has the potential to be a good, solid unit. I know you hear all of the doom and gloom, but it's nonetheless true. Just follow me.
At defensive end, we are pretty strong. Wallace Gilberry is a four-year starter, and one of the better pure defensive ends in the conference. He is experienced, and plays with as much as heart as you will see from anyone. Moreover, with the right scheme, he can rush the passer, and is a very good defender against the run, something that can't be said of a lot of the more glamorous defensive ends in this conference. Bobby Greenwood will start opposite Gilberry, and he too is a good player. He is very talented, no doubt there, has good size and he has looked well in Fall practice. This is the same guy who made several freshman All-America teams, don't forget that.
At linebacker, it's actually a surprisingly strong group.
Prince Hall returns, and he was a beast a year ago. Honestly, he was the best player on our defense as a redshirt freshman, and he played most of the year overweight and out of shape. As Coach Kines said, he was about a biscuit away from putting his hand on the ground (i.e. moving to defensive end). For 2007, however, Hall has dropped about twenty pounds and is in noticeably the best condition he's been in since he arrived at the Capstone. Better conditioning and a year of experience should only make Hall an even better player.
Rolando McClain is a true freshman, but it is not absurd to expect good things out of him. Physically, he is about as gifted of an athlete as you will find. He is massive (6'4 and 255 pounds), but is also very athletic. Moreover, he's a smart kid, and an extremely hard worker. Beyond that, he is impressing everyone in Fall camp thus far. In fact, yesterday Nick Saban even specifically praised McClain at length, and any time the Nicktator doles out praise to anyone, you should take notice. You almost feel wary of saying it this early in his career, but objectively speaking, McClain has legitimate NFL caliber talent. He's young, but he will start and should be productive.
Zeke Knight will start at outside linebacker, and he too has loads of talent. The truth is, Zeke Knight is one of the most talented players on the entire roster. He's very big, strong, and quick. He was a top-notch recruit out of high school, and could have played for anyone. And now he's finally where he should have been all along: linebacker. Moreover, for the first time in his career, he's healthy now that the heart murmur has been corrected. He, too, has looked good in Fall practice, and a productive year, at the very least, can be expected from him. And honestly, given his freakish athletic abilities, Knight could very well turn into a playmaker.
Keith Saunders will man the Jack position, and he's a fifth-year senior with a good deal of experience. We'll eventually have better players at the Jack position, but we shouldn't be overly concerned with Saunders. He's a solid player, and he fared quite well at the Jack position during the A-Day game, and will likely have a solid senior season.
The only real concern in the front seven is the nose tackle. Bryan Motley will almost certainly start there, and he has some potential on down the road. Unfortunately, at the moment, he is also young, undersized, and inexperienced. It's just not going to be pretty on the interior defensive line, no two ways about it. With that in mind, however, the harsh truth of the matter is that we have been piss-poor on the interior defensive line ever since Jarrett Johnson, Kenny King, and Kindal Moorehead graduated after the 2002 campaign. At bottom, we have relatively poor players replacing relatively poor players.
So, when you look at the front seven, it's actually fairly promising. No, they aren't the second coming of the Steel Curtain, but they do have some potential, and should have a relatively solid campaign in 2007. Certainly the interior tackle play is a concern, but as 2004 and 2005 showed, as long as the rest of the front seven plays well, you can make up for poor interior line play. Moreover, considering we will have two very big inside linebackers (one at 235 and the other at 255), that will go a long way to helping shore up the run defense.
Again, the front seven certainly won't be great, but as long as injuries don't hit us particularly hard, it could be relatively productive. All things considered, it should be relatively good against the run, and Saban will use his usual complicated blitz schemes to get pressure on the quarterback.
The pass defense, however, could be a major problem.
For whatever reason, people have this idea that our pass defense in 2006 was good, but that simply is not true, and the advanced statistics made that harsh truth blatantly obvious. Nevertheless, a lot of people believe that notion, and a corollary of that false belief is that our pass defense, particularly with the addition of Saban and his expert tutelage, should be good in 2007.
Unfortunately, it's unlikely to be that easy considering we must replace two starters from a secondary that wasn't particularly good to begin with.
Simeon Castille returns at cornerback, and he should have a good season. Aside from Castille, however, things are uncertain at best. Opposite Castille, no one in particular has stepped up to take the second cornerback spot. All in all, it seems to be a three-way battle between Kareem Jackson, Lionell Mitchell, and Marquis Johnson. Each player brings his a different skill set to the table, but at the moment none of them have stood out and taken the job. Moreover, the scary part is that Jackson and Johnson have never played any meaningful snaps, and Mitchell has only seen time as a nickel corner. It's all just one big question mark as to who starts opposite Simeon Castille.
The safety position, though, is a much bigger concern.
Rashad Johnson and Marcus Carter seem to be the likely starters, and honestly that's not a particularly good thing.
Johnson plays hard, but it's difficult to see him becoming more than just a replacement-level player. He is a former walk-on, and honestly his specialty may very well be special teams more than anything else. As mentioned earlier, he plays hard, but generally speaking there was just little-to-no production from him in 2006. Despite playing over 400 snaps, he registered only 26 tackles, no sacks, no interceptions, and no passes broken up. The Tennessee game provides a great example: despite Ainge throwing almost 50 passes and Johnson playing 60 snaps, he ended up with only two tackles (one solo, one assist), and no passes defensed of any kind. He seems like a good kid and a tough player, but there's just not much production to speak of from him.
Marcus Carter, while highly touted out of high school, is probably one of the worst safeties in the conference, and honestly he would be on the bench at most other SEC schools. He saw little meaningful playing time in 2004 and 2005, was terrible a year ago in 2006 as a part-time starter, and he looked just as bad at the A-Day game. He struggles in run support (see Keiland William's 38-yard touchdown run in the LSU game), plays with hesitance, and is poor in terms of pass coverage.
The harsh truth of the matter is that neither of these two guys are particularly good, and neither of them are "winning" starting jobs, so to speak. In reality, it's just that no one better has came along to beat them out, unfortunately. Honestly, we greatly need some other players to step up at safety. Michael Ricks could have probably started almost immediately, but he did not qualify. Justin Woodall is incredibly talented, but at the moment he still has not been able to crack the starting lineup. Corey Reamer has good size, but he's never been healthy, and doesn't seem to be contending for any meaningful playing time. Moreover, after knee surgery, his speed is a concern, which was probably one reason Saban experimented with him at linebacker in the Spring. Chris Lett could perhaps do it, but he hasn't practiced all Fall from complications with diabetes, so he is almost certainly going to redshirt. The truth is, if most practice reports are to be believed, Saban and company have tried a lot of different combinations at safety, and to this point nothing seems to be working particularly well.
All told, there are just a lot of problems regarding both safety positions, and unless someone else steps up over the next couple of weeks, those problems are likely to manifest themselves in a bad way once the regular season begins. With Carter and Johnson as the starters, at best they are serviceable players, and at worst they are major liabilities.
The truth be told, Saban will need to work his magic on these guys in terms of fundamentals, and also create a good bit of pressure on the quarterback for the Crimson Tide secondary to play near where most people think it will.
At the end of the day, things don't always turn out like you think. Don't be surprised if the front seven plays relatively well and the secondary struggles.
Monday, August 13, 2007
What Could Have Been
Some years, you are left with nothing more than thoughts of what could have been. The potential to win big was there, but somehow it just didn't work out. I was racking my brain the other day, and came up with a rough list of a few Alabama teams that could have certainly made the "What Could Have Been" list.
Here goes...
1982: Most people forget just how good this team was. We were high on everyone's list in the pre-season, and we did not disappoint early on. Finally, Penn State and Joe Paterno came to town, and we annihilated the Nittany Lions 42-21. After that, we were 5-0, ranked #1 in the country, and Bryant's seventh national championship was just sitting there for the taking. Unfortunately, Bryant's health failed, and we collapsed over the final weeks, losing to Tennessee, Southern Miss, Auburn, and LSU. Penn State, the same team we beat by three touchdowns earlier in the year, went on to beat Georgia in the Sugar Bowl and win the national championship. Three months after that victory over the Nittany Lions, Bryant was dead at 69.
1986: Coming off of a 9-2-1 season in 1985, everyone returned for 1986, including Mike Shula, Al Bell, Gene Jelks, Cornelius Bennett, Van Tiffin, and others. Most everyone had us as the favorite to win the SEC, and some had us as outside contenders for the national championship. We got off to a hot start at 7-0, and annihilated Tennessee by 28 points. The following week, we turned into a terrible performance out of nowhere, and Penn State drilled us in Tuscaloosa. Two weeks later, we squandered away a game with stupid penalties and turnovers against LSU, and the season ended with a loss to Auburn where we again largely beat ourselves. We blew out Washington in the Sun Bowl to 28-6 to finish 10-3, but we were major underachievers. Ray Perkins left shortly thereafter.
1988: The 1988 squad finished 9-3, and had a good year, but injuries killed us. Bobby Humphrey came into the year as Alabama's all-time leading rusher, and was considered by many to be the Heisman front runner. He was lost for the year early on with a broken foot against Vanderbilt, and Gene Jelks and David Smith also went down for the season. We went 9-3, losing two close games to LSU and Auburn. The Bayou Bengals won the SEC in Mike Archer's second year, but quite honestly they weren't very good (Miami beat them by 40+), and had the injury bug not hit us so hard, we'd have been SEC Champions and playing in the Sugar Bowl.
1990: Again with the injury bug. We lost three close games to open the season (a combined margin of loss of 8 points), and that set the tone. We rebounded late and played well, but it was largely all for not. Had Siran Stacy not gone down with a season-ending knee injury on the first play from scrimmage in the season opener, we could have won 10 games, and instead an impotent offense doomed us to 7-5, despite a great defense.
1995: The 1995 Alabama squad wasn't as good as in 1994, but it was doomed mainly by poor officiating and the NCAA. We lost to Arkansas when the Hogs scored a game-winning touchdown on a pass that I still swear was trapped, and we lost to Auburn when Curtis Brown's game-winning touchdown pass was ruled out of bounds, though a Post-Herald photograph the following day showed that Brown was indeed in. With better officiating, we end up 10-1. Unfortunately, to make things worse, shortly after the Auburn game the NCAA bans us from post-season play that year, and we end up sitting at home. With better officiating and some leniency from the NCAA (yeah, yeah, I know, snowball's chance on hell on both), we end up 10-1, win the SEC West, and face Florida for the fourth consecutive year in the SEC Championship Game.
2002: We went 10-3 in 2002, but it could have been much better. We lost heartbreakers to two top five teams in the closing seconds, but we were still 10-2 going into the Auburn game. That 10-2 record included blowouts over Ole Miss, Tennessee, LSU, and others. And then Fran left, and we bombed the Iron Bowl. Truth was, that squad had the highest Pythagorean Wins of any team in the SEC in 2002 (even more than Georgia), and it was most likely our best team in the post-Stallings era.
2004: Ah, the ultimate injury year. A piss-poor decision by Mike Shula ended with Brodie Croyle out for the year against Western Carolina, and the injuries only got worse from there. The truth is -- largely due to a much better offensive line -- the 2004 had more potential than the 2005 squad did, but injuries killed it. We finished 6-6 with several close losses, but with better injury luck, we probably end up with 9-10 wins and Mike Shula is still at the Capstone.
Here goes...
1982: Most people forget just how good this team was. We were high on everyone's list in the pre-season, and we did not disappoint early on. Finally, Penn State and Joe Paterno came to town, and we annihilated the Nittany Lions 42-21. After that, we were 5-0, ranked #1 in the country, and Bryant's seventh national championship was just sitting there for the taking. Unfortunately, Bryant's health failed, and we collapsed over the final weeks, losing to Tennessee, Southern Miss, Auburn, and LSU. Penn State, the same team we beat by three touchdowns earlier in the year, went on to beat Georgia in the Sugar Bowl and win the national championship. Three months after that victory over the Nittany Lions, Bryant was dead at 69.
1986: Coming off of a 9-2-1 season in 1985, everyone returned for 1986, including Mike Shula, Al Bell, Gene Jelks, Cornelius Bennett, Van Tiffin, and others. Most everyone had us as the favorite to win the SEC, and some had us as outside contenders for the national championship. We got off to a hot start at 7-0, and annihilated Tennessee by 28 points. The following week, we turned into a terrible performance out of nowhere, and Penn State drilled us in Tuscaloosa. Two weeks later, we squandered away a game with stupid penalties and turnovers against LSU, and the season ended with a loss to Auburn where we again largely beat ourselves. We blew out Washington in the Sun Bowl to 28-6 to finish 10-3, but we were major underachievers. Ray Perkins left shortly thereafter.
1988: The 1988 squad finished 9-3, and had a good year, but injuries killed us. Bobby Humphrey came into the year as Alabama's all-time leading rusher, and was considered by many to be the Heisman front runner. He was lost for the year early on with a broken foot against Vanderbilt, and Gene Jelks and David Smith also went down for the season. We went 9-3, losing two close games to LSU and Auburn. The Bayou Bengals won the SEC in Mike Archer's second year, but quite honestly they weren't very good (Miami beat them by 40+), and had the injury bug not hit us so hard, we'd have been SEC Champions and playing in the Sugar Bowl.
1990: Again with the injury bug. We lost three close games to open the season (a combined margin of loss of 8 points), and that set the tone. We rebounded late and played well, but it was largely all for not. Had Siran Stacy not gone down with a season-ending knee injury on the first play from scrimmage in the season opener, we could have won 10 games, and instead an impotent offense doomed us to 7-5, despite a great defense.
1995: The 1995 Alabama squad wasn't as good as in 1994, but it was doomed mainly by poor officiating and the NCAA. We lost to Arkansas when the Hogs scored a game-winning touchdown on a pass that I still swear was trapped, and we lost to Auburn when Curtis Brown's game-winning touchdown pass was ruled out of bounds, though a Post-Herald photograph the following day showed that Brown was indeed in. With better officiating, we end up 10-1. Unfortunately, to make things worse, shortly after the Auburn game the NCAA bans us from post-season play that year, and we end up sitting at home. With better officiating and some leniency from the NCAA (yeah, yeah, I know, snowball's chance on hell on both), we end up 10-1, win the SEC West, and face Florida for the fourth consecutive year in the SEC Championship Game.
2002: We went 10-3 in 2002, but it could have been much better. We lost heartbreakers to two top five teams in the closing seconds, but we were still 10-2 going into the Auburn game. That 10-2 record included blowouts over Ole Miss, Tennessee, LSU, and others. And then Fran left, and we bombed the Iron Bowl. Truth was, that squad had the highest Pythagorean Wins of any team in the SEC in 2002 (even more than Georgia), and it was most likely our best team in the post-Stallings era.
2004: Ah, the ultimate injury year. A piss-poor decision by Mike Shula ended with Brodie Croyle out for the year against Western Carolina, and the injuries only got worse from there. The truth is -- largely due to a much better offensive line -- the 2004 had more potential than the 2005 squad did, but injuries killed it. We finished 6-6 with several close losses, but with better injury luck, we probably end up with 9-10 wins and Mike Shula is still at the Capstone.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Scrimmage Notes
Fall practice is now well underway, and the first major hurdle has been cleared. On Saturday, the Crimson Tide conducted its first scrimmage.
A few general scrimmage notes:
A few general scrimmage notes:
- We threw the football, a lot. By my count there were 63 passes to 29 runs. Now don't go crazy, we won't do that in the regular season, but it's an interesting note. And, moreover, it was pretty successful for the offense. On 63 passes, we threw for -- again, by my count -- a whopping 528 yards. We averaged around nine yards per attempt, over thirteen yards per completion, and a completion percentage of around sixty per cent.
- Terry Grant continues to look like the starting tailback. On Saturday, he had 15 carries for 110 yards, and a touchdown. The touchdown came off of a 22-yard run. Glen Coffee got only 4 carries. Again, as mentioned earlier, it seems that as long as Grant stays healthy, he will be our starting tailback.
