I'll bet a case of bourbon that we got that one in the bag.
The ability to find the hole, accelerate and fall forward is universal. They were doubtless behind smaller and slower OL, doesn't mean its like comparing high school to the NFL, Mario Anderson averaged 6.3 yards at Div 2 Newberry, and had 4.9 yards per carry here, when he averaged contact behind the LOS at one point. You think there's more difference between North Texas and here than Newberry and here?
One thing I can guarantee, is by the end of the regular season, we'll still own the bread to head with Texas!
Rattler had less than 1.5 seconds to pass. Do you get it yet that an average QB can do better with 3 seconds than a superstar with less than 1.5? If our OL improves to just average, all Sellers had to do is be a game manager and our passing game will most likely be better than having a superstar buried before he can look at his second progression.
You mean "head to head", right? If not, I'm behind the times.
Okay, and what does that translate to in ypc? I'm thinking it's reasonable to expect 4.5 from a got that did 6 at North Texas if the OL carries their weight.
No they don't. OU is expected to be worse in the SEC than they were last year by everyone. Their O/U for wins is 8.
Yeah. I think we're 2-1 against then with a couple of ties and haven't played since the 50s.
It's not about the QB, it's about net production from the QB position. Was Shaw better than Rattler? No, but he won more games. Biggest difference between the two was the OL Shaw was behind and the defense he was with. Again, Rattler had less than 1.5 seconds to pass, an average QB would be more effective with 3 seconds. If Rattler had 3 seconds, he could've turned in a second team SEC year behind only Daniels. It's a team sport, remember?
It was a typo.No "bread" is a new thing the kids are saying. Aren't you up on your slang?
Okay, well that's who I'm talking about. If they're better overall, even with the increase in competition week in and week out, I can change my opinion.
Again, each of those players I listed were strong individually, but they weren't in the field together. Lee got hurt playing Tackle, so he was playing against faster players than he was used to, Henry got rolled by Fugar, so no reason to think we'll get hit with them getting hurt again because both were strange situations. This is why I asked you go by each returning OLineman that was good last year and day why you think they won't be good this year. And instead, you just keep on being dismissive and sarcastic.
Not fact, but my opinions are supported by facts. I'm asking for other facts that support your opinion and instead you're just dismissing mine. Why should your opinions supported by nothing but pessimism be better than my opinions based on verifiable trackrecords of the individual players that make up our team?
Do you think a defensive backfield that stifled Clemson and Kentucky's passing games when both scored over 30 against one another is bad? Do you think a first team LB paired with a Butkus watchlist player is bad? Do you think one of the deepest DT rooms in the SEC according to every analyst I've seen voice an opinion on it is bad? Do you think Simon isn't a good TE? Do you think Kennard, Stewart and Edmond aren't capable of getting to the passer? What OLinemen individually do you think are below average. I don't think you've researched to form your opinion as much as I have to form mine.
All of them played with Lee at center and communicated well with him, and center of the lynch pin for OL cohesion.
I said there isn't so much difference they can't be expected to average 4.5 ypc if the OL does their job. You haven't offered what you expect the drop of to be our why you expect it.
Maybe you could argue then if you tried, but for some reason you don't seem interested to argue facts. You seem to rather be a nitpick jerk, teeming with condescension, offering nothing but naysaying, and trying to twist my wires instead of arguing in good faith. We have 5 OL that have competed at a high end individually, and they put it on film and in the stats, and you just want to say they suck because you want to lump them together with the mess of walk-ons that rotated in and out.Hate to use Kentucky/Clemson bowl game stats as bowls are pretty much garbage with all the opt outs.
But you list out a bunch of "facts" that absolutely can't ever be argued. They are infallible.
Where you completely lost me was when you listed all these supposed facts, while I'm just all "pessimism", and then you predict a whopping one game difference between us. I say 5 wins, you say 6.
Then when called on that, you follow up with predicting anywhere from 6 to 9 wins.
Congratulations on really nailing that down to a specific number.
I don't think you are very confident in your own "facts", so why should anyone else be?
And just to be clear I mean too many unknowns across all teams. Ole Miss could suddenly learn how to win on the road. LSU's defense had no reason to struggle last year and could turn it around. Bama could react to a be coach how Florida did to Ron Zook. Klubnik could basically become the player Clemson thinks he for some reason is. Oklahoma could fall apart in year three under skeletor.
Okay, but we are healthy after losing 6 OL. A healthy OL puts us in position to compete more. We don't need to be better, healthier will suffice to improve. But also, we are better at most positions. I didn't say chemistry is the end ask be all, I said it's one thing predictive that is the reason why replacing 3 OL is a concern. The key with chemistry and communication, the biggest part is center to each player, and we've established those connections. On top of that, we have 5 guys who have started and performed well as individuals against good teams, they're replacing the starters with guys who didn't rotate through like that. I'm saying, for all unknowns from other teams, we still aren't missing a bowl. The unknowns just control the ceiling. Stop patting my hand while refusing to entertain my point, I've said nothing previously which contradicts this post. That is why I say you're arguing in bad faith, instead of taking on what I'm saying, you're caracaturing it to reply. You don't care for my point, you care only how you can trust it to something to wave away.
OL chemistry, like i said, is at least communication with the center, they've all gotten live reps with Lee, and they have more starting experience. So further along on building chemistry, more starts, and each player had proven their effectiveness on the field, just shared the field with lesser guys because of injuries. I don't see what's complicated about that.