Yeah, I guess you can guarantee that Wilcox's defense would have *only* allowed 22 ppg.
There are no "guarantees" about alternatives that were not chosen... but this comes as close as you can do. Yes. Basically the same D roster PLUS better DL's would have very likely have resulted in AT LEAST as good of results as the year previous AGAINST A HARDER SCHEDULE.
I know that your knee jerk reaction is to throw all reason out when discussing anything about the last 3 years... but please try.
And I guess you can guarantee that our offense would have scored the same number of points too.
No more than you can guarantee it wouldn't. It is VERY likely that a better D makes the O BETTER... not worse.
I mean, it's not like teams change their game plans based on what scheme they're facing, right?
Oh, I see now. Having a better D and the same O would have made UT easier to gameplan for according to you... :whistling:
Blind bias makes smart people act stupid sometimes.
It's not like the flow of a game and adjustments made by coaches due to being ahead or behind influence stats, right?
Remind me again, what was Dooley's record with Wilcox as his DC?
Not relevant. It is only relevant what Wilcox did with the hand HE was dealt.
Wilcox in '11 operating often with little help from the O had a mid-pack D. He did that while playing both NC contenders and Arkansas from the West. He did that with a roster whose most talented players were still Fr and So.
You try way too hard to be irrational just to preserve that "Dooley is 100% evil" bias.
In this one response you have suggested that a D returning almost all of its best players plus adding depth and talent against a lighter schedule would be worse.
You have suggested that a better D would have also made the O worse.
You have suggested that a team with the same O and a better D would have been easier to gameplan and coach against.
I hope you are smarter than that.