- Jimmy Johns, as I noted earlier, will be used quite a bit in this offense. This is not going to be a situation like we had with Le'Ron McClain where he is a blocker and not much else; we will attempt to use Johns in a Jacob Hester-esque fashion. Saturday's scrimmage showed that quite nicely. All told, Johns had 10 carries for 39 yards and 3 catches for 26 yards. He's just too talented to be just a blocker. He's going to get a lot of touches this year, get ready for it.
- John Parker Wilson had another nice day, going 13-22 for 231 yards, 2 touchdowns, and 1 interception. From everything we have seen in camp, he could have a very good year.
- Roy Upchurch did not play. He is still in the black jersey due to some off-season shoulder surgery. There is no indication whatsoever as to when he'll return.
- The defense is not playing well. Generally speaking, the defense usually plays better than the offense early in camp, but not so with the Crimson Tide this year. The quarterbacks have a field day of throwing the football, and we couldn't stop Terry Grant either. We've apparently got some major improvement to make on that front.
- We seem to be doing pretty well in terms of place-kicking. On the day, we were four of five in field goal attempts. Christensen hit from 42 and 21 before missing from 31. Tiffin made a 21-yarder before connecting from 51. Sounds good.
- P.J. Fitzgerald is showing some promise, and he has a nice upside. But he still needs to improve. On eight punts in the scrimmage, he averaged only about 37 yards per punt, which is about what he did last year. Unless he dramatically improved hang time from over a year ago, that needs to improve.
- Thankfully, we got out of the scrimmage relatively free from injury. Of course, injuries hurt whenever they happen, but there is nothing worse than when you see a rash of injuries during practice. We have the potential to have a very good year if things come together, but we do not have anywhere near the quality depth needed to have a good year in spite of some poor injury luck.
Mission Impossible: The OTS Response
A Sea Of Blue, one of the best Kentucky blogs around, had a very good article the other day entitled, "Mission Impossible: Growing a football program in the SEC."At bottom, the article details the perils of building a football program up in the SEC, coming to the conclusion that for a program like Kentucky, it's almost impossible to turn into a legitimate and consistent winner.
I must say, it's pretty hard for me to disagree with much of what they say. Granted, for the Kentucky faithful, it's a bitter pill to swallow, but bitter pills generally contain large granules of truth, so it is what it is.
And Sea of Blue is correct, it's a nearly impossible task for a lower tier SEC program. The level of competition in this conference is so ridiculously high that it is the athletic equivalent of scaling Everest with nothing but a Snickers bar and a Swiss Army knife.
Just think of the great quality teams in this conference. Alabama is the traditional powerhouse, and we arguably have the greatest tradition in all of college football. Tennessee is a traditional powerhouse, and one of the top ten great programs of all-time. Even teams like LSU, Georgia, and Auburn are generally considered as top fifteen programs, historically speaking. Florida traditionally hasn't been a powerhouse, but truthfully they have been the premier program in the SEC over the course of the past twenty years. If that is not hard enough, now throw in a historically good Arkansas program, and a steadily-rising South Carolina program.
The thing about the SEC is that it is so competitive from top-to-bottom. In the other conferences, it is generally a couple of schools at the top that win basically everything, and the rest are generally middling at best. The Big Ten has Ohio State and Michigan. The new ACC has Miami and Florida State (not so much now, but no one doubts that will be who dominates that conference once they get things together). The Big 12 has Oklahoma, Texas, and Nebraska. The Pac-10 has USC. The old Big East had Miami. The old ACC had Florida State. The old Big Eight had Oklahoma and Nebraska (as Bosworth put it, "The Big Two and the Little Six").
Break it down over the past several years.
In the Big Ten, either Michigan or Ohio State have won a share of the Big Ten championship in nine of the past eleven years.
In the Big 12, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas have combined to win the Big 12 championship in seven of the past ten years. Moreover, one of the those three teams have appeared in the Big 12 Championship Game each and every year since its inception in 1996.
In the Pac-10, USC has won the conference championship the past five years in a row, and just being honest, with as much talent as they have, it will almost certainly be six in a row this year. Projecting that even further -- again, with all of the talent they have -- they could easily run off seven or even eight straight conference championships.
The SEC is very different. In the past nine years, eight different teams have appeared in the SEC Championship Game, and six different teams have won the SEC championship.
At bottom, the parity in this conference is just so high that going into any year, a large number of teams could win the SEC. As we've written about in the past, it's just damn near impossible to predict the eventual SEC champion, and that is due to the extremely high amount of parity to be found within the conference. Take LSU for example. They are likely to have a great team this year, and they are everyone's favorite to win the conference. But seriously, what are the chances that they actually get it done? Honestly, if I had to say, I'd probably say 25% or less. And that's nothing against LSU mind you, they are a great team, but the rest of the conference is just so tough and the least little slip-up will cost you the title. Hence why an pre-season SEC favorite hasn't won the SEC since Tennessee in 1997.
It's just a murderer's row, no two ways about it.
And keep in mind I'm not bragging here, and I'm not trying to start one of those god-awful "best" conference debates. I'm merely pointing out that the level of competition in this conference is so high that it is going to be almost impossible for a team like Kentucky or Vanderbilt to turn into a consistent winner.
Take a look at Arkansas, for example. Before the Hogs joined the SEC in 1992, they were one of the better football programs in the nation. They had won the old Southwest Conference thirteen times, and had winning records against every Southwest Conference team except Texas. From 1936-1989, they finished ranked in the final poll 25 times. Since moving to the SEC in 1992, however, things have not gone well for the Hogs. They have yet to win the SEC, and really haven't even gotten particularly close. Beyond that, in the fifteen years prior to their joining the SEC, the Hogs had five seasons of ten or more wins, but in the fifteen years since joining the SEC, they only have one. Moreover, they have losing records against several SEC foes since joining the conference (Florida, Tennessee, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, etc.), and have only been ranked in the final poll three times in the fifteen years since making the switch, compared to nine times in the previous fifteen years.
Even for one of nation's better programs, it is a tough road filled with peril. I can only imagine what it must feel like for those who bleed blue and white.
It's just these schools have everything against them. They are generally light years behind in terms of facilities, and really there's just no feasible way for them to catch up. Moreover, they can't replicate the tradition bit, and players who are looking for a quick-ticket to the NFL will not be headed to their campuses. Beyond that, they generally don't have the big bucks to pay the best coaches, so even if they hire a good coach they usually just use the school as a stepping stone, and many of these schools (Kentucky is a good example) are simply not in geographic areas where ungodly amounts of the football talent comes out of the high school ranks each year.
Just look at what these schools have to do in order to get a little talent. What little in-state talent there is grows up with little or no attachment to that particular school and thus it often leaves the state for greener pastures (see Shaun Alexander of Florence, Kentucky). So what are those schools to do? Obviously, recruiting out-of-state talent away from far superior programs who grew up bleeding their state school's colors just doesn't happen very often. So, at the end of the day, they just aren't left with very much talent, and it shows up on Saturdays.
And if you think this is just an SEC phenomenon, you are wrong. It's really true of all of the big conferences, honestly. Can Stanford really ever consistently run with the big dogs of the Pac-10? The same goes for teams like Baylor, Purdue, Kentucky, and others. They may have some success on occasion, but it is generally a one or two year stretch followed by years and years of below mediocrity.
All in all, despite all of the major rule changes by the NCAA in the name of parity and increasing competition over the past several decades, generally speaking, it's still a college football world divided between the haves and the have-nots. On the one hand you have the powerhouses with the almost endless resources, the magnificent facilities, the massive stadiums, the diehard fanbases, the talent-rich recruiting bases, and on the other hand you have those programs who, well, don't have any of that. And the results essentially show that.
At bottom, I think I would have to agree wholeheartedly with their conclusion. I'm just really not convinced that most of these programs, almost regardless of what they do, can really ever turn into consistent competitors in the true powerhouse conferences, particularly in the SEC.
I must say, it's pretty hard for me to disagree with much of what they say. Granted, for the Kentucky faithful, it's a bitter pill to swallow, but bitter pills generally contain large granules of truth, so it is what it is.
And Sea of Blue is correct, it's a nearly impossible task for a lower tier SEC program. The level of competition in this conference is so ridiculously high that it is the athletic equivalent of scaling Everest with nothing but a Snickers bar and a Swiss Army knife.
Just think of the great quality teams in this conference. Alabama is the traditional powerhouse, and we arguably have the greatest tradition in all of college football. Tennessee is a traditional powerhouse, and one of the top ten great programs of all-time. Even teams like LSU, Georgia, and Auburn are generally considered as top fifteen programs, historically speaking. Florida traditionally hasn't been a powerhouse, but truthfully they have been the premier program in the SEC over the course of the past twenty years. If that is not hard enough, now throw in a historically good Arkansas program, and a steadily-rising South Carolina program.
The thing about the SEC is that it is so competitive from top-to-bottom. In the other conferences, it is generally a couple of schools at the top that win basically everything, and the rest are generally middling at best. The Big Ten has Ohio State and Michigan. The new ACC has Miami and Florida State (not so much now, but no one doubts that will be who dominates that conference once they get things together). The Big 12 has Oklahoma, Texas, and Nebraska. The Pac-10 has USC. The old Big East had Miami. The old ACC had Florida State. The old Big Eight had Oklahoma and Nebraska (as Bosworth put it, "The Big Two and the Little Six").
Break it down over the past several years.
In the Big Ten, either Michigan or Ohio State have won a share of the Big Ten championship in nine of the past eleven years.
In the Big 12, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas have combined to win the Big 12 championship in seven of the past ten years. Moreover, one of the those three teams have appeared in the Big 12 Championship Game each and every year since its inception in 1996.
In the Pac-10, USC has won the conference championship the past five years in a row, and just being honest, with as much talent as they have, it will almost certainly be six in a row this year. Projecting that even further -- again, with all of the talent they have -- they could easily run off seven or even eight straight conference championships.
The SEC is very different. In the past nine years, eight different teams have appeared in the SEC Championship Game, and six different teams have won the SEC championship.
At bottom, the parity in this conference is just so high that going into any year, a large number of teams could win the SEC. As we've written about in the past, it's just damn near impossible to predict the eventual SEC champion, and that is due to the extremely high amount of parity to be found within the conference. Take LSU for example. They are likely to have a great team this year, and they are everyone's favorite to win the conference. But seriously, what are the chances that they actually get it done? Honestly, if I had to say, I'd probably say 25% or less. And that's nothing against LSU mind you, they are a great team, but the rest of the conference is just so tough and the least little slip-up will cost you the title. Hence why an pre-season SEC favorite hasn't won the SEC since Tennessee in 1997.
It's just a murderer's row, no two ways about it.
And keep in mind I'm not bragging here, and I'm not trying to start one of those god-awful "best" conference debates. I'm merely pointing out that the level of competition in this conference is so high that it is going to be almost impossible for a team like Kentucky or Vanderbilt to turn into a consistent winner.
Take a look at Arkansas, for example. Before the Hogs joined the SEC in 1992, they were one of the better football programs in the nation. They had won the old Southwest Conference thirteen times, and had winning records against every Southwest Conference team except Texas. From 1936-1989, they finished ranked in the final poll 25 times. Since moving to the SEC in 1992, however, things have not gone well for the Hogs. They have yet to win the SEC, and really haven't even gotten particularly close. Beyond that, in the fifteen years prior to their joining the SEC, the Hogs had five seasons of ten or more wins, but in the fifteen years since joining the SEC, they only have one. Moreover, they have losing records against several SEC foes since joining the conference (Florida, Tennessee, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, etc.), and have only been ranked in the final poll three times in the fifteen years since making the switch, compared to nine times in the previous fifteen years.
Even for one of nation's better programs, it is a tough road filled with peril. I can only imagine what it must feel like for those who bleed blue and white.
It's just these schools have everything against them. They are generally light years behind in terms of facilities, and really there's just no feasible way for them to catch up. Moreover, they can't replicate the tradition bit, and players who are looking for a quick-ticket to the NFL will not be headed to their campuses. Beyond that, they generally don't have the big bucks to pay the best coaches, so even if they hire a good coach they usually just use the school as a stepping stone, and many of these schools (Kentucky is a good example) are simply not in geographic areas where ungodly amounts of the football talent comes out of the high school ranks each year.
Just look at what these schools have to do in order to get a little talent. What little in-state talent there is grows up with little or no attachment to that particular school and thus it often leaves the state for greener pastures (see Shaun Alexander of Florence, Kentucky). So what are those schools to do? Obviously, recruiting out-of-state talent away from far superior programs who grew up bleeding their state school's colors just doesn't happen very often. So, at the end of the day, they just aren't left with very much talent, and it shows up on Saturdays.
And if you think this is just an SEC phenomenon, you are wrong. It's really true of all of the big conferences, honestly. Can Stanford really ever consistently run with the big dogs of the Pac-10? The same goes for teams like Baylor, Purdue, Kentucky, and others. They may have some success on occasion, but it is generally a one or two year stretch followed by years and years of below mediocrity.
All in all, despite all of the major rule changes by the NCAA in the name of parity and increasing competition over the past several decades, generally speaking, it's still a college football world divided between the haves and the have-nots. On the one hand you have the powerhouses with the almost endless resources, the magnificent facilities, the massive stadiums, the diehard fanbases, the talent-rich recruiting bases, and on the other hand you have those programs who, well, don't have any of that. And the results essentially show that.
At bottom, I think I would have to agree wholeheartedly with their conclusion. I'm just really not convinced that most of these programs, almost regardless of what they do, can really ever turn into consistent competitors in the true powerhouse conferences, particularly in the SEC.
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Tailback: Is Size A Concern?
Especially now that the bulky Jimmy Johns has been moved to fullback, some are worried about the lack of size for the likely starters: Terry Grant and Glen Coffee. Being specific, Grant is listed at 189 pounds, and Coffee is listed as 197. Obviously, neither of those two are the second-coming of Jerome Bettis, to say the very least.
So do Tide fans really have anything to worry about in terms of injuries to the tailbacks due to their small size? Well, let's look at history a bit first before we come to any conclusions.
Bobby Humphrey, for example, was probably the greatest running back we've ever had at Alabama, and during his prime he played at only about 180 pounds. After huge years in 1986 and 1987, Humphrey was the favorite to win the Heisman Trophy in his senior season in 1998. Unfortunately, he broke his foot early in his senior season (1988), an injury unrelated to his size, and that was the end of his career. Oddly enough, he suffered the injury when he was playing at his highest weight ever, just over 200 pounds. Since Shaun Alexander came along, most forget that Humphrey, despite missing almost all of his senior season, is only 145 rushing yards behind Alexander for the all-time Alabama record, and Humphrey still holds the all-time Alabama single-season rushing record.
Derrick Lassic, in 1992, was the key cog to our rushing attack, and one of the few bright spots we had on offense. Despite getting almost 200 carries that year, he ran for almost 1,000 yards, and was the Sugar Bowl MVP. He did so at a mere 186 pounds.
Sherman Williams was the Tide's leading rusher in both 1993 and 1994, yet he weighed in at well under 200 pounds.
Shaud Williams was one of the Tide's best all-time tailbacks. In his two years at Alabama, he rushed for well over 2,000 yards, and for 13 touchdowns, averaging over 5.5 yards per carry. In 2003, he had the third most single-season rushing yards in Alabama football history. He did it all at around 189 pounds.
And that's just a few Alabama players that I could think off of the top of my head. Beyond Alabama players, there are entirely too many other small tailbacks who have done extremely well with little or no injury problems at the collegiate level. Again, off the top of my head, a few players I can think of that did really well despite being a bit small are Barry Sanders, Emmitt Smith, and Warrick Dunn.
At bottom, there's just no legitimate concern with small tailbacks. There is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that they are more prone to injury than bigger tailbacks. If anything, smaller tailbacks are most likely less injury prone because they can use their small bodies and increased agility to avoid big hits. Bigger runners, on the other hand, have no other option but to endure the punishment, and of course the ensuing injuries. The same can't be said for the small guys.
