Sunday Morning QB- Sonic Boom edition
- Thread starter Coach34
- Start date
Good write-up to start the season.
I was surprised to see Giles not redshirting. Do you think he'll see much in the secondary this season?
I was surprised to see Giles not redshirting. Do you think he'll see much in the secondary this season?
only mop-up duty. With our top 3 CB's being Sr's, we had to get at least one Freshman some experience this season
what other freshman suited up besides quay, james and bell? i only got to watch the first quarter.
Derrick Milton looked like the best RB out there
I know you have a man crush on Josh Robinson and I'm not denying that he looked, but the best RB we had step on the field for us last night was Derrick Milton. He is a one-cut and get down hill type runner. He is the closet thing we have to Vick on this years roster. He may not end up being the man but your claim for Josh Robinson being that much better than the other RB's (Perk and Milton) is crazy.
I know you have a man crush on Josh Robinson and I'm not denying that he looked, but the best RB we had step on the field for us last night was Derrick Milton. He is a one-cut and get down hill type runner. He is the closet thing we have to Vick on this years roster. He may not end up being the man but your claim for Josh Robinson being that much better than the other RB's (Perk and Milton) is crazy.
I've seen several SWAC teams in my day, and I agree- JSU was one of the better ones I have seen. They're very well coached. Their punting situation is scary and might cost them a title though. No doubt they will contend at the very least.
Welp, guess I'll challenge some of your drivel if no one else will.
1. Agreed
2. The reason people are running around saying "SWAC" defense is, well, because they're a GD SWAC defense. The fact you compared them to Memphis speaks to the shittiness of Memphis and not a strength of JSU. The SWAC is atrocious and that's being complimentary.
3. Hyperbole much? The most vanilla in history huh? How does one go about measuring that?
7. Is going to be good. As in, not potential but a stated fact. How do you know this? Guess there's no recourse on the interwebs for claiming non-facts as facts.
8. I have no idea how you could judge an OL against JSU other than to say they're not complete dog ****. Reference #2.
13. This is correct. Nothing should change your mind at this point because you have no idea if the preseason question marks are valid because those questions can't be answered playing JSU. I suspect you'll be able to this weekend.
1. Agreed
2. The reason people are running around saying "SWAC" defense is, well, because they're a GD SWAC defense. The fact you compared them to Memphis speaks to the shittiness of Memphis and not a strength of JSU. The SWAC is atrocious and that's being complimentary.
3. Hyperbole much? The most vanilla in history huh? How does one go about measuring that?
7. Is going to be good. As in, not potential but a stated fact. How do you know this? Guess there's no recourse on the interwebs for claiming non-facts as facts.
8. I have no idea how you could judge an OL against JSU other than to say they're not complete dog ****. Reference #2.
13. This is correct. Nothing should change your mind at this point because you have no idea if the preseason question marks are valid because those questions can't be answered playing JSU. I suspect you'll be able to this weekend.
"because they're a GD SWAC defense."
that was not your typical SWAC defense. They were well-coached and well prepared. They changed coverages. They had 3-4 guys that were higher level defensive players. I'm sorry you couldnt see that
"Hyperbole much? The most vanilla in history huh? How does one go about measuring that?"
You measure that by watching how many blitzes they run, how many times they change the looks on their front, and how many times they change coverages. We did almost none of that- and that means it was as mf'ing vanilla as you can get simpleton
"Is going to be good. As in, not potential but a stated fact. How do you know this?"
Because I have been involved with football since shortly after birth, and trained on the sport. All you have to do is watch him to see the type of talent he possesses.
"I have no idea how you could judge an OL against JSU"
pretty much your entire post has shown you dont know how to judge anything football-related
that was not your typical SWAC defense. They were well-coached and well prepared. They changed coverages. They had 3-4 guys that were higher level defensive players. I'm sorry you couldnt see that
"Hyperbole much? The most vanilla in history huh? How does one go about measuring that?"
You measure that by watching how many blitzes they run, how many times they change the looks on their front, and how many times they change coverages. We did almost none of that- and that means it was as mf'ing vanilla as you can get simpleton
"Is going to be good. As in, not potential but a stated fact. How do you know this?"
