Recruiting Forum Football Talk XXIX

[chavisut]

So is the *****in..

Cute. Sorry I'm not buying into Jalen Hurd being the bane of problems.

 

[WriterVol]

UGA had no business beating us at any point. Don't care about data and analytics.

It was a preseason metric based on talent (I'm guessing something like 247 composite or something like that). It's just a number and doesn't factor in many, many other things. It'll get some things wrong, but it looks somewhat accurate overall.

 

[BigZiti09]

We were out played and out coached at Georgia.

We outplayed Florida last year. Still got the L.

 

[chavisut]

It was a preseason metric based on talent (I'm guessing something like 247 composite or something like that). It's just a number and doesn't factor in many, many other things. It'll get some things wrong, but it looks somewhat accurate overall.

It was 90% accurate. Pretty good.

 

[Wickman]

Cool. I'm sure you have lots of data that backs up your analysis. I'd love to see it.

Logical progression.

A team (finally) full of experience AND 4* and 5* talent. Arguably the 2nd best talent in the SEC.

A coaching staff that has been together, for the most part, for at least 2 years.

The east is substantially down.

Injuries play a factor for sure, but the only teams that should have defeated us, based on the above, is Bama and maybe A&M. 10-2 was THE expectation.

 

[WriterVol]

The problem is, it's a poorly thought out attempt to introduce context.

If South Carolina is our first loss and we are trying to put that into context of still making the playoffs, it's applicable.

Bringing up single losses for teams that lost the one game en route to the national championship does not apply to a team that's season, like it or not, is on the brink of completely failing expectations.

People use the "best" example for context. In this case, they used the best team to lose to a really bad team.

Again (for the dozenth time), I don't think anyone thinks SC was anything but a bad loss.

Actually, I think a lot of different discussions are getting all crossed up.

5-0 was good (with both troubling signs and encouraging signs).

0-2 to A&M and Alabama were ~ neutral (but trending bad in my opinion).

0-1 so far on the back stretch is bad.

 

[McGeesPub]

I published these on 5/21.

http://www.volnation.com/forum/tennessee-vols-football/256217-2016.html

All well and good, and your models are well taken. But, and not having time to go through the thread, I would imagine that these are only a snapshot in time of the preseason, and many other variables aren't taken into account, like injuries (I would imagine that you would counter that recruiting rankings in aggregate account for this), the "bust" factor, experience (if the freshman class was an outlier in quality, would it still have an approximate .25 effect on the projections when many may not play, or even redshirt?)

Again, I'm not trying to poo poo these, but with all predictive models, they aren't perfect. And projections aside, I'd argue that 9-3 is anything but a given, and I've seen a few others chime in that anything above 9-3 was a silly expectation.

 

[BigZiti09]

Logical progression.

A team (finally) full of experience AND 4* and 5* talent. Arguably the 2nd best talent in the SEC.

A coaching staff that has been together, for the most part, for at least 2 years.

The east is substantially down.

Injuries play a factor for sure, but the only teams that should have defeated us, based on the above, is Bama and maybe A&M. 10-2 was THE expectation.

The bolded is absurd.

 

[butchna]

We were out played and out coached at Georgia.

And we outWON them...love it when we're on the opposite side of that.

 

[WriterVol]

It was 90% accurate. Pretty good.

Yeah, Georgia was easily the biggest outlier at -4. Everyone else was within 1.

Smart's trending toward a bad hire for sure.

 

[butchna]

Cute. Sorry I'm not buying into Jalen Hurd being the bane of problems.

And now we're back to not caring about your purchases.

 

[WriterVol]

And we outWON them...love it when we're on the opposite side of that.

I like that. Outwinning someone is a good way to describe a hail mary. :yes:

 

[McGeesPub]

People use the "best" example for context. In this case, they used the best team to lose to a really bad team.

Again (for the dozenth time), I don't think anyone thinks SC was anything but a bad loss.

Actually, I think a lot of different discussions are getting all crossed up.

5-0 was good (with both troubling signs and encouraging signs).

0-2 to A&M and Alabama were ~ neutral (but trending bad in my opinion).

0-1 so far on the back stretch is bad.