Injuries can happen at any time, and tailback is one of the most injury-prone positions. It shouldn't be shocking at all to see either Grant or Coffee go down with an injury, but those injuries won't be related to their size. If anything, their small stature will likely assist in keeping them healthy.
So do Tide fans really have anything to worry about in terms of injuries to the tailbacks due to their small size? Well, let's look at history a bit first before we come to any conclusions.
Bobby Humphrey, for example, was probably the greatest running back we've ever had at Alabama, and during his prime he played at only about 180 pounds. After huge years in 1986 and 1987, Humphrey was the favorite to win the Heisman Trophy in his senior season in 1998. Unfortunately, he broke his foot early in his senior season (1988), an injury unrelated to his size, and that was the end of his career. Oddly enough, he suffered the injury when he was playing at his highest weight ever, just over 200 pounds. Since Shaun Alexander came along, most forget that Humphrey, despite missing almost all of his senior season, is only 145 rushing yards behind Alexander for the all-time Alabama record, and Humphrey still holds the all-time Alabama single-season rushing record.
Derrick Lassic, in 1992, was the key cog to our rushing attack, and one of the few bright spots we had on offense. Despite getting almost 200 carries that year, he ran for almost 1,000 yards, and was the Sugar Bowl MVP. He did so at a mere 186 pounds.
Sherman Williams was the Tide's leading rusher in both 1993 and 1994, yet he weighed in at well under 200 pounds.
Shaud Williams was one of the Tide's best all-time tailbacks. In his two years at Alabama, he rushed for well over 2,000 yards, and for 13 touchdowns, averaging over 5.5 yards per carry. In 2003, he had the third most single-season rushing yards in Alabama football history. He did it all at around 189 pounds.
And that's just a few Alabama players that I could think off of the top of my head. Beyond Alabama players, there are entirely too many other small tailbacks who have done extremely well with little or no injury problems at the collegiate level. Again, off the top of my head, a few players I can think of that did really well despite being a bit small are Barry Sanders, Emmitt Smith, and Warrick Dunn.
At bottom, there's just no legitimate concern with small tailbacks. There is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that they are more prone to injury than bigger tailbacks. If anything, smaller tailbacks are most likely less injury prone because they can use their small bodies and increased agility to avoid big hits. Bigger runners, on the other hand, have no other option but to endure the punishment, and of course the ensuing injuries. The same can't be said for the small guys.
Injuries can happen at any time, and tailback is one of the most injury-prone positions. It shouldn't be shocking at all to see either Grant or Coffee go down with an injury, but those injuries won't be related to their size. If anything, their small stature will likely assist in keeping them healthy.
Clarification: Jimmy Johns
I've gotten a few questions regarding Jimmy Johns that past couple of days. If you recall, a few weeks back I wrote one article talking about, once you viewed it through the advanced statistics, how well Johns performed in the "big" games last year (eight conference games, plus Hawai'i and the bowl game), and another article analyzing how specifically how Johns was under-utilized as games wore on, after a hot start. However, now Jimmy Johns is apparently getting most of his work at fullback, and from all that we can tell, Johns is going to play fullback this season.
So, some readers want to know, how do those two things mesh? They seem a bit conflicting, so how do you reconcile those two things?
Personally, I think there are a few reasons.
For one, all of the numbers from a year ago with Johns were in a back-up role. Yes, he did very well in that limited role, no doubt about it. However, there is a major difference between doing things in a limited role and doing them on a full-time basis. Just because you were good over the course of 50 carries doesn't mean you will necessarily replicate that success over the course of 250 carries. In fact, the guys at Football Outsiders even have a term for players who do well on a limited basis, but then fall on their face once they take over full time. They call it the "Doug Johnson Effect" in "honor" of the former Atlanta Falcons quarterback. All the data I crunched on Johns from a year ago says is that he, more or less, should have been given more carries instead of riding the bench. That said, however, we can never know whether or not he would have actually been able to have the same success in an expanded role, all we can say is that he should have gotten the opportunity to do so. Perhaps Saban and company do not feel that Johns would be able to have the same success on a full-time basis.
Two, we need a fullback. I know that sounds elementary, but it's true. I've written in the past that, in 2007, our base set is likely going to be a singleback formation, with three wide receivers (Brown and Hall out wide, Stover in the slot), with a tight end. And I think that is mainly correct, we'll see that a lot in 2007. It just makes sense, if those three guys are healthy. If we put Hall, Brown, and Stover on the field at the same time, it will require the opposing defense to force either a linebacker or a nickel corner to cover one of those three players, and that's a match-up we will win almost every time. But, still, you need a fullback, particularly in short-yardage and goal-to-go situations. Beyond that, it would be nice to utilize the fullback in other situations as well, particularly when he has play-making abilities of Jimmy Johns.
Three, even without Johns, we seem set at tailback. Despite the disappointing injury to Demetrius Goode (torn ACL), Terry Grant is doing very well and is apparently at the top of the depth chart. Glen Coffee, now much leaner, is also doing quite well, and as a whole we seem to be set at tailback. By moving Johns to fullback, we can put more talent on the field at one time, without really giving up anything at tailback.
Four, even though Johns is working a good bit at fullback, he could still play tailback some. It's not like this means he'll never line up at tailback again. If we need him there, for injuries or whatever reason, he could quickly move back and re-acclimate himself to the position in no time.
Putting it all together, it's just a move that makes a lot of sense. No one knows if Johns can really get it done at tailback on a full-time basis, we're in need of a fullback with experience, we seem set at tailback, and even so, Johns could move back to tailback, if needed. Again, it just makes a good bit of sense.
At bottom, though, above and beyond all else, I think this is mainly a move to add an extra threat to the offense. Nothing against Baron Huber, but the harsh truth is that we are likely a more productive offense with Grant / Coffee at tailback and Johns at fullback than we are with Grant / Coffee / Johns at tailback with Huber at fullback. Doing this really adds an explosive element to our offense, and honestly that's something we didn't have last year with Le'Ron McClain. Though McClain was with little doubt the best pure blocking fullback in the country, he was never a real rushing threat (averaged less than seven yards rushing per game for his career), and he was never a real receiving threat, either. He did have 38 catches the past two years, but it was mainly as desperation dump-off passes by Wilson / Croyle in attempts to avoid sacks. Generally speaking, he was never a significant part of the passing game.
Jimmy Johns, with no doubt whatsoever, would change that. He would give us a player at fullback with the running and catching abilities of a good tailback. He has the ability to legitimately be a player that, once he touches the ball, could well rack up first downs, big yardage, and touchdowns.
I imagine that Saban and company are fully expecting to use Johns in a role very much like the current LSU coaching staff has used a former Saban recruit: Jacob Hester.
So, some readers want to know, how do those two things mesh? They seem a bit conflicting, so how do you reconcile those two things?
Personally, I think there are a few reasons.
For one, all of the numbers from a year ago with Johns were in a back-up role. Yes, he did very well in that limited role, no doubt about it. However, there is a major difference between doing things in a limited role and doing them on a full-time basis. Just because you were good over the course of 50 carries doesn't mean you will necessarily replicate that success over the course of 250 carries. In fact, the guys at Football Outsiders even have a term for players who do well on a limited basis, but then fall on their face once they take over full time. They call it the "Doug Johnson Effect" in "honor" of the former Atlanta Falcons quarterback. All the data I crunched on Johns from a year ago says is that he, more or less, should have been given more carries instead of riding the bench. That said, however, we can never know whether or not he would have actually been able to have the same success in an expanded role, all we can say is that he should have gotten the opportunity to do so. Perhaps Saban and company do not feel that Johns would be able to have the same success on a full-time basis.
Two, we need a fullback. I know that sounds elementary, but it's true. I've written in the past that, in 2007, our base set is likely going to be a singleback formation, with three wide receivers (Brown and Hall out wide, Stover in the slot), with a tight end. And I think that is mainly correct, we'll see that a lot in 2007. It just makes sense, if those three guys are healthy. If we put Hall, Brown, and Stover on the field at the same time, it will require the opposing defense to force either a linebacker or a nickel corner to cover one of those three players, and that's a match-up we will win almost every time. But, still, you need a fullback, particularly in short-yardage and goal-to-go situations. Beyond that, it would be nice to utilize the fullback in other situations as well, particularly when he has play-making abilities of Jimmy Johns.
Three, even without Johns, we seem set at tailback. Despite the disappointing injury to Demetrius Goode (torn ACL), Terry Grant is doing very well and is apparently at the top of the depth chart. Glen Coffee, now much leaner, is also doing quite well, and as a whole we seem to be set at tailback. By moving Johns to fullback, we can put more talent on the field at one time, without really giving up anything at tailback.
Four, even though Johns is working a good bit at fullback, he could still play tailback some. It's not like this means he'll never line up at tailback again. If we need him there, for injuries or whatever reason, he could quickly move back and re-acclimate himself to the position in no time.
Putting it all together, it's just a move that makes a lot of sense. No one knows if Johns can really get it done at tailback on a full-time basis, we're in need of a fullback with experience, we seem set at tailback, and even so, Johns could move back to tailback, if needed. Again, it just makes a good bit of sense.
At bottom, though, above and beyond all else, I think this is mainly a move to add an extra threat to the offense. Nothing against Baron Huber, but the harsh truth is that we are likely a more productive offense with Grant / Coffee at tailback and Johns at fullback than we are with Grant / Coffee / Johns at tailback with Huber at fullback. Doing this really adds an explosive element to our offense, and honestly that's something we didn't have last year with Le'Ron McClain. Though McClain was with little doubt the best pure blocking fullback in the country, he was never a real rushing threat (averaged less than seven yards rushing per game for his career), and he was never a real receiving threat, either. He did have 38 catches the past two years, but it was mainly as desperation dump-off passes by Wilson / Croyle in attempts to avoid sacks. Generally speaking, he was never a significant part of the passing game.
Jimmy Johns, with no doubt whatsoever, would change that. He would give us a player at fullback with the running and catching abilities of a good tailback. He has the ability to legitimately be a player that, once he touches the ball, could well rack up first downs, big yardage, and touchdowns.
I imagine that Saban and company are fully expecting to use Johns in a role very much like the current LSU coaching staff has used a former Saban recruit: Jacob Hester.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
The Heisman Pundit Responds
The Heisman Pundit -- almost without doubt the foremost internet authority on all things Heisman -- has read the earlier post here on Outside The Sidelines regarding the Heisman Trophy, and has taken exception to some of the things noted.
If you recall, the money quote from that column was essentially this: "The truth of the matter is that for a player to have any legitimate shot at the Heisman Trophy these days, his team almost certainly has to be playing for the national championship."
The Heisman Pundit had this to say regarding that particular thesis:
The Heisman Pundit explicitly stated that in order to have a shot at the national championship, you probably have to have a Heisman Trophy contender.
Does that argument have any validity? As best I can tell, no. Far beyond merely contending for the national championship, six national champions have emerged in the past eleven years with no legitimate Heisman Trophy contender whatsoever.
Among that group includes:
2006 Florida: Despite some ESPN rumblings about Chris Leak potentially being a Heisman contender, the Heisman voters never felt that way. Though the Gators were undisputed national champions, according to the expanded Heisman Trophy voting, he was not among the top 11 vote-getters.
2003 LSU: Though the Tigers won the BCS national championship, they did not have a player finish in the top 10 in Heisman balloting in 2003. In reality, they won it with a journeyman quarterback who came to Baton Rouge via Lansing, Michigan and Minor League Baseball (Mauck), and a tailback who was a one-year freshman wonder (Vincent).
2002 Ohio State: The Buckeyes may have shocked the world by knocking off defending national champion Miami in the Fiesta Bowl, but they did so with an unheralded quarterback (Krenzel), and a true freshman tailback (Clarett). No Buckeye finished in the final top 10 in Heisman balloting in 2002.
1999 Florida State: The Seminoles went undefeated and won the national championship with a convincing win over Virginia Tech in the Sugar Bowl, but didn't have a legitimate Heisman contender. Wide receiver Peter Warrick finished sixth in Heisman voting. He ended with approximately one-tenth of the total points as did Heisman Trophy winner Ron Dayne. Perhaps this is a subjective judgment, but I wouldn't consider finishing sixth in Heisman voting with only roughly one-tenth of the total points as the eventual winner legitimately "contending" for the award.
1998 Tennessee: The Volunteers went undefeated in 1998 and won the national championship, but did not have a player finish in the final top ten in Heisman voting. What's more, Florida State, the Volunteers opponent in the first ever BCS national championship game, did not have a player finish in the final top ten in Heisman voting, either.
1997 Nebraska: Though the Corhuskers went undefeated and won the third and final national championship for Tom Osbourne, they did not have a player finish in the final top ten in Heisman voting in 1997.
So, as noted earlier, that argument just doesn't seem to have very much validity. There have been, in my eyes, entirely too many national champions the past several years that have done so with no legitimate Heisman contender whatsoever for that argument to have any real validity.
Now, let's move to the other corollary of that argument:
Moreover, if Heisman Trophy winners are really so integral, why have their teams struggled so much in national championship games? Since the inception of the BCS in 1998, Heisman Trophy winners have played in the national championship game six times, and generally it hasn't been pretty for those who have hoisted the Heisman. All told, their teams are only 1-5 in the BCS national championship game. More specifically:
2000: Florida State loses to Oklahoma, 13-2 (Chris Weinke)
2001: Nebraska loses to Miami, 37-14 (Eric Crouch)
2003: Oklahoma loses to LSU, 21-14 (Jason White)
2004: USC beats Oklahoma, 55-19 (Matt Leinart)
2005: USC loses to Texas, 41-38 (Reggie Bush)
2006: Ohio State loses to Florida, 41-14 (Troy Smith)
At bottom, having a Heisman Trophy winner on your team doesn't seem to pay off too much when it is all on the line.
Also, to close, if the Heisman Trophy is viewed as a total team award as opposed to an individual accomplishment, it does help explain why Heisman Trophy winners have generally struggled so greatly in the NFL the past few years. When looked at in that light, it makes a bit of sense. Arguably, the Heisman Trophy winners weren't particularly great players in their own right, but were mainly the by-product of great teams, and once they were faced with a much higher level of competition in the NFL and much more overall parity with their opponents, their true abilities were fully revealed. Certainly there are some exceptions to this rule (Carson Palmer, mainly), but generally that rule could be construed as valid (Jason White, Chris Weinke, Eric Crouch, etc.).
Either way, it's nice to get into a good debate with one of the best blogs you can find anywhere. I look forward to their response.
If you recall, the money quote from that column was essentially this: "The truth of the matter is that for a player to have any legitimate shot at the Heisman Trophy these days, his team almost certainly has to be playing for the national championship."
The Heisman Pundit had this to say regarding that particular thesis:
"It's really not that simple. In reality, it may be the other way around: To have a shot at the national championship you probably have to have a Heisman Trophy contender. Having one of what people regard as one of the best players in the country playing for your team at an important position like quarterback or running back is invariably a boost to ranking and record. Would Ohio State have made the national title game without Troy Smith under center? Doubt it. And that's the whole point: Heisman contenders usually make the teams, not the other way around.So let's look at the main argument.
The Heisman Pundit explicitly stated that in order to have a shot at the national championship, you probably have to have a Heisman Trophy contender.
Does that argument have any validity? As best I can tell, no. Far beyond merely contending for the national championship, six national champions have emerged in the past eleven years with no legitimate Heisman Trophy contender whatsoever.
Among that group includes:
2006 Florida: Despite some ESPN rumblings about Chris Leak potentially being a Heisman contender, the Heisman voters never felt that way. Though the Gators were undisputed national champions, according to the expanded Heisman Trophy voting, he was not among the top 11 vote-getters.
