ZippyMorocco
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2014
- Messages
- 1,667
- Likes
- 2,505
Why does this just look like one of those "you can make #s tell ANY story you WANT!"
Alabama and UGA doesn't have returning players because they play junior and seniors and send them to the NFL. They are going to replace talent easier. This doesn't change the validity of the information. Playing time with good cosching should lead to improved results on the field.Look at the bottom 2 and that's all you need to know about the validity of this information.
The point the thread was trying to make was more returning players would represent success. I stated look at the bottom 2 because for them this list doesn’t mean $h!t!Alabama and UGA doesn't have returning players because they play junior and seniors and send them to the NFL. They are going to replace talent easier. This doesn't change the validity of the information. Playing time with good cosching should lead to improved results on the field.
It's just players that played 150+ snaps. Presumably if they were playing as much as you are suggesting, then they should be included (if they had a 60+ PFF grade). Either they didn't play that much, or they weren't very good.What that doesn't say is many of Ga's and Bama's 5* second string played a bunch of snaps this past season. They just didn't all start the game.
Yea you totally missed his point.Alabama and UGA doesn't have returning players because they play junior and seniors and send them to the NFL. They are going to replace talent easier. This doesn't change the validity of the information. Playing time with good cosching should lead to improved results on the field.
I get his point. I think the talent we returned was either bad or the coaching was bad. So if we see the same talent and same coaches on the field, I expect similar results. If you aren't replacing draft picks with future draft picks. Replacing starters can clear to issues (UF, USC, UK, Vandy).Yea you totally missed his point.