Because I have been involved with football since shortly after birth, and trained on the sport. All you have to do is watch him to see the type of talent he possesses.
"I have no idea how you could judge an OL against JSU"
pretty much your entire post has shown you dont know how to judge anything football-related
Jesus, you too? That's like a MLB team beating a Double A team and saying "but they're so well coached!" Does that really mean anything in relation to your team? Hell no it doesn't.
And you respond with more drivel.....
1. I don't care if it was typical or not. It will be the weakest defense faced this year.
2. Higher level? WTF does that even mean? Higher than Pee Wee? NAIA? If that's what you mean't, then yes you're correct.
3. Nice side step. You measured that versus the entire history of CFB? No, no you didn't. Therefore, ******** and hyperbole.
4. Trained......hahahahaha. Right, because every player with his type of talent has panned out. Yes, all of them. No chance of failure.
5. My entire post didn't address judging talent. It addressed your BS. I wouldn't have to watch one snap against JSU to know that it isn't an indication of anything outside of playing another SWAC team. You feel better or worse about the chances against Auburn, LSU or Bama? Of course you don't and that's the ******* point.
1. I don't care if it was typical or not. It will be the weakest defense faced this year.
2. Higher level? WTF does that even mean? Higher than Pee Wee? NAIA? If that's what you mean't, then yes you're correct.
3. Nice side step. You measured that versus the entire history of CFB? No, no you didn't. Therefore, ******** and hyperbole.
4. Trained......hahahahaha. Right, because every player with his type of talent has panned out. Yes, all of them. No chance of failure.
5. My entire post didn't address judging talent. It addressed your BS. I wouldn't have to watch one snap against JSU to know that it isn't an indication of anything outside of playing another SWAC team. You feel better or worse about the chances against Auburn, LSU or Bama? Of course you don't and that's the ******* point.
Holy ****! One player! So you're comfortable making assessments against a team with one NFL player? Got it. Yes, their **** was beaten. What you can take away from that is a SWAC team got the **** beaten out of them by an SEC team. Solid analysis.
You too are correct, you can start making some assumptions after this weekend but certainly not after this past one.
You too are correct, you can start making some assumptions after this weekend but certainly not after this past one.
So, because it doesn't mean anything in relation to my team, I can't pay them a compliment? Comegy is a good coach and he has done a good job there.
Not to take anything away from Robinson (whom I think will be a very productive for State over his career), but I also thought that Milton showed signs of being a future Vick Ballard type back for us.
Of course you can. However, you said you agreed with 34 and the crux of his argument was that this was a 'special' SWAC team and somehow you can translate that to some solid analysis. Maybe I over reached and you only intended to compliment JSU. If so, my apologies.
I don't recall saying that. The point being, if your defense struggles against an FCS team then you can extrapolate that to your D struggling against SEC teams with a high probability. Conversely, if your defense is successful against an FCS team that is not a predictor for success against SEC teams. I'm not sure what's so complicated about that.
How so? Using basic reasoning/logic and then typing it in an electronic format requires very little effort for me. Though I can understand how that would be "trying hard" for some here.
Besides, no one has refuted my points with any counter logic thus far. Certainly not 34. As usual, when he can't BS some idiot he just stops responding.
Besides, no one has refuted my points with any counter logic thus far. Certainly not 34. As usual, when he can't BS some idiot he just stops responding.
Just give it up.. I really don't see why you're making such a big deal about what coach said and jumping on the back of anyone that agrees with him on the account of JSU. I read it more as a compliment to JSU than any kind of measurement we should take from it. Hell, I've watched SWAC teams for years... and I have to agree with what he said. You arguing that point is making you sound fickle.
Except that we won't be playing our second and third team defense for over half of the game against a SEC team unless we have a plague of injuries. The one TD drive that JSU had- Tavese Calhoun was picked on and abused. A freshman who I doubt will see a lot of action. And then JSU got a field goal in garbage time.
If we were playing all out, leaving our starters in on defense with our full playbook and we had some issues- then I think you might have a point.
We could have beaten them 70-0, maybe even 84-0 or whatever we wanted to if we had unleashed our full playbook on them and left our starters in- but we chose to be basic and play our reserves to build depth and experience. And I don't have a problem with that at all.
If we were playing all out, leaving our