2003 LSU: Though the Tigers won the BCS national championship, they did not have a player finish in the top 10 in Heisman balloting in 2003. In reality, they won it with a journeyman quarterback who came to Baton Rouge via Lansing, Michigan and Minor League Baseball (Mauck), and a tailback who was a one-year freshman wonder (Vincent).
2002 Ohio State: The Buckeyes may have shocked the world by knocking off defending national champion Miami in the Fiesta Bowl, but they did so with an unheralded quarterback (Krenzel), and a true freshman tailback (Clarett). No Buckeye finished in the final top 10 in Heisman balloting in 2002.
1999 Florida State: The Seminoles went undefeated and won the national championship with a convincing win over Virginia Tech in the Sugar Bowl, but didn't have a legitimate Heisman contender. Wide receiver Peter Warrick finished sixth in Heisman voting. He ended with approximately one-tenth of the total points as did Heisman Trophy winner Ron Dayne. Perhaps this is a subjective judgment, but I wouldn't consider finishing sixth in Heisman voting with only roughly one-tenth of the total points as the eventual winner legitimately "contending" for the award.
1998 Tennessee: The Volunteers went undefeated in 1998 and won the national championship, but did not have a player finish in the final top ten in Heisman voting. What's more, Florida State, the Volunteers opponent in the first ever BCS national championship game, did not have a player finish in the final top ten in Heisman voting, either.
1997 Nebraska: Though the Corhuskers went undefeated and won the third and final national championship for Tom Osbourne, they did not have a player finish in the final top ten in Heisman voting in 1997.
So, as noted earlier, that argument just doesn't seem to have very much validity. There have been, in my eyes, entirely too many national champions the past several years that have done so with no legitimate Heisman contender whatsoever for that argument to have any real validity.
Now, let's move to the other corollary of that argument:
"And that's the whole point: Heisman contenders usually make the teams, not the other way around."On that point, I'd have to disagree. Successful teams, at bottom, are not about having one great player, but instead are about having great players at nearly every position, from top-to-bottom on the depth chart. To say that one player "makes" the team, in my eyes, is absurd. Certainly one player can be highly important to your team's overall successes, no doubt there. However, if all you have is one incredible player, you don't have very much, and aren't going to go very far. Calvin Johnson and 9-5 Georgia Tech provide the textbook example. Troy Smith and the Ohio State Buckeyes, on the other hand, prove the reverse of that point nicely. Though Smith was an integral piece, no doubt about it, Ohio State wasn't in the national championship game solely because of him. Rather, their national championship appearance was about a good offensive line, great receivers (Ginn and Gonzalez), a good running game (Pittman), a great defense (fifth in the country in scoring defense), and one of the best head coaches in the country. At bottom, football is the ultimate team sport, and is not defined by single good players. For any team to have any real national championship contender, they have to be good from top-to-bottom. True one man teams generally end up in mid-tier bowls at best, not hoisting the national championship trophy.
Moreover, if Heisman Trophy winners are really so integral, why have their teams struggled so much in national championship games? Since the inception of the BCS in 1998, Heisman Trophy winners have played in the national championship game six times, and generally it hasn't been pretty for those who have hoisted the Heisman. All told, their teams are only 1-5 in the BCS national championship game. More specifically:
2000: Florida State loses to Oklahoma, 13-2 (Chris Weinke)
2001: Nebraska loses to Miami, 37-14 (Eric Crouch)
2003: Oklahoma loses to LSU, 21-14 (Jason White)
2004: USC beats Oklahoma, 55-19 (Matt Leinart)
2005: USC loses to Texas, 41-38 (Reggie Bush)
2006: Ohio State loses to Florida, 41-14 (Troy Smith)
At bottom, having a Heisman Trophy winner on your team doesn't seem to pay off too much when it is all on the line.
Also, to close, if the Heisman Trophy is viewed as a total team award as opposed to an individual accomplishment, it does help explain why Heisman Trophy winners have generally struggled so greatly in the NFL the past few years. When looked at in that light, it makes a bit of sense. Arguably, the Heisman Trophy winners weren't particularly great players in their own right, but were mainly the by-product of great teams, and once they were faced with a much higher level of competition in the NFL and much more overall parity with their opponents, their true abilities were fully revealed. Certainly there are some exceptions to this rule (Carson Palmer, mainly), but generally that rule could be construed as valid (Jason White, Chris Weinke, Eric Crouch, etc.).
Either way, it's nice to get into a good debate with one of the best blogs you can find anywhere. I look forward to their response.
More On Kick-Off Rule Change
Nearly two weeks, I wrote on the massive effects that the rule change regarding kick-offs would bring about. Some have speculated that now, teams would simply kick the ball out of bounds and let the opponent take it at the 35, instead of risking a bigger return.
As usual, things aren't just that simple. I found the following in the NCAA rulebook (warning: PDF, scroll down to the top of page 185) regarding kicks that go out of bounds:
Say that you do choose to just kick the ball out-of-bounds. It won't work. If you kick it out-of bounds, the return team will simply accept the five-yard penalty, and you will have to re-kick from the 25 yard line. If you again kick it out of bounds, they will again accept the five-yard penalty, and you will have to re-kick from the 20-yard line. At bottom, kicking the football out of bounds only digs you deeper in the hole each time you do it.
The only way the return team would decline the penalty is if you shanked the kick-off (or got a poor subjective ruling from the officials as to where the ball really went out of bounds at), and then they would simply take the ball where it went at of bounds. Considering that would probably have them either near, or at, midfield, that wouldn't work. The average expected starting field position would be worse if they had just kicked it deep.
At bottom, all of this junk about kicking the ball out of bounds isn't going to work. It's a junk idea, and teams that try it (and I seriously doubt there will really be any) will soon find themselves in big trouble.
Moreover, even squib kicking -- while not as perilous as kicking the ball out of bounds -- is not likely to be particularly effective. In reality, generally speaking, the key to the squib kick is surprise. Return teams do not expect it, and a well-placed squib kick completely disorganizes the return. If you expect it, however, it's nowhere near as effective. The return team knows it is likely to come and they compensate accordingly. Return men will move up, then charge the ball to field it, and (as we've seen quite a bit in late-game scenarios in the NFL) even if the up-men grab the football, they will generally just immediately pitch it back to the returner and go about their business. Again, as noted earlier, the squib kick is just not going to be particularly effective if you use it on a regular basis.
At the end of the day, you simply are not going to weasel your way around this rule. You are going to have to kick the football deep, and you are going to have to go down and effectively cover it. And if you can't do that, well, you are in big trouble, and there is no real way around it.
As I said almost two weeks ago, this rule will have a massive impact, and teams that can cover kicks effectively and return kicks effectively will be in great shape to win a lot of games, and teams that cannot cover kicks effectively or return kicks effectively will be in big trouble, and could easily see wins turn into losses as a result of special teams meltdowns.
As usual, things aren't just that simple. I found the following in the NCAA rulebook (warning: PDF, scroll down to the top of page 185) regarding kicks that go out of bounds:
"A kickoff from Team A’s 30-yard line goes out of bounds untouched by Team B, and no other foul (or violation) occurs. RULING: Team B may accept a five-yard penalty from the previous spot with Team A kicking from the 25-yard line, or Team B may put the ball in play at Team B’s 35-yard line at the inbounds spot or at the inbounds spot where the ball went out of bounds. Team B may put the ball in play following a penalty at the dead ball spot."As said earlier, things just aren't that simple.
Say that you do choose to just kick the ball out-of-bounds. It won't work. If you kick it out-of bounds, the return team will simply accept the five-yard penalty, and you will have to re-kick from the 25 yard line. If you again kick it out of bounds, they will again accept the five-yard penalty, and you will have to re-kick from the 20-yard line. At bottom, kicking the football out of bounds only digs you deeper in the hole each time you do it.
The only way the return team would decline the penalty is if you shanked the kick-off (or got a poor subjective ruling from the officials as to where the ball really went out of bounds at), and then they would simply take the ball where it went at of bounds. Considering that would probably have them either near, or at, midfield, that wouldn't work. The average expected starting field position would be worse if they had just kicked it deep.
At bottom, all of this junk about kicking the ball out of bounds isn't going to work. It's a junk idea, and teams that try it (and I seriously doubt there will really be any) will soon find themselves in big trouble.
Moreover, even squib kicking -- while not as perilous as kicking the ball out of bounds -- is not likely to be particularly effective. In reality, generally speaking, the key to the squib kick is surprise. Return teams do not expect it, and a well-placed squib kick completely disorganizes the return. If you expect it, however, it's nowhere near as effective. The return team knows it is likely to come and they compensate accordingly. Return men will move up, then charge the ball to field it, and (as we've seen quite a bit in late-game scenarios in the NFL) even if the up-men grab the football, they will generally just immediately pitch it back to the returner and go about their business. Again, as noted earlier, the squib kick is just not going to be particularly effective if you use it on a regular basis.
At the end of the day, you simply are not going to weasel your way around this rule. You are going to have to kick the football deep, and you are going to have to go down and effectively cover it. And if you can't do that, well, you are in big trouble, and there is no real way around it.
As I said almost two weeks ago, this rule will have a massive impact, and teams that can cover kicks effectively and return kicks effectively will be in great shape to win a lot of games, and teams that cannot cover kicks effectively or return kicks effectively will be in big trouble, and could easily see wins turn into losses as a result of special teams meltdowns.
The Heisman Trophy: A Total Team Award
Upon his retirement, Paul W. Bryant was asked whether or not he was disappointed in the fact that he never had a Heisman Trophy winner at Alabama. His reply was something to the effect of, "At Alabama our players don't win Heismany trophies, our teams win national championships," addressing the notion that the Heisman is purely an individual award and that he cared only about team accomplishments.
That may have been true during the time that Bryant said it, but today, it couldn't be farther from the truth.
In reality, the Heisman Trophy is now a total team award. It is not the total team award (that honored distinction remains for the national championship), but it is nevertheless an award marked by overall team success, and not merely individual performance.
The truth of the matter is that for a player to have any legitimate shot at the Heisman Trophy these days, his team almost certainly has to be playing for a national championship.
Let's look at recent history, looking at the past eleven Heisman Trophy winners.
2006: Troy Smith took home the Heisman Trophy, and when the award was decided, his Ohio State Buckeyes were 12-0, had a spot secured in the BCS Title game, and were also a massive favorite over Florida.
2005: Reggie Bush won the Heisman Trophy, and when the award was decided, his USC Trojans were 11-0, coming off of back-to-back national championships, and were going into the Rose Bowl as the #1 team in the country.
2004: Matt Leinart won the Heisman Trophy, and when the award was decided, his USC Trojans were 11-0, coming off of a national championship season, and were going into the Orange Bowl as the #1 team in the country.
2003: Jason White won the Heisman Trophy, and when the award was decided, his Sooners were 12-1 and had a spot secured to play for the national championship against LSU in the Sugar Bowl. For months, his Oklahoma Sooners were talked about as one of the greatest teams in the history of college football.
2002: Carson Palmer won the Heisman Trophy, and when the award was decided, his Trojans were Pac-10 champions, and were going to play Big Ten champion Iowa in the Orange Bowl.
2001: Eric Crouch won the Heisman Trophy, and when the award was decided, his Cornhuskers were 11-1 and were slated to play Miami for the national championship in the Rose Bowl.
2000: Chris Weinke won the Heisman Trophy, and when the award was decided, his Seminoles were 10-1 and playing Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl for the national championship. Florida State was coming off of a national championship season, and were playing in their third consecutive national championship game.
1999: Ron Dayne won the Heisman Trophy, and when the award was decided, his Big Ten champion Badgers were slated to play in the Rose Bowl, and Dayne had just broken the NCAA all-time rushing record.
1998: Ricky Williams won the Heisman Trophy, and when the award was decided, his Longhorns were slated to play in the Cotton Bowl, and Williams had just broken the NCAA all-time rushing record.
1997: Charles Woodson won the Heisman Trophy, and when the award was decided, his Wolverines were 11-0 and were slated to play, effectively, for the national championship in the Rose Bowl against Washington State.
1996: Danny Wuerffel won the Heisman Trophy, and when the award was decided, his Gators were 11-1, SEC Champs, and were slated to play Florida State for the national championship in the Sugar Bowl.
So, that's it for the past eleven years.
All told, of the eleven last Heisman Trophy winners, eight of them were on a team playing in the national championship game, and the two that didn't had teams playing in the Cotton Bowl and the Rose Bowl, respectively, and had just broken the all-time NCAA rushing record. The only winner that did not fall into either category was Carson Palmer, the 2002 winner, and he was generally considered the best player in the country (he was the number overall selection in the NFL Draft six months later), and his Trojans at the end of the year were likely the hottest team in the country. Not exactly a mediocre squad, to say the least.
Let's look at combined overall records to drive home the point. If you omit the two who won the Heisman because they broke the all-time NCAA rushing record (Williams and Dayne), the other nine Heisman Trophy winner's team's had, at the time they were given the award, a combined 100-6 record, and eight national championship game appearances. Even if you include the 1998 Texas Longhorns (Williams), and the 1999 Wisconsin Badgers (Dayne), the overall record is 119-11. Quite impressive, to say the least.
In the end, it's a pretty simple analysis: If you want to win the Heisman Trophy, your team almost certainly must be in contention for the national championship (and by that I mean literally playing in a national championship game), or you must break one of the most highly regarded historical records.
Again, at bottom, despite assertions to the contrary, the Heisman Trophy is very much a team award. Unless your team is having a national championship contending year, you just aren't likely going to be able to win the Heisman.
2006 provided the perfect example. Everyone, and I do mean everyone, agreed that Georgia Tech's Calvin Johnson was the best player in the nation. Many contended, and still contend, that he was the best Division 1-A receiver in decades, and honestly it was / is a legitimate argument. Nevertheless, Johnson never had a legitimate shot at the Heisman Trophy because he was on a mediocre team, and actually was not even in the final three at the Downtown Athletic Club. In fact, Johnson finished tenth in Heisman voting, behind the likes of Ian Johnson and Ray Rice.
And what about 2007? Most people have John David Booty as the Heisman Trophy front-runner, even though most will contend that Arkansas' Darren McFadden is the best player in the nation. Why? Booty's USC Trojans are #1 in the country, and everyone's pick to be national champions. Arkansas, on the other hand, isn't even picked to win their division, and is ranked 20th.
Again, there are no two ways about it, the Heisman Trophy is a team award.
That may have been true during the time that Bryant said it, but today, it couldn't be farther from the truth.
In reality, the Heisman Trophy is now a total team award. It is not the total team award (that honored distinction remains for the national championship), but it is nevertheless an award marked by overall team success, and not merely individual performance.
The truth of the matter is that for a player to have any legitimate shot at the Heisman Trophy these days, his team almost certainly has to be playing for a national championship.
Let's look at recent history, looking at the past eleven Heisman Trophy winners.
2006: Troy Smith took home the Heisman Trophy, and when the award was decided, his Ohio State Buckeyes were 12-0, had a spot secured in the BCS Title game, and were also a massive favorite over Florida.
2005: Reggie Bush won the Heisman Trophy, and when the award was decided, his USC Trojans were 11-0, coming off of back-to-back national championships, and were going into the Rose Bowl as the #1 team in the country.
2004: Matt Leinart won the Heisman Trophy, and when the award was decided, his USC Trojans were 11-0, coming off of a national championship season, and were going into the Orange Bowl as the #1 team in the country.
2003: Jason White won the Heisman Trophy, and when the award was decided, his Sooners were 12-1 and had a spot secured to play for the national championship against LSU in the Sugar Bowl. For months, his Oklahoma Sooners were talked about as one of the greatest teams in the history of college football.
2002: Carson Palmer won the Heisman Trophy, and when the award was decided, his Trojans were Pac-10 champions, and were going to play Big Ten champion Iowa in the Orange Bowl.
2001: Eric Crouch won the Heisman Trophy, and when the award was decided, his Cornhuskers were 11-1 and were slated to play Miami for the national championship in the Rose Bowl.