Putting into context doesn't have anything to do with giving "best" examples. That's called reliance on an outlier.

Putting in to context means giving more information to help someone understand something better.

 

[chavisut]

And now we're back to not caring about your purchases.

Last thing I bought was a dark roast coffee. Was delicious. I'll keep you updated.

 

[The Orange Pants]

The bolded is absurd.

At the beginning of the year it wasn't. This team is loaded. Veteran QB. Stable of RBs. A gym full of WRs. An OL that isn't great, but isn't awful. The best DE in the country and depth to fill out the rest of the DL. Two All SEC LBs. An All SEC CB and respectable players around him. The best PR. The best KR. An elite punter and an above average kicker.

The circumstances of this season and the pathetic performance this team has put forth nearly every week doesn't change any of this.

 

[Atzar]

We were out played and out coached at Georgia.

Outcoached? Georgia's gaffes are the reason we won the game.

They stopped gashing us with the run, despite the fact that we couldn't stop them in the first half. I think Michel is a top 3 back in the SEC, but you wouldn't know it this year because Jim Chaney is employed in Athens.

And the Hail Mary play wasn't luck. More than anything else, it was comically bad strategy by UGA's defensive coaches. You stop a Hail Mary one of two ways: you pressure the QB into making the throw before the play sets up (or just sack him), or you get in front of the ball and knock it down. They rushed three, letting the WRs get in position and allowing Dobbs to make a good throw. Then they didn't attack the ball - they lined up too deep and failed to attack the ball in flight.

You could say that Georgia played harder than Tennessee. I believe that to be true. But no way do I agree that they outcoached us in that game.

 

[daj2576]

All well and good, and your models are well taken. But, and not having time to go through the thread, I would imagine that these are only a snapshot in time of the preseason, and many other variables aren't taken into account, like injuries (I would imagine that you would counter that recruiting rankings in aggregate account for this), the "bust" factor, experience (if the freshman class was an outlier in quality, would it still have an approximate .25 effect on the projections when many may not play, or even redshirt?)

Again, I'm not trying to poo poo these, but with all predictive models, they aren't perfect. And projections aside, I'd argue that 9-3 is anything but a given, and I've seen a few others chime in that anything above 9-3 was a silly expectation.

I've been poo-pood on by much better, to be sure.

The problem is that when you look at these numbers over a long enough timeline you begin to see very clearly that what most people consider to be determining factors in football, simply aren't. Using only these numbers you can arrive at a 70% prediction rate. That means that literally every other variable you can imagine falls within the 30% of the time the numbers don't work.

coaching.

attrition.

weather.

home-field advantage (very real).

Gruden's tie color.

Those all could arguably account for the 30% of the time the evaluations don't work, and I get that. But, talent averages alone can account for the other 70%.

EDIT: since 2005 (the farthest back this data goes) there has only been 1 time in a national championship game that a team with a worse talent average has won the game. Talent is almost a 100% predictor in national championship games.

 

[Ulysees E. McGill]

Did they lose two other games as well? I think my post was not taken into context. You can't lose games that you shouldn't after losing two games that you are likely to lose. Hope this explains my point better. You can't expect to do that and be national championship contender, period. Or even an SEC championship contender, unless you back your way in.

No I agree with this post...But what you said earlier is..Championship teams do not lose games again inferior opponents. Yes they absolutely do. Alabama has lost games against inferior opponents and still won championships. This team has lost only one game it had no business losing. They played over their heads against TAMU considering the injuries incurred...There is absolutely no excuse or reason for losing to USuCk. Dobbs singlehandedly destroyed the offense in that game...he should have been benched early in the third when it became abundantly clear he was having the worst day of his career.

 

[WriterVol]

Putting into context doesn't have anything to do with giving "best" examples. That's called reliance on an outlier.

Putting in to context means giving more information to help someone understand something better.

Sorry, I meant to expand on that thought.

I agree. It isn't the best way to provide context. It's just what people tend to do, especially in sports.

I was actually talking about teams losing games they shouldn't when I went down the rabbit hole. You could argue any national champion that isn't undefeated has lost a game they shouldn't have. All coaches do. If you do it too much, you get fired.

