Clayton White by the numbers
- Thread starter 18IsTheMan
- Start date
Those complaining about Clayton White should immediately be ushered to the front of the Lobotomy line.
"Flash" might need a refresher in how clunky offenses can make otherwise competent defenses look bad.
It is pretty obvious that 2024 was an outlier year. There was an infusion of talent and the serendipity of facing a lot of opponents who struggled on offense that season. That talent has moved on and the opponents are better on offense.
I think the defense kept us in the game. They forced three field goals. There was that one long drive, but overall they had a great game. They had to make some one handed circus catches a few times, and that RB is legit, and we were still in the game in the 4th quarter.
100%
The time of possession was lopsided.
Missouri was held to 10+ pts below their average at home.
Put another way -- The staff helped send a bunch of guys to the NFL at the end of last season.
Or -- a bunch of one year wonders out of the portal made the staff look much better than it really is. The numbers actually support this conclusion more than yours.
Certainly can't pin the Missouri loss on the D, but we already sit at 55th in scoring D and haven't hit the hard part of our schedule.
Couple things to note. The defense has been on the field much longer than the offense thru 4 games so they're getting worn down because the offense isn't sustaining drives. Also, last year's defense had better players. Maybe you can blame the coaches for player development/talent assessment but I can name multiple players on last year's defense that were better than the guys on this defense (4 went in the first several rounds of the '25 draft)
Fair point about the offense not sustaining drives.
Yes, the lack of talent on D obviously falls on the coaches.
It's called having a limited budget in a new era. Every year will be different than the previous 4-year model.
We've had this discussion at least 20 times so why are you presenting it as novel thought?
Pick it up Doubtfire. You're losing control of your harem.
There were only two 1-year wonders on D last year. Kennard and Knight. The rest had been there a while. We didn't restock the DL with new ones. And inside we are inexperienced. Same at LB. That's why we in trouble. Mizzou does not have a dazzling offense. As soon as someone stops the run (which we obviously didn't do), they will be in trouble.
Coach loves his 4 man front. When we got to the fourth quarter he realized we needed take some shots by sending 5 and 6 on the DL and SC created some plays. Why wait? Down and distance can dictate opportunities for loading the box. Most teams realize they have to take some gamble to win games. What is he waiting for? Last year's team is gone. Cut them loose.
You need to get off the "we have limited resources" horse because it's dead.
We have the same or more resources than pretty much every team we play. We are not losing games because the other team bought better players. If we lose to UK, will it be because UK spends more on players than we do? Does Vandy spend more on football than we do?
I can't see the comment you're replying to, but the limited resources spiel falls totally flat when you realize our head coach is the 17th highest paid in the nation and both coordinators make nearly top 10 money nationally.
Other teams are getting far better results at a lower cost.
As it relates to White, the general consensus has been that he's a very good DC. Even I think/have thought that. These numbers are interesting though.
Last edited:
Comeon Botman - Your entire premise is ridiculous and you know it.
We finish in the bottom half of the SEC every year in recruiting.
Of course it's possible for any team to beat another from time to time.
Coincidentally, neither can I.
But remember also that we have the 5th highest paid player in college football this year.The NIL discussion was funny on the old board with NIL rankings provided to excuse losses to certain teams. Then when we lost to teams lower on the list, the same posters hyping those lists suddenly determined them to be baseless.
Without real budget comparisons, NIL will be the boogeyman, regardless of whether we spend more or less.
We have the 17th highest paid coach in the country and the 5th highest paid player. Those are not numbers that a "financially struggling" program has.
We finish in the bottom half of the SEC in recruiting because top recruits don't want to play for a program that is traditionally mediocre . Top recruits want to go to top teams.
Oh, ha, yeah I guess so. Can't recall the name, but remember it was someone very annoying.
Our budget is a 5th or less of the largest NIL Teams.
Using most of your budget to keep one player from fleeing leaves you in a hole.
Your last sentence is from an era prior to 2020.
I believe you are one of the posters who are supposedly "me", so you should have had him on ignore once I put him there.
I believe you are one of the posters who are supposedly "me", so you should have had him on ignore once I put him there.
You're showing your hand again, Botman.
You need to be better than this if you're going to continue to scratch that bizarre itch.
2025 College Football Team Talent Composite
We shouldn't be this bad with the talent we have. 18th in the country and 10th in the SEC. A real OC and OL coach could go a long way.
We shouldn't be this bad with the talent we have. 18th in the country and 10th in the SEC. A real OC and OL coach could go a long way.
Vandy and Mizzou beneath us......as well as Ky. I *think* we win Saturday, but if we lose, it won't be for lack of precedence.
Ole Miss is beneath us on tha talent composite too.
So we should have no problem with them.....right?