2000: Chris Weinke won the Heisman Trophy, and when the award was decided, his Seminoles were 10-1 and playing Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl for the national championship. Florida State was coming off of a national championship season, and were playing in their third consecutive national championship game.
1999: Ron Dayne won the Heisman Trophy, and when the award was decided, his Big Ten champion Badgers were slated to play in the Rose Bowl, and Dayne had just broken the NCAA all-time rushing record.
1998: Ricky Williams won the Heisman Trophy, and when the award was decided, his Longhorns were slated to play in the Cotton Bowl, and Williams had just broken the NCAA all-time rushing record.
1997: Charles Woodson won the Heisman Trophy, and when the award was decided, his Wolverines were 11-0 and were slated to play, effectively, for the national championship in the Rose Bowl against Washington State.
1996: Danny Wuerffel won the Heisman Trophy, and when the award was decided, his Gators were 11-1, SEC Champs, and were slated to play Florida State for the national championship in the Sugar Bowl.
So, that's it for the past eleven years.
All told, of the eleven last Heisman Trophy winners, eight of them were on a team playing in the national championship game, and the two that didn't had teams playing in the Cotton Bowl and the Rose Bowl, respectively, and had just broken the all-time NCAA rushing record. The only winner that did not fall into either category was Carson Palmer, the 2002 winner, and he was generally considered the best player in the country (he was the number overall selection in the NFL Draft six months later), and his Trojans at the end of the year were likely the hottest team in the country. Not exactly a mediocre squad, to say the least.
Let's look at combined overall records to drive home the point. If you omit the two who won the Heisman because they broke the all-time NCAA rushing record (Williams and Dayne), the other nine Heisman Trophy winner's team's had, at the time they were given the award, a combined 100-6 record, and eight national championship game appearances. Even if you include the 1998 Texas Longhorns (Williams), and the 1999 Wisconsin Badgers (Dayne), the overall record is 119-11. Quite impressive, to say the least.
In the end, it's a pretty simple analysis: If you want to win the Heisman Trophy, your team almost certainly must be in contention for the national championship (and by that I mean literally playing in a national championship game), or you must break one of the most highly regarded historical records.
Again, at bottom, despite assertions to the contrary, the Heisman Trophy is very much a team award. Unless your team is having a national championship contending year, you just aren't likely going to be able to win the Heisman.
2006 provided the perfect example. Everyone, and I do mean everyone, agreed that Georgia Tech's Calvin Johnson was the best player in the nation. Many contended, and still contend, that he was the best Division 1-A receiver in decades, and honestly it was / is a legitimate argument. Nevertheless, Johnson never had a legitimate shot at the Heisman Trophy because he was on a mediocre team, and actually was not even in the final three at the Downtown Athletic Club. In fact, Johnson finished tenth in Heisman voting, behind the likes of Ian Johnson and Ray Rice.
And what about 2007? Most people have John David Booty as the Heisman Trophy front-runner, even though most will contend that Arkansas' Darren McFadden is the best player in the nation. Why? Booty's USC Trojans are #1 in the country, and everyone's pick to be national champions. Arkansas, on the other hand, isn't even picked to win their division, and is ranked 20th.
Again, there are no two ways about it, the Heisman Trophy is a team award.
Monday, August 6, 2007
Preseason Rankings: Do They Matter?
A few days ago, USA Today released its Top 25 Coaches' Poll. You've probably read about it by now, but in case you haven't, click here. The AP Poll, I'm sure, will be coming out shortly, though I don't know precisely when.
And, well, it is what it is. But the relevant question to it all is this: Do preseason rankings really matter? Do they have any real correlation with the actual end result, i.e. the final poll?
Well, that's what I wanted to know.
So, I did some analysis on the subject. All in all, I took the preseason AP Poll from 2002-2006, a five year stretch, and attempted to determine how well the preseason rankings correlated to the final rankings. In doing so, largely for simplification purposes, I decided to only look at the preseason top ten and then look how well those teams did in the final poll.
The following two images represent the entire data set summed up nicely. As you will see, team names are omitted, and only the raw ranking is shown. "Pre" indicates the slot that the particular team was ranked in the preseason AP Poll, and "Final" indicates where the team was ranked in the final AP Poll after the conclusion of the bowl games.
Here goes:
And that is all of the data regarding the subject analyzed here.
So, what did we find?
I ran the correlation numbers, and they were very hit and miss. Some years the preseason poll was pretty accurate, i.e. a pretty strong correlation, and in other years the correlation was almost non-existent. Here is the list of the correlation by year:
2002: .6068
2003: .6973
2004: .7901
2005: -.0105
2006: -.0657
So, as you can see, it's a bit all over the board. Some years you have pretty high correlation, and others there is effectively none whatsoever.
Going deeper than that, once you really look at the data past the raw correlation numbers, you see that even in the best years, the preseason poll isn't too accurate. Though they have a generally high correlation, nevertheless it's still very hit or miss, and the high correlation numbers are mainly due to the fact that a handful of teams were very close in terms of preseason ranking and final ranking.
Let's break things down year-by-year:
2002: As a whole, 2002 was one of the better years, but it still wasn't particularly good. Miami was the preseason number one, coming off of national championship. The Hurricanes didn't really disappoint, finishing second after a controversial overtime loss to Ohio State in the Fiesta Bowl. Aside from that, though, the rest wasn't particularly good. All told, three teams of the preseason top ten did not even finish in the final top 25. Six of the preseason top ten teams did not finish in the top ten; the preseason top ten accurately predicted only four of the final top ten teams. Ohio State, the 2002 national champion that went 13-0, was ranked 13th in the preseason poll.
2003: Much like 2003, 2002 was a good year in terms of pure correlation, but looking deeper it was still very much hit or miss. Three of the preseason top ten teams finished outside of the final top 25, and five of the preseason top ten teams finished outside of the final top 10. LSU, the team that took the Coaches' Poll national championship and finished 2nd in the AP Poll, was ranked 14th in the preseason AP Polll.
2004: The 2004 season had by far the highest correlation of any year, but even it had problems. Though it accurately predicted the eventual national champion (USC), the only time that happened in the five year stretch, and only one of the preseason top 10 teams finished unranked, six of the preseason top 10 teams finished outside of the top 10. The preseason top 10 accurately predicted only four of the final AP top ten teams.
2005: The 2005 preseason poll had effectively no correlation. It accurately predicted the final top two teams, but aside from that it was quite poor. Preseason number three (Tennessee), and preseason number four (Michigan), finished well outside the top 25, and Tennessee went 5-6. Though only two preseason top ten teams finished the season unranked, but five of the preseason top ten teams finished outside the top ten.
2006: The 2006 preseason poll was even worse than 2005. Though none of the preseason top ten teams finished unranked, four teams finished outside of the final top ten. Of the preseason top five, only one team (Ohio State) ranked higher than ninth in the final poll.
At bottom, the preseason rankings can be solid at times, but essentially pointless at others. They generally tell you who the top team is (though, being honest, that's a pretty easy thing to do), but aside from that, I don't think, generally speaking, they really have very much meaning. Every year there are usually two or three preseason top ten teams that finished unranked, and generally speaking around five of the preseason top ten teams finish outside of the final top ten. All told, again, it just doesn't seem like they mean too much. Being brutally honest, it just seems that there is entirely too many uncertainties in college football for preseason rankings to be particularly accurate.
And, well, that's it. A couple of administrative notes:
And, well, it is what it is. But the relevant question to it all is this: Do preseason rankings really matter? Do they have any real correlation with the actual end result, i.e. the final poll?
Well, that's what I wanted to know.
So, I did some analysis on the subject. All in all, I took the preseason AP Poll from 2002-2006, a five year stretch, and attempted to determine how well the preseason rankings correlated to the final rankings. In doing so, largely for simplification purposes, I decided to only look at the preseason top ten and then look how well those teams did in the final poll.
The following two images represent the entire data set summed up nicely. As you will see, team names are omitted, and only the raw ranking is shown. "Pre" indicates the slot that the particular team was ranked in the preseason AP Poll, and "Final" indicates where the team was ranked in the final AP Poll after the conclusion of the bowl games.
Here goes:
And that is all of the data regarding the subject analyzed here.
So, what did we find?
I ran the correlation numbers, and they were very hit and miss. Some years the preseason poll was pretty accurate, i.e. a pretty strong correlation, and in other years the correlation was almost non-existent. Here is the list of the correlation by year:
2002: .6068
2003: .6973
2004: .7901
2005: -.0105
2006: -.0657
So, as you can see, it's a bit all over the board. Some years you have pretty high correlation, and others there is effectively none whatsoever.
Going deeper than that, once you really look at the data past the raw correlation numbers, you see that even in the best years, the preseason poll isn't too accurate. Though they have a generally high correlation, nevertheless it's still very hit or miss, and the high correlation numbers are mainly due to the fact that a handful of teams were very close in terms of preseason ranking and final ranking.
Let's break things down year-by-year:
2002: As a whole, 2002 was one of the better years, but it still wasn't particularly good. Miami was the preseason number one, coming off of national championship. The Hurricanes didn't really disappoint, finishing second after a controversial overtime loss to Ohio State in the Fiesta Bowl. Aside from that, though, the rest wasn't particularly good. All told, three teams of the preseason top ten did not even finish in the final top 25. Six of the preseason top ten teams did not finish in the top ten; the preseason top ten accurately predicted only four of the final top ten teams. Ohio State, the 2002 national champion that went 13-0, was ranked 13th in the preseason poll.
2003: Much like 2003, 2002 was a good year in terms of pure correlation, but looking deeper it was still very much hit or miss. Three of the preseason top ten teams finished outside of the final top 25, and five of the preseason top ten teams finished outside of the final top 10. LSU, the team that took the Coaches' Poll national championship and finished 2nd in the AP Poll, was ranked 14th in the preseason AP Polll.
2004: The 2004 season had by far the highest correlation of any year, but even it had problems. Though it accurately predicted the eventual national champion (USC), the only time that happened in the five year stretch, and only one of the preseason top 10 teams finished unranked, six of the preseason top 10 teams finished outside of the top 10. The preseason top 10 accurately predicted only four of the final AP top ten teams.
2005: The 2005 preseason poll had effectively no correlation. It accurately predicted the final top two teams, but aside from that it was quite poor. Preseason number three (Tennessee), and preseason number four (Michigan), finished well outside the top 25, and Tennessee went 5-6. Though only two preseason top ten teams finished the season unranked, but five of the preseason top ten teams finished outside the top ten.
2006: The 2006 preseason poll was even worse than 2005. Though none of the preseason top ten teams finished unranked, four teams finished outside of the final top ten. Of the preseason top five, only one team (Ohio State) ranked higher than ninth in the final poll.
At bottom, the preseason rankings can be solid at times, but essentially pointless at others. They generally tell you who the top team is (though, being honest, that's a pretty easy thing to do), but aside from that, I don't think, generally speaking, they really have very much meaning. Every year there are usually two or three preseason top ten teams that finished unranked, and generally speaking around five of the preseason top ten teams finish outside of the final top ten. All told, again, it just doesn't seem like they mean too much. Being brutally honest, it just seems that there is entirely too many uncertainties in college football for preseason rankings to be particularly accurate.
And, well, that's it. A couple of administrative notes:
- I used the AP poll in this analysis, simply because, for whatever reason, it was easier to find the older AP polls than the Coaches' polls. That said, it really shouldn't make a difference one way or the other. All told, the polls are just so similar, there is just no legitimate amount of disparity between the two. They basically come to the same conclusions, and I imagine the analytical conclusions would be the same as well.
- For teams that finished outside of the top 25, I counted from 26 on down based on how many votes a particular team received. For teams that did not even receive a vote, I generally assigned them the spot immediately behind the last team that did receive a vote. I understand that there are no official rankings outside of the top 25, but this had to be done to complete the analysis.
Random Practice Notes
As of early Monday morning, the Crimson Tide has completed their third practice. And the third, i.e. the one that preceded Fan Day, was open to the public. At this point, we've found out a few things here and there that we can safely say, one way or the other, about developments thus far in practice. Here goes:
- Players, as a whole, seem to be in much better shape. Noticeably gone are the big bellies that we have seen the past few years. The apocryphal "Puddin' ass" and his cohorts in crime have apparently discovered, or perhaps I should say forced to discover, our world-class weight room facilities.
- The defensive line is big, no two ways about it. Again, "Puddin' ass"... The thing is, even the defensive ends are huge, which is largely to be expected in the 3-4. Generally speaking, even the defensive ends now are mostly between 270 and 285 pounds. The defensive ends in 2007 will essentially be as big as the defensive tackles that we have had the past several years. And, not to be outdone, the defensive tackles are quite large as well, with both Chapman and McCullough reporting around 300 pounds each.
- Prince Hall is not in the Saban doghouse. Some people concluded as such after Hall spent the first practice with the freshmen, but that's not the case. Apparently the staff is trying to get the young defenders (who, of course, we will need this season) acclimated to the environment and the college game.
- Speaking of Hall, at the open practice, he was barking out orders to the defense. With little doubt, he seems to be the field general of the defense.
- More on Hall, he's in much better shape this year. As well as he played last year, the truth was that he was a bit overweight and out-of-shape. Not anymore. He's dropped a good bit of weight and noticeably has the best physique since he has arrived at the Capstone.
- Rolando McClain showed up as a beast, as expected. He has been shadowing Prince Hall, from all we can tell, and that's not too surprising. I believe, judging by the totality of the circumstances, that the coaching staff realizes that, if at all possible from a mental perspective, McClain needs to start this year, as soon as possible. I imagine that tutoring McClain may have been the main reason Prince Hall was with the freshmen on the first day.
- Roy Upchurch missed the first practice, but he showed up today. However, he was wearing a black jersey signifying no contact. Then again, on the other hand, he was taking reps with the first-team offense. I imagine the only people who really know what is going on here is the players and the coaches, seems odd to say the least.
- Chris Capps does not appear to be close to any meaningful playing time. Obviously, among other things, the shoulder surgery that caused him to miss Spring practice and much of the off-season workout program have hurt him greatly. He has taken some reps at left tackle, backing up Andre of course, and has also taken some reps at right tackle. However, it seems that he is noticeably behind both Mike Johnson and B.J. Stabler (a much leaner B.J. Stabler, I might add). Given how the coaching staff is flipping him around, I cannot help but wonder if they are trying to mold Capps into a multi-dimensional reserve player who could play a variety of positions if, or I should say when, one of the starters gets hurt. Starting doesn't seem to be in his future, either way.
- Jimmy Johns is taken a high number of snaps at fullback. No, rumors of him being 250 pounds were incorrect, but nevertheless he is still taking reps as a fullback. I really do not know about this one, honestly. He was with the first-team offense during Spring practice, and you would assume he would be there again, but apparently not. Of course, this may be just Saban experimenting like the mad scientist that he is renowned for being on the practice field. And no one really knows if Johns is being used as a true fullback or more of a hybrid H-back. Again, lots of questions here, few definite answers.
- Glen Coffee has dropped a good bit of weight, it seems. I don't know if the 28 pound figure at RollTide.com is correct, but it is obvious just from plain-sight that he is considerably leaner. That's huge news, to be quite reserved about the situation. A tailback at 225 pounds is a completely different player than a tailback at 197 pounds. It's two completely different running styles, etc. Again, much like with Johns, lots of questions here, few definite answers.
- John Parker Wilson impressed several today at Fan Day, and many noted his seemingly improved arm strength. We'll see with the first scrimmage on that one, though there is little doubt that a rigorous workout program and improved mechanics (which probably wasn't a major problem with Wilson, but nevertheless) can improve overall arm strength.
- Marquis Maze is impressing everyone in the return game. He's not ready to play on offense, but he is wowing people when he gets the ball in the open field on returns. Considering Arenas and Grant are already considered good returners, I'm not sure he will play this year, but it's good news nonetheless.
- Though it shouldn't come as much of a surprise, the defense does seem much more complicated than in the past. Kines never had complex schemes; the underlying philosophy to the Kines' scheme in that sense was that we are going to be pretty simple, but we are going to be very good at those few things that we do. Saban is the exact opposite. Even going back to his time as defensive coordinator of the Cleveland Browns in the mid-1990's, Saban has been known for his extremely complex defensive packages, and that seems no different at Alabama. Unlike in the past, our guys will have to really keep their head in the playbook. No more simpleton stuff with the Nicktator around.
- Lorenzo Washington has gotten noticeably bigger. He still has a ways to go, but for the first time he is seemingly making progress. He is in the mid-280's now, and it shows. He has bounced back and forth, seeing some time at tackle and some at end. Hopefully he's beginning to fulfill his promise.
- Nikita Stover was hurt today, going out with an apparent knee / hip injury. He got tangled up going for a jump ball in double coverage, and I assume landed awkwardly. Nothing has been said of it thus far, so hopefully the silence is good news, especially considering how quickly the Demetrius Goode news came out.
Saturday, August 4, 2007
The SEC East: 24 Questions
We've looked at the SEC West. So now we turn to the SEC East...
Every team has questions marks. And how those question marks are resolved is largely the determining factor in the overall quality and level of success of a football team. So, six SEC East teams, four questions each. Twenty-four questions:
Florida
(1) Despite bringing home the crystal trophy in 2006, Florida wasn't particularly good on the offensive side of the ball. Oh, sure, they weren't bad, but they certainly weren't anything special. Chris Leak is gone, and now Tim Tebow is going to have to be much more than a glorified fullback and the key cog of a bunch of trick plays. The Gators don't really return that many starters on offense, but they are, without doubt, very talented. Can the Florida offense step it up in Meyer's third year and take off in terms of point production, or is another so-so year on the horizon?
(2) The Florida running game has not been particularly good since Meyer arrived in Gainesville. They have talented players, as expected, but that hasn't turned into production. Honestly, Tim Tebow in 2006 was the best running threat the Gators have had to date, and that needs to change. We'll see if Kestahn Moore, Chris Rainey, and others to turn this running game into something special. Will the Florida running game become one of the best in the conference, or will it be another mediocre year for the Meyer backfield in Gainesville?
(3) As said earlier, the Florida offense wasn't particularly good in 2006, and it was without doubt the Florida defense that brought the crystal trophy back to Gainesville. Problem is, the Gators are in for a major rebuilding on the defensive side of the ball, as only two starters return. At bottom, it's very young and inexperienced, though talented. If Florida wants to get anywhere near where they want to go, this defense is going to have to get it together and be productive quickly. Can the Florida defense quickly congeal and be near as productive of a unit as the Gators had in 2006?
(4) Without running the numbers, I imagine the place-kicking for Florida last year was the worst of any national champion in ages. Chris Hetland was only 4-13 overall, and was only 1-10 in kicks of 30 yards or more. Yet, somehow, the place-kicking woes didn't cost the Gators too much in 2006. Hetland is gone now, though, and a new face will be handing the place-kicking duties. Considering the extreme importance of accurate place-kicking in close games, will Florida be able to find a consistently successful place-kicker when it counts in 2007?
Georgia
(1) Matt Stafford returns for year number two, and the Bulldogs will sink or swim with him. He looked terrible part of last year, and then played pretty good football down the stretch. UGA will need him to do the latter if they expect any real success in 2007. Though Stafford is still at least a year or so away from peak performance, he still needs to have a good season in terms of both production and protecting the football. Can Matt Stafford continue to improve on the solid finish to his 2006 season, or will he regress into another Georgia nightmare of incompletions and interceptions?
(2) Aside from Stafford, there are some other uncertainties on the offensive side of the ball. The team's leading receiver from a year ago, Martrez Milner, is gone, and so are both offensive tackles, who were the key cogs to the Dawgs pass protection. The receiving corps, too, is a question mark. It's talented, but has some injury concerns and as a whole has never been particularly consistent. How well will Georgia be able to replace the tight end and the tackles, and will the receiving corps be able to stay healthy and consistently productive?
(3) Surprisingly enough, after we did a thorough analysis off the 2006 SEC pass rushes, Georgia didn't do particularly well. Despite having two of the best rush ends in the country -- Quentin Moses and Charles Johnson -- they finished only fifth in the conference in Adjusted Sacks. Considering both of those players have now moved on to the NFL, there should be legitimate worries over the effectiveness of the Dawgs 2007 pass rush. Will Georgia be able to handle the losses of Moses and Johnson and still effectively rush the passer, or will the Dawgs be giving opposing quarterbacks all day to throw?
(4) Defensive line aside, the Georgia defense as a whole is staring down the barrel of a massive rebuilding job. All told, they only return three starters on defense, and the defensive back seven will be almost wholly new. Considering the UGA pass rush may not be particularly good, will the defensive back seven be able to quickly replace starters from a year ago and form an effective unit?
Kentucky
(1) Despite a lot of firepower at the offensive skill positions, the Wildcat offensive line is a bit of a mess. The left side is perhaps okay, but the center position and the right side of the offensive line is in trouble. There is no depth to the group, and a true freshman (Stuart Hines) is likely to start at right tackle. Will the Kentucky offensive line be good enough to allow all of the of the firepower at the skill positions to take off and rack up a lot of yardage and points?
(2) Despite an overall powerful offense last year, Kentucky wasn't particularly good in the red zone, and had some definite problems. No, they weren't Alabama bad in that sense, but they weren't particularly good either. As Alabama fans saw in 2006, it doesn't really matter how well you move the ball if you stall out inside the 20. Will the Kentucky offense put its 2006 red zone problems aside, or will they continue and be a major roadblock in their quest for back-to-back bowl appearances?
(3) The defensive line is a major problem for the Wildcats. Two projected starters, Josh Minton and Ventrell Jenkins, are unlikely to be able to play this year due to injuries, and overall the unit just lacks depth. Moreover, they get no real help from the incoming recruiting class, where arguably the only player ready to perform at an SEC-caliber level, DJ Stafford, did not qualify academically. Can the Kentucky defense play respectable football, or will they be torn to shreds by quality offensive lines?
(4) Kentucky was one of the worst teams in the conference last year in terms of pass defense, and a variety of metrics here at Outside The Sidelines have confirmed that. Though much of the defensive backfield returns, they have a lot of progress to make. Will the Kentucky secondary be able to produce a semi-effective pass defense, or will opposing teams continue to throw effectively at will?
South Carolina
(1) Blake Mitchell could probably be the textbook example of the usual love / hate relationship that Steve Spurrier has with his quarterbacks. He looked surprisingly good for most of 2005, then flopped in early 2006, which landed him a spot on the bench, and that suddenly rebounded to close the year. If Mitchell plays like he did late in 2006, South Carolina could have a potent offense, but if not, they are likely in big trouble. Much like with Georgia and Matt Stafford, which players shows up in 2007?
(2) Mitchell aside, the major question mark to the Gamecock offense is the offensive line, which includes replacing the center and the two starting guards from a year ago. Though their appears to be plenty of talent at the skill positions, it will all go for not if the Gamecocks lose the battle in the trenches. Will the offensive line be good enough to allow Blake Mitchell and the other skill position players to rack up big yardage and points?
(3) The South Carolina, secondary, without doubt, has a good deal of talent and a good deal of potential. The defensive front seven for the Gamecocks is about as good as you'll find anywhere, and if the secondary can step up and live up to its talent, it could turn this defense into one of the best in the nation. Can the secondary take a step forward and turn this defense into a true shutdown defense?
(4) South Carolina is not without talent, but in terms of depth, they probably still aren't as deep as the big boys of the SEC. Spurrier has done a fine job in recruiting, but it takes time and South Carolina is still not as deep, from top-to-bottom of the depth chart, as are some other SEC teams. And that will be a major problem if injuries arise for the Gamecocks. While they should still be pretty good, if injuries arise you can pretty much cancel out any chance of an appearance in Atlanta. Can South Carolina get the injury luck needed to not have to rely greatly on their depth chart and thus make a push for Atlanta?
Tennessee
(1) Tennessee loses the three leading receivers from their high octane passing attack of 2006, and they will have a lot of young guys with little experience at wide-out this season. Granted, Erik Ainge is a fine quarterback, but the Tennessee passing offense is never going to take off like it did a year ago unless those young receivers can step up and play good football. Can the youthful Tennessee receivers step up and play good football, allowing Ainge to replicate his successes of a year ago, or will inconsistent play at the wide-out position result in a drop-off in the passing attack?
(2) Offensive Coordinator David Cutcliffe is wanting to get back a power running game at Tennessee, and that didn't work in 2006. Despite a lot of talent at tailback, the offensive line wasn't particularly suited for that job, but another year will help their development. Can the Tennessee rushing attack be as powerful as it was on days gone by, or will it be another poor rushing attack for the Vols, who will have to hope that Ainge and company can get it done through the air?
(3) The Tennessee defensive line has a few key replacements to make. However, they do have several very talented and experienced players from which to make those replacements (such as Demonte Bolden, Antonio Reynolds, etc.). The only problem is, none of those guys have ever played that all. To paraphrase an old saying, they look like Tarzan but have played like Jane. Much like a lot of the Tennessee roster the past few years, thus far they have been great players who have never lived up to their potential. Will those defensive linemen finally play up to their potential and create a top-notch defensive line?
(4) The Vol secondary returns Jonathon Hefney, who is a great player. Aside from that, it's a major question mark, and the other three sports are up for grabs. We don't know who will grab them just yet, but whoever it will be will generally be very young and inexperienced plays. Can the young Vol secondary form around Hefney and produce an effective pass defense, or will they struggle in terms of pass defense again in 2007?
Vanderbilt
(1) Chris Nickson surprised most in 2006 with his performance in replacing Jay Cutler. However, Nickson's game did leave a lot to be desired, and he was very inconsistent at times. He had some big games (mainly Florida and Kentucky), but in nine games he failed to throw for more than 150 yards. All told, Nickson has to be consistently better all across the board. Will Nickson's overall performance improve, or will he continue to be the boom and bust quarterback that he was in 2006?
(2) Cassen Jackson-Garrison is a pretty talented running back. He has good size, and is a pretty good runner. Unfortunately, last year the Vanderbilt offense was built solely upon either Chris Nickson passing or running around with the ball. Garrison did well at times, but never really got the ball, as he saw more than 18 carries only once all season. If Vanderbilt is to be effective in 2007, they have to actually develop a running game, and it has to be more than just Chris Nickson. Will Cassen Jackson-Garrison be given the opportunity to create a legitimate running game, or will it be The Chris Nickson Show: Part II?
(3) Earl Bennett had a good year in 2006, but it was very streaky. He had more than three times as many catches as the team's second leading receiver, and more than three times as many yards as well. Problem was, as noted earlier, his production was inconsistent at best. The majority of his production came in four games, and in the other eight games he often times struggled to make an impact. For the Vanderbilt passing game to take off, aside from better play from Nickson, it needs Earl Bennett to become more consistent. Can Earl Bennett consistently put up big numbers in 2007, or will it be the same boom and bust as of 2006?
(4) The Vanderbilt pass defense in 2006 was simply terrible, no two ways about it. It was, with almost no doubt, the worst in the conference. They have some experienced players returning in 2007, but this unit still has to improve by leaps and bounds. Considering the front seven should be pretty good, if this unit can even put together a relatively decent performance, the Vanderbilt defense should be fairly good. Will the Vanderbilt secondary play relatively well and create a solid overall defense, or will atrocious pass defense ruin an otherwise solid defense for the second year in a row?
Every team has questions marks. And how those question marks are resolved is largely the determining factor in the overall quality and level of success of a football team. So, six SEC East teams, four questions each. Twenty-four questions:
Florida
(1) Despite bringing home the crystal trophy in 2006, Florida wasn't particularly good on the offensive side of the ball. Oh, sure, they weren't bad, but they certainly weren't anything special. Chris Leak is gone, and now Tim Tebow is going to have to be much more than a glorified fullback and the key cog of a bunch of trick plays. The Gators don't really return that many starters on offense, but they are, without doubt, very talented. Can the Florida offense step it up in Meyer's third year and take off in terms of point production, or is another so-so year on the horizon?
(2) The Florida running game has not been particularly good since Meyer arrived in Gainesville. They have talented players, as expected, but that hasn't turned into production. Honestly, Tim Tebow in 2006 was the best running threat the Gators have had to date, and that needs to change. We'll see if Kestahn Moore, Chris Rainey, and others to turn this running game into something special. Will the Florida running game become one of the best in the conference, or will it be another mediocre year for the Meyer backfield in Gainesville?
(3) As said earlier, the Florida offense wasn't particularly good in 2006, and it was without doubt the Florida defense that brought the crystal trophy back to Gainesville. Problem is, the Gators are in for a major rebuilding on the defensive side of the ball, as only two starters return. At bottom, it's very young and inexperienced, though talented. If Florida wants to get anywhere near where they want to go, this defense is going to have to get it together and be productive quickly. Can the Florida defense quickly congeal and be near as productive of a unit as the Gators had in 2006?
(4) Without running the numbers, I imagine the place-kicking for Florida last year was the worst of any national champion in ages. Chris Hetland was only 4-13 overall, and was only 1-10 in kicks of 30 yards or more. Yet, somehow, the place-kicking woes didn't cost the Gators too much in 2006. Hetland is gone now, though, and a new face will be handing the place-kicking duties. Considering the extreme importance of accurate place-kicking in close games, will Florida be able to find a consistently successful place-kicker when it counts in 2007?
Georgia
(1) Matt Stafford returns for year number two, and the Bulldogs will sink or swim with him. He looked terrible part of last year, and then played pretty good football down the stretch. UGA will need him to do the latter if they expect any real success in 2007. Though Stafford is still at least a year or so away from peak performance, he still needs to have a good season in terms of both production and protecting the football. Can Matt Stafford continue to improve on the solid finish to his 2006 season, or will he regress into another Georgia nightmare of incompletions and interceptions?
(2) Aside from Stafford, there are some other uncertainties on the offensive side of the ball. The team's leading receiver from a year ago, Martrez Milner, is gone, and so are both offensive tackles, who were the key cogs to the Dawgs pass protection. The receiving corps, too, is a question mark. It's talented, but has some injury concerns and as a whole has never been particularly consistent. How well will Georgia be able to replace the tight end and the tackles, and will the receiving corps be able to stay healthy and consistently productive?
(3) Surprisingly enough, after we did a thorough analysis off the 2006 SEC pass rushes, Georgia didn't do particularly well. Despite having two of the best rush ends in the country -- Quentin Moses and Charles Johnson -- they finished only fifth in the conference in Adjusted Sacks. Considering both of those players have now moved on to the NFL, there should be legitimate worries over the effectiveness of the Dawgs 2007 pass rush. Will Georgia be able to handle the losses of Moses and Johnson and still effectively rush the passer, or will the Dawgs be giving opposing quarterbacks all day to throw?
(4) Defensive line aside, the Georgia defense as a whole is staring down the barrel of a massive rebuilding job. All told, they only return three starters on defense, and the defensive back seven will be almost wholly new. Considering the UGA pass rush may not be particularly good, will the defensive back seven be able to quickly replace starters from a year ago and form an effective unit?
Kentucky
(1) Despite a lot of firepower at the offensive skill positions, the Wildcat offensive line is a bit of a mess. The left side is perhaps okay, but the center position and the right side of the offensive line is in trouble. There is no depth to the group, and a true freshman (Stuart Hines) is likely to start at right tackle. Will the Kentucky offensive line be good enough to allow all of the of the firepower at the skill positions to take off and rack up a lot of yardage and points?
(2) Despite an overall powerful offense last year, Kentucky wasn't particularly good in the red zone, and had some definite problems. No, they weren't Alabama bad in that sense, but they weren't particularly good either. As Alabama fans saw in 2006, it doesn't really matter how well you move the ball if you stall out inside the 20. Will the Kentucky offense put its 2006 red zone problems aside, or will they continue and be a major roadblock in their quest for back-to-back bowl appearances?