 

[OGbabyaviVol]

Great day, I can't believe y'all are still debating, discussing, arguing, whatever it is about the expectations of the season!

It was 10-2, SEC east champs...NO EXCUSES!!!

Do you want to bring up injuries as an excuse? Fine, but in the face of all the injuries, look at the A&M game and the South Carolina game… What common Factor would have turned those two losses into a win? Less injuries? No. The answer is turnovers… Protect the football and we still win those games, no matter who was playing. Is the lack of focus and protection of the football, along with undisciplined play… Those are the reasons we have three losses, and we still would be a playoff contender with one loss if we would have only protected the football.

 

[BigZiti09]

At the beginning of the year it wasn't. This team is loaded. Veteran QB. Stable of RBs. A gym full of WRs. An OL that isn't great, but isn't awful. The best DE in the country and depth to fill out the rest of the DL. Two All SEC LBs. An All SEC CB and respectable players around him. The best PR. The best KR. An elite punter and an above average kicker.

The circumstances of this season and the pathetic performance this team has put forth nearly every week doesn't change any of this.

We have some talent but this is the SEC. Everyone does. The other teams in this league didn't stop recruiting at the same time we started.

Here's the 247 talent ranking. (I'm not a big fan of the composite when it comes to ranking individual players but it's more useful here in this situation I think) 2016 College SEC Football Team Talent Composite

We are 2nd in the division, not the league. We are 7th in the league just ahead of Florida by a few points then there's a drop off before you get to the bottom feeders.

The biggest mistake our fan base makes is that we think that these other teams are devoid of talent and they are not.

 

[thomaseusin]

Anyone else think Kelly runs like the freshman version of Hurd? One cut, between the tackles, legs don't ever stop moving and always falling forward.. Can't wait to see him get some more touches going forward

 

[volinbama256]

UT has not looked prepared for a single game this season and has had to fight their way back in the second half every game as we all know. We lost to A&M simply based on sloppy turnovers- you take away even three, and we win without going to overtime... We simply had too many injuries during the Bama game and the coaches played too conservative on top of that, which resulted in us getting destroyed off of 4-5 huge gashed plays. We had two weeks to prepare for an average USCe and had several key players back, yet looked completely unprepared, out of synch, and played sloppy, undisciplined ball.... the team that makes the fewest mistakes wins.... I will say that the kid's heads were probably not as focused with all of the Hurd drama, but we still had three times the talent on the field compared to USCe....This is on the coaching staff... Period. We've seen plenty of teams this season accomplish more with less talent....They have better coaches. Butch better make the tough decisions at the end of the season or things will be worse next year. Recruiting is dropping off this week and may not recover unless we win the remainder of our games. Wonder where those five high-tier recruits Chase Roger's Dad was telling us about that were interested and we were going to need to make room for? Changes need to be made... we still have too much talent that is not being developed or used properly.

 

[jspvol76]

No I agree with this post...But what you said earlier is..Championship teams do not lose games again inferior opponents. Yes they absolutely do. Alabama has lost games against inferior opponents and still won championships. This team has lost only one game it had no business losing. They played over their heads against TAMU considering the injuries incurred...There is absolutely no excuse or reason for losing to USuCk. Dobbs singlehandedly destroyed the offense in that game...he should have been benched early in the third when it became abundantly clear he was having the worst day of his career.

I agree with this post.

 

[WriterVol]

I've been poo-pood on by much better, to be sure.

The problem is that when you look at these numbers over a long enough timeline you begin to see very clearly that what most people consider to be determining factors in football, simply aren't. Using only these numbers you can arrive at a 70% prediction rate. That means that literally every other variable you can imagine falls within the 30% of the time the numbers don't work.

coaching.

attrition.

weather.

home-field advantage (very real).

Gruden's tie color.

Those all could arguably account for the 30% of the time the evaluations don't work, and I get that. But, talent averages alone can account for the other 70%.

EDIT: since 2005 (the farthest back this data goes) there has only been 1 time in a national championship game that a team with a worse talent average has won the game. Talent is almost a 100% predictor in national championship games.

What numbers are you using? 247 composite or something like that?