(3) The defensive line is a major problem for the Wildcats. Two projected starters, Josh Minton and Ventrell Jenkins, are unlikely to be able to play this year due to injuries, and overall the unit just lacks depth. Moreover, they get no real help from the incoming recruiting class, where arguably the only player ready to perform at an SEC-caliber level, DJ Stafford, did not qualify academically. Can the Kentucky defense play respectable football, or will they be torn to shreds by quality offensive lines?
(4) Kentucky was one of the worst teams in the conference last year in terms of pass defense, and a variety of metrics here at Outside The Sidelines have confirmed that. Though much of the defensive backfield returns, they have a lot of progress to make. Will the Kentucky secondary be able to produce a semi-effective pass defense, or will opposing teams continue to throw effectively at will?
South Carolina
(1) Blake Mitchell could probably be the textbook example of the usual love / hate relationship that Steve Spurrier has with his quarterbacks. He looked surprisingly good for most of 2005, then flopped in early 2006, which landed him a spot on the bench, and that suddenly rebounded to close the year. If Mitchell plays like he did late in 2006, South Carolina could have a potent offense, but if not, they are likely in big trouble. Much like with Georgia and Matt Stafford, which players shows up in 2007?
(2) Mitchell aside, the major question mark to the Gamecock offense is the offensive line, which includes replacing the center and the two starting guards from a year ago. Though their appears to be plenty of talent at the skill positions, it will all go for not if the Gamecocks lose the battle in the trenches. Will the offensive line be good enough to allow Blake Mitchell and the other skill position players to rack up big yardage and points?
(3) The South Carolina, secondary, without doubt, has a good deal of talent and a good deal of potential. The defensive front seven for the Gamecocks is about as good as you'll find anywhere, and if the secondary can step up and live up to its talent, it could turn this defense into one of the best in the nation. Can the secondary take a step forward and turn this defense into a true shutdown defense?
(4) South Carolina is not without talent, but in terms of depth, they probably still aren't as deep as the big boys of the SEC. Spurrier has done a fine job in recruiting, but it takes time and South Carolina is still not as deep, from top-to-bottom of the depth chart, as are some other SEC teams. And that will be a major problem if injuries arise for the Gamecocks. While they should still be pretty good, if injuries arise you can pretty much cancel out any chance of an appearance in Atlanta. Can South Carolina get the injury luck needed to not have to rely greatly on their depth chart and thus make a push for Atlanta?
Tennessee
(1) Tennessee loses the three leading receivers from their high octane passing attack of 2006, and they will have a lot of young guys with little experience at wide-out this season. Granted, Erik Ainge is a fine quarterback, but the Tennessee passing offense is never going to take off like it did a year ago unless those young receivers can step up and play good football. Can the youthful Tennessee receivers step up and play good football, allowing Ainge to replicate his successes of a year ago, or will inconsistent play at the wide-out position result in a drop-off in the passing attack?
(2) Offensive Coordinator David Cutcliffe is wanting to get back a power running game at Tennessee, and that didn't work in 2006. Despite a lot of talent at tailback, the offensive line wasn't particularly suited for that job, but another year will help their development. Can the Tennessee rushing attack be as powerful as it was on days gone by, or will it be another poor rushing attack for the Vols, who will have to hope that Ainge and company can get it done through the air?
(3) The Tennessee defensive line has a few key replacements to make. However, they do have several very talented and experienced players from which to make those replacements (such as Demonte Bolden, Antonio Reynolds, etc.). The only problem is, none of those guys have ever played that all. To paraphrase an old saying, they look like Tarzan but have played like Jane. Much like a lot of the Tennessee roster the past few years, thus far they have been great players who have never lived up to their potential. Will those defensive linemen finally play up to their potential and create a top-notch defensive line?
(4) The Vol secondary returns Jonathon Hefney, who is a great player. Aside from that, it's a major question mark, and the other three sports are up for grabs. We don't know who will grab them just yet, but whoever it will be will generally be very young and inexperienced plays. Can the young Vol secondary form around Hefney and produce an effective pass defense, or will they struggle in terms of pass defense again in 2007?
Vanderbilt
(1) Chris Nickson surprised most in 2006 with his performance in replacing Jay Cutler. However, Nickson's game did leave a lot to be desired, and he was very inconsistent at times. He had some big games (mainly Florida and Kentucky), but in nine games he failed to throw for more than 150 yards. All told, Nickson has to be consistently better all across the board. Will Nickson's overall performance improve, or will he continue to be the boom and bust quarterback that he was in 2006?
(2) Cassen Jackson-Garrison is a pretty talented running back. He has good size, and is a pretty good runner. Unfortunately, last year the Vanderbilt offense was built solely upon either Chris Nickson passing or running around with the ball. Garrison did well at times, but never really got the ball, as he saw more than 18 carries only once all season. If Vanderbilt is to be effective in 2007, they have to actually develop a running game, and it has to be more than just Chris Nickson. Will Cassen Jackson-Garrison be given the opportunity to create a legitimate running game, or will it be The Chris Nickson Show: Part II?
(3) Earl Bennett had a good year in 2006, but it was very streaky. He had more than three times as many catches as the team's second leading receiver, and more than three times as many yards as well. Problem was, as noted earlier, his production was inconsistent at best. The majority of his production came in four games, and in the other eight games he often times struggled to make an impact. For the Vanderbilt passing game to take off, aside from better play from Nickson, it needs Earl Bennett to become more consistent. Can Earl Bennett consistently put up big numbers in 2007, or will it be the same boom and bust as of 2006?
(4) The Vanderbilt pass defense in 2006 was simply terrible, no two ways about it. It was, with almost no doubt, the worst in the conference. They have some experienced players returning in 2007, but this unit still has to improve by leaps and bounds. Considering the front seven should be pretty good, if this unit can even put together a relatively decent performance, the Vanderbilt defense should be fairly good. Will the Vanderbilt secondary play relatively well and create a solid overall defense, or will atrocious pass defense ruin an otherwise solid defense for the second year in a row?
Friday, August 3, 2007
The SEC West: 24 Questions
Every team has questions marks. And how those question marks are resolved is largely the determining factor in the overall quality and level of success of a football team. So, six SEC West teams, four questions each. Twenty-four questions:
Alabama
(1) The offensive line struggled a year ago, to put it mildly. However, everyone returns, and the old coaching techniques have been ditched. The S&C program is much more difficult under Saban, and the offensive linemen have reported in much better physical condition than a year ago. It's almost a given that the line will improve, but how much? Will they go from poor to mediocre, or will they emerge as one of the best offensive lines in the conference?
(2) The running game last year was quite bad, likely the worst since 1993. Ken Darby is gone, though that is unlikely to be a major loss, and there are several backs who may seize the starting job, including Jimmy Johns, Glen Coffee, Roy Upchurch, Terry Grant, and Demetrius Goode. Which one(s) will step up, and how effective will they be in carrying the running game?
(3) The Crimson Tide defense definitely has some talent, but is generally young and inexperienced. Notably, several true freshman expect to see a good bit of meaningful playing time in conference play, including Rolando McClain (LB), Kareem Jackson (CB), Alfred McCullough (DT), Josh Chapman (DT), and Luther Davis (DE). And some other young players, such as Justin Woodall, will likely start. All told, for better or for worse, the performance of the younger players will go a long way to determining the overall quality of the defense. Exactly how will those players perform, and how will the defense as a whole perform with several young and inexperienced players in the line-up?
(4) In terms of special teams, Alabama was one of the worst teams in the conference last year. We struggled with place-kicking, punting, kick-offs, punt coverage, and kick coverage. There were really no bright spots, for the most part. And with the new rule change on kick-offs, special teams figure to be more important than ever. With a new coaching staff in place, and a new special teams coach (Ron Middleton), how will the special teams perform?
Auburn
(1) The Tigers must rebuild their offensive line for 2007, which is a bit of a concern considering the Auburn offense was mediocre at best in 2006. The Tommy Tuberville offenses are generally built mainly around an effective power running game, and everything else works off that once it has been established. Obviously, power running games only work effectively with good blocking from the big uglies. Will the new starters be able to replicate the success of the Auburn offensive lines from the past three years?
(2) Offensively, at the skill positions, proven talent is very short on the Plains. Courtney Taylor and Kenny Irons are both gone, and there are really no proven skill position players. At tailback, the two leaders are Brad Lester and Ben Tate, but both are unproven. Brad Lester looked okay last year, but racked up most of his yardage against inferior opponents, and was generally a moderately successful boom or bust back (occasional long run, but overall a very low Running Back Success Rate). Ben Tate, on the other hand, never really had a meaningful carry all year, and racked up his yardage against the Sisters of the Poor. At wide receiver, neither Rodgerigus Smith or Prechae Rodriguez were particularly good last year, and they both need to make major strides in 2007. Will the offensive skill position players step up and give Auburn an explosive threat, or will they be in for another mediocre year on offense?
(3) Though defensive end Quentin Groves returns, Auburn did lose their best cornerback, David Irons? Auburn had a decent pass defense in 2006, but nothing particularly good, finish sixth in the conference in opposing quarterback passer rating. Will the loss of Irons spell a mediocre, or perhaps worse, year for the pass defense, or will we see some improvement and really see the Auburn defense blossom into one of the best in the country?
(4) Auburn loses both specialty kickers, place-kicker John Vaugn, and punter Kody Bliss. Vaughn was arguably the best kicker in the conference when not playing LSU, and Bliss was without doubt the best punter in the conference. Their replacements will have big shoes to fill to say the least. Can the new Auburn kicker win games that come down to place-kicking, and can the new punter keep the field position battles tilted in his team's favor?
Arkansas
(1) The Mitch Mustain Melodrama has headed West, but quarterback play is still a major issue for the Hogs. Casey Dick will be the starter, but Dick has never looked particularly good in the past, even with arguably the best running game in the country at his disposal. He's generally played like, well, dick. Regardless of how good McFadden and Jones are, it's going to be quite tough for them to really take off with no effective passing game. So, how will Dick and the passing game develop in 2007?
(2) The Hogs had arguably the best offensive line in the conference in 2007, but it must now be almost completely rebuilt from top-to-bottom. Of course, offensive line play is key to the running game, and even with fantastic backs, you aren't going to have a great running game if your offensive line is struggling. Considering the absolute necessity that the Arkansas running game being great in 2007 (due to a likely poor passing game), can the inexperienced Arkansas offensive line congeal and produce like their predecessors so that McFadden and Jones can make for a truly great Arkansas rushing attack?
(3) Two starters from last year's defensive line, Keith Jackson and Jamaal Anderson, are gone. The two returning starters are also questionable. Antwain Robinson (of Andre Smith fame) was arrested for theft in a local Dillard's department store, and Marcus Harrison is still hurting from a Spring knee injury that resulted in torn cartilage and a bone bruise. He missed the rest of Spring, and nearly all off-season conditioning work, and will likely miss the season opener as well. Can the Arkansas defensive line be as stout as last year, or are they in for a long year of getting shoved around by opposing big uglies?
(4) Defensive line worries aside, the Arkansas defense loses quite a bit in the back seven, including leader Sam Olajabutu, and star cornerback Chris Houston, among others. Can the Hogs quickly rebuild the back seven, in light of defensive line concerns, or will inexperienced players yield a relatively poor overall defense?
LSU
(1) Matt Flynn is a fifth-year senior, and the Bayou Bengals will sink or swim with him. His health is a concern, but it's not a question mark. If he goes down for any significant time, LSU is unlikely to get anywhere near where they want to go, no real uncertainty about that. In reality, the question mark surrounds a single fact: he has never really played before. He may be good, he may be poor. He's only seen meaningful playing time once in his career, in the 2005 Peach Bowl. There he did well with the help of a great rushing attack against an ACC team of questionable quality (Miami). To be quite frank, to this point, his resume is exactly like that of former Alabama quarterback Brian Burgdorf. If you don't recall, Burgdorf signed with Alabama in the early 1990's, but never played because of the presence of Jay Barker. Finally, after Barker tore his ACL against Auburn in 1993, Burgdorf took over for the Gator Bowl, and went 15-23 for 166 yards and 2 passing touchdowns, plus 6 carries for another 48 yards and a touchdown, leading the Tide to a win over an ACC team of questionable quality (North Carolina). It was his only legitimate playing time, and people had high hopes for when he finally assumed the starting job. Of course, Burgdorf, when he finally assumed the starting job as a fifth-year senior in 1995, only after Barker graduated, was a complete flop, and quickly found his way to the bench. Will Matt Flynn be good enough to get the job done, or will he fade away in the spotlight, and become the LSU version of Brian Burgdorf?
(2) The LSU offensive line wasn't particularly good last year, and they really struggled in terms of run blocking. Their only saving grace was in pass protection, where an incredible deep threat passing game, and an almost un-sackable quarterback combined to make their life very easy. With Russell, Bowe, Davis, and offensive coordinator Jimbo Fisher gone, the deep threat passing game is largely gone too. The new look under Gary Crowton will feature a lot of short passes, and should require a much improved running game, and all of that means the LSU offensive line must improve drastically if they want offensive production be as good as it was a year ago. Ciron Black and Brett Helms are good players, and so is Will Arnold (voted pre-season All-SEC), but even Les Miles isn't sure just how much Arnold can even practice, much less play, due to a variety of injuries that have plagued him the past couple of yearas. Worse still, the now-former offensive line coach Stacey Searels is gone to Georgia, and the line will have to adjust to new offensive line coach Greg Studrawa's blocking schemes. At bottom, is this line going to step up and give the rest of the LSU offense the full opportunity to get the most production possible, or is it going to remain so-so and force the Bayou Bengal faithful to hope that Matt Flynn is really that good and the rest of the skill position players can put points on the scoreboard, despite mediocre line play?
(3) The LSU defense should be good, no two ways about it. The loss of LaRon Landry and Jesse Daniels will hurt, but it should still be very good. However, last year, the Tiger defense was the epitome of great injury luck, as no starter missed any legitimate playing time. If LSU is to have that good of a defense again this year, they'll have to get the same injury luck, and that may not happen two years in a row. A couple of key injuries (particularly if Glenn Dorsey's leg injuries get worse) could quickly turn this great defense into a good but not great defense, and that could be a death knell for LSU's chances to get to where they want to go. Will the LSU defense be able to stay healthy enough to fulfill its lofty expectations?
(4) For a team with such high expectations, LSU has a good deal of changes on the coaching staff, and they all come on the offensive side of the ball. Long-time offensive coordinator Jimbo Fisher went to Florida State for the same position, and offensive line coach Stacey Searels went to Georgia for the same position. Moreover, wide receivers coach Todd Monken went to the Jacksonville Jaguars, where he, too, assumes the same position. And, well, that leaves a lot of big question marks for an offense that already has quite a few question marks as it is (see questions one and two). Gary Crowton is the new offensive coordinator, and no one really knows what he is going to bring. If it's anything like he showed at Oregon or BYU, though, it's going to be nothing like LSU has ran before. And who knows how the wide receivers and offensive line will adjust to new coaches (D.J. McCarthy and Greg Studrawa) and, likely, new techniques? Generally speaking, the LSU offense has a good deal of talent, but aside from raw talent, there are a lot of question marks, and three new offensive coaches only highlight that underlying reality. Will the LSU offense be able to successfully integrate the coaching changes and still be productive, or will the very high volume of coaching turnover be just one more obstacle that will keep them from replicating the offense's successes of a year ago?
Mississippi State
(1) Believe it or not, Mississippi State did something down the stretch in 2006 that it hadn't done in a long time: they played competitive football. After playing West Virginia tough for three quarters, they blew out Jacksonville State. After that, they lost a heartbreaker to 9-4 Georgia, in Athens, after a game-ending fumble that occurred at the Georgia 23, well within field goal range. After that, it was another hearbreaking three-point loss, this time to 8-4 Kentucky. From there, we know what happened, they became a crimson nightmare, and got Mike Shula fired in the process. A week later, they out-gained 10-4 Arkansas by 100 yards, but lost a close game largely due to special teams breakdowns. In the season finale, they out-gained Ole Miss by over 100 yards, in Oxford, before losing another heartbreaker on a special teams breakdown. Can Mississippi State carry that competitive play into 2007, or will it be a half-year aberration?
(2) The Mississippi State offense must have Chad Henig stay healthy, no questions there. Another injury to Henig is simply an unacceptable scenario for the Dawgs if they want to do well offensively in 2007. The question is, even if Henig can stay healthy, can they consistently produce yards and points?
(3) Despite competitive play a year ago in the second half of the season, special teams play really doomed Mississippi State, specifically with a kick return for a touchdown from Arkansas, and a game-winning punt return for a touchdown against Ole Miss. Beyond that, all in all, they simply weren't good in terms of special teams in 2006. Will special teams improve, or will they again be the final blow to Mississippi State's chances of winning close games?
(4) The Mississippi State defense has more question marks than a mystery novel, and even their faithful are very concerned over it. Quentin Culbertson is gone, and there are some question marks at linebacker. The defensive line, despite having Titus Brown (one of the most underrated players around) has no real depth or experience, and it is likely to give up some massive rushing days. Even the secondary is unsettled with position changes. Will the Mississippi State defense be able to form and produce a good enough effort to give their team as a whole a chance to win games?
Ole Miss
(1) Seth Adams is the starter at quarterback, no real doubt about it. Brent Schaeffer, the savior from a year ago, will be the back-up, and Johnny Reb will sink or swim with Mr. Adams Adams. And, believe it or not, Adams has a decent unit around him, particularly in the backfield, and he looked good in Spring practice. Can Adams consistently lead the Ole Miss offense to a decent amount of yards and points points, all the while protecting the football, or will he implode in a Schaeffer-esque meltdown of no production and costly turnovers?
(2) The Rebels are, objectively speaking, about the youngest team in the conference, and last year they played a scary amount of true freshmen. But, you have to give credit where its due, a lot of the young guys showed some raw talent in 2006. Obviously, much of Ole Miss' overall success will be directly linked to how quickly can their young players can develop into quality, SEC-caliber players. So, will the young Rebels be able to make the quick leap from young to quality, experienced football players in the course of less than two years?
(3) Patrick Willis was arguably the best defensive player in the country last year, and he was really the key to what little defensive successes the Rebels had. Obviously, Willis has now moved on to the next level, and Ole Miss must find a replacement. Can Ole Miss find a remotely similar replacement, or will they suffer from what Alabama fans may call Demeco Ryans Replacement Syndrome?
(4) Aside from Patrick Willis' linebacker position, there are ten other defensive positions that are just as important. Unfortunately, the Rebs generally didn't fare too well at those positions last year, and they lose a lot of those starters to graduation for the 2007 season. True, it's not like they lose any great players, but nonetheless they still have to rebuild. Can the replacements play to a productive-enough level to where the Rebels will have a chance to improve upon 4-8 and challenge for a small bowl game, or will defensive miscues be the ultimate factor in dooming the Rebels to a fourth straight losing season?
Alabama
(1) The offensive line struggled a year ago, to put it mildly. However, everyone returns, and the old coaching techniques have been ditched. The S&C program is much more difficult under Saban, and the offensive linemen have reported in much better physical condition than a year ago. It's almost a given that the line will improve, but how much? Will they go from poor to mediocre, or will they emerge as one of the best offensive lines in the conference?
(2) The running game last year was quite bad, likely the worst since 1993. Ken Darby is gone, though that is unlikely to be a major loss, and there are several backs who may seize the starting job, including Jimmy Johns, Glen Coffee, Roy Upchurch, Terry Grant, and Demetrius Goode. Which one(s) will step up, and how effective will they be in carrying the running game?
(3) The Crimson Tide defense definitely has some talent, but is generally young and inexperienced. Notably, several true freshman expect to see a good bit of meaningful playing time in conference play, including Rolando McClain (LB), Kareem Jackson (CB), Alfred McCullough (DT), Josh Chapman (DT), and Luther Davis (DE). And some other young players, such as Justin Woodall, will likely start. All told, for better or for worse, the performance of the younger players will go a long way to determining the overall quality of the defense. Exactly how will those players perform, and how will the defense as a whole perform with several young and inexperienced players in the line-up?
(4) In terms of special teams, Alabama was one of the worst teams in the conference last year. We struggled with place-kicking, punting, kick-offs, punt coverage, and kick coverage. There were really no bright spots, for the most part. And with the new rule change on kick-offs, special teams figure to be more important than ever. With a new coaching staff in place, and a new special teams coach (Ron Middleton), how will the special teams perform?
Auburn
(1) The Tigers must rebuild their offensive line for 2007, which is a bit of a concern considering the Auburn offense was mediocre at best in 2006. The Tommy Tuberville offenses are generally built mainly around an effective power running game, and everything else works off that once it has been established. Obviously, power running games only work effectively with good blocking from the big uglies. Will the new starters be able to replicate the success of the Auburn offensive lines from the past three years?
(2) Offensively, at the skill positions, proven talent is very short on the Plains. Courtney Taylor and Kenny Irons are both gone, and there are really no proven skill position players. At tailback, the two leaders are Brad Lester and Ben Tate, but both are unproven. Brad Lester looked okay last year, but racked up most of his yardage against inferior opponents, and was generally a moderately successful boom or bust back (occasional long run, but overall a very low Running Back Success Rate). Ben Tate, on the other hand, never really had a meaningful carry all year, and racked up his yardage against the Sisters of the Poor. At wide receiver, neither Rodgerigus Smith or Prechae Rodriguez were particularly good last year, and they both need to make major strides in 2007. Will the offensive skill position players step up and give Auburn an explosive threat, or will they be in for another mediocre year on offense?
(3) Though defensive end Quentin Groves returns, Auburn did lose their best cornerback, David Irons? Auburn had a decent pass defense in 2006, but nothing particularly good, finish sixth in the conference in opposing quarterback passer rating. Will the loss of Irons spell a mediocre, or perhaps worse, year for the pass defense, or will we see some improvement and really see the Auburn defense blossom into one of the best in the country?
(4) Auburn loses both specialty kickers, place-kicker John Vaugn, and punter Kody Bliss. Vaughn was arguably the best kicker in the conference when not playing LSU, and Bliss was without doubt the best punter in the conference. Their replacements will have big shoes to fill to say the least. Can the new Auburn kicker win games that come down to place-kicking, and can the new punter keep the field position battles tilted in his team's favor?
Arkansas
(1) The Mitch Mustain Melodrama has headed West, but quarterback play is still a major issue for the Hogs. Casey Dick will be the starter, but Dick has never looked particularly good in the past, even with arguably the best running game in the country at his disposal. He's generally played like, well, dick. Regardless of how good McFadden and Jones are, it's going to be quite tough for them to really take off with no effective passing game. So, how will Dick and the passing game develop in 2007?
(2) The Hogs had arguably the best offensive line in the conference in 2007, but it must now be almost completely rebuilt from top-to-bottom. Of course, offensive line play is key to the running game, and even with fantastic backs, you aren't going to have a great running game if your offensive line is struggling. Considering the absolute necessity that the Arkansas running game being great in 2007 (due to a likely poor passing game), can the inexperienced Arkansas offensive line congeal and produce like their predecessors so that McFadden and Jones can make for a truly great Arkansas rushing attack?
(3) Two starters from last year's defensive line, Keith Jackson and Jamaal Anderson, are gone. The two returning starters are also questionable. Antwain Robinson (of Andre Smith fame) was arrested for theft in a local Dillard's department store, and Marcus Harrison is still hurting from a Spring knee injury that resulted in torn cartilage and a bone bruise. He missed the rest of Spring, and nearly all off-season conditioning work, and will likely miss the season opener as well. Can the Arkansas defensive line be as stout as last year, or are they in for a long year of getting shoved around by opposing big uglies?
(4) Defensive line worries aside, the Arkansas defense loses quite a bit in the back seven, including leader Sam Olajabutu, and star cornerback Chris Houston, among others. Can the Hogs quickly rebuild the back seven, in light of defensive line concerns, or will inexperienced players yield a relatively poor overall defense?
LSU
(1) Matt Flynn is a fifth-year senior, and the Bayou Bengals will sink or swim with him. His health is a concern, but it's not a question mark. If he goes down for any significant time, LSU is unlikely to get anywhere near where they want to go, no real uncertainty about that. In reality, the question mark surrounds a single fact: he has never really played before. He may be good, he may be poor. He's only seen meaningful playing time once in his career, in the 2005 Peach Bowl. There he did well with the help of a great rushing attack against an ACC team of questionable quality (Miami). To be quite frank, to this point, his resume is exactly like that of former Alabama quarterback Brian Burgdorf. If you don't recall, Burgdorf signed with Alabama in the early 1990's, but never played because of the presence of Jay Barker. Finally, after Barker tore his ACL against Auburn in 1993, Burgdorf took over for the Gator Bowl, and went 15-23 for 166 yards and 2 passing touchdowns, plus 6 carries for another 48 yards and a touchdown, leading the Tide to a win over an ACC team of questionable quality (North Carolina). It was his only legitimate playing time, and people had high hopes for when he finally assumed the starting job. Of course, Burgdorf, when he finally assumed the starting job as a fifth-year senior in 1995, only after Barker graduated, was a complete flop, and quickly found his way to the bench. Will Matt Flynn be good enough to get the job done, or will he fade away in the spotlight, and become the LSU version of Brian Burgdorf?
(2) The LSU offensive line wasn't particularly good last year, and they really struggled in terms of run blocking. Their only saving grace was in pass protection, where an incredible deep threat passing game, and an almost un-sackable quarterback combined to make their life very easy. With Russell, Bowe, Davis, and offensive coordinator Jimbo Fisher gone, the deep threat passing game is largely gone too. The new look under Gary Crowton will feature a lot of short passes, and should require a much improved running game, and all of that means the LSU offensive line must improve drastically if they want offensive production be as good as it was a year ago. Ciron Black and Brett Helms are good players, and so is Will Arnold (voted pre-season All-SEC), but even Les Miles isn't sure just how much Arnold can even practice, much less play, due to a variety of injuries that have plagued him the past couple of yearas. Worse still, the now-former offensive line coach Stacey Searels is gone to Georgia, and the line will have to adjust to new offensive line coach Greg Studrawa's blocking schemes. At bottom, is this line going to step up and give the rest of the LSU offense the full opportunity to get the most production possible, or is it going to remain so-so and force the Bayou Bengal faithful to hope that Matt Flynn is really that good and the rest of the skill position players can put points on the scoreboard, despite mediocre line play?
(3) The LSU defense should be good, no two ways about it. The loss of LaRon Landry and Jesse Daniels will hurt, but it should still be very good. However, last year, the Tiger defense was the epitome of great injury luck, as no starter missed any legitimate playing time. If LSU is to have that good of a defense again this year, they'll have to get the same injury luck, and that may not happen two years in a row. A couple of key injuries (particularly if Glenn Dorsey's leg injuries get worse) could quickly turn this great defense into a good but not great defense, and that could be a death knell for LSU's chances to get to where they want to go. Will the LSU defense be able to stay healthy enough to fulfill its lofty expectations?
(4) For a team with such high expectations, LSU has a good deal of changes on the coaching staff, and they all come on the offensive side of the ball. Long-time offensive coordinator Jimbo Fisher went to Florida State for the same position, and offensive line coach Stacey Searels went to Georgia for the same position. Moreover, wide receivers coach Todd Monken went to the Jacksonville Jaguars, where he, too, assumes the same position. And, well, that leaves a lot of big question marks for an offense that already has quite a few question marks as it is (see questions one and two). Gary Crowton is the new offensive coordinator, and no one really knows what he is going to bring. If it's anything like he showed at Oregon or BYU, though, it's going to be nothing like LSU has ran before. And who knows how the wide receivers and offensive line will adjust to new coaches (D.J. McCarthy and Greg Studrawa) and, likely, new techniques? Generally speaking, the LSU offense has a good deal of talent, but aside from raw talent, there are a lot of question marks, and three new offensive coaches only highlight that underlying reality. Will the LSU offense be able to successfully integrate the coaching changes and still be productive, or will the very high volume of coaching turnover be just one more obstacle that will keep them from replicating the offense's successes of a year ago?
Mississippi State
(1) Believe it or not, Mississippi State did something down the stretch in 2006 that it hadn't done in a long time: they played competitive football. After playing West Virginia tough for three quarters, they blew out Jacksonville State. After that, they lost a heartbreaker to 9-4 Georgia, in Athens, after a game-ending fumble that occurred at the Georgia 23, well within field goal range. After that, it was another hearbreaking three-point loss, this time to 8-4 Kentucky. From there, we know what happened, they became a crimson nightmare, and got Mike Shula fired in the process. A week later, they out-gained 10-4 Arkansas by 100 yards, but lost a close game largely due to special teams breakdowns. In the season finale, they out-gained Ole Miss by over 100 yards, in Oxford, before losing another heartbreaker on a special teams breakdown. Can Mississippi State carry that competitive play into 2007, or will it be a half-year aberration?
(2) The Mississippi State offense must have Chad Henig stay healthy, no questions there. Another injury to Henig is simply an unacceptable scenario for the Dawgs if they want to do well offensively in 2007. The question is, even if Henig can stay healthy, can they consistently produce yards and points?
(3) Despite competitive play a year ago in the second half of the season, special teams play really doomed Mississippi State, specifically with a kick return for a touchdown from Arkansas, and a game-winning punt return for a touchdown against Ole Miss. Beyond that, all in all, they simply weren't good in terms of special teams in 2006. Will special teams improve, or will they again be the final blow to Mississippi State's chances of winning close games?
(4) The Mississippi State defense has more question marks than a mystery novel, and even their faithful are very concerned over it. Quentin Culbertson is gone, and there are some question marks at linebacker. The defensive line, despite having Titus Brown (one of the most underrated players around) has no real depth or experience, and it is likely to give up some massive rushing days. Even the secondary is unsettled with position changes. Will the Mississippi State defense be able to form and produce a good enough effort to give their team as a whole a chance to win games?
Ole Miss
(1) Seth Adams is the starter at quarterback, no real doubt about it. Brent Schaeffer, the savior from a year ago, will be the back-up, and Johnny Reb will sink or swim with Mr. Adams Adams. And, believe it or not, Adams has a decent unit around him, particularly in the backfield, and he looked good in Spring practice. Can Adams consistently lead the Ole Miss offense to a decent amount of yards and points points, all the while protecting the football, or will he implode in a Schaeffer-esque meltdown of no production and costly turnovers?
(2) The Rebels are, objectively speaking, about the youngest team in the conference, and last year they played a scary amount of true freshmen. But, you have to give credit where its due, a lot of the young guys showed some raw talent in 2006. Obviously, much of Ole Miss' overall success will be directly linked to how quickly can their young players can develop into quality, SEC-caliber players. So, will the young Rebels be able to make the quick leap from young to quality, experienced football players in the course of less than two years?
(3) Patrick Willis was arguably the best defensive player in the country last year, and he was really the key to what little defensive successes the Rebels had. Obviously, Willis has now moved on to the next level, and Ole Miss must find a replacement. Can Ole Miss find a remotely similar replacement, or will they suffer from what Alabama fans may call Demeco Ryans Replacement Syndrome?
(4) Aside from Patrick Willis' linebacker position, there are ten other defensive positions that are just as important. Unfortunately, the Rebs generally didn't fare too well at those positions last year, and they lose a lot of those starters to graduation for the 2007 season. True, it's not like they lose any great players, but nonetheless they still have to rebuild. Can the replacements play to a productive-enough level to where the Rebels will have a chance to improve upon 4-8 and challenge for a small bowl game, or will defensive miscues be the ultimate factor in dooming the Rebels to a fourth straight losing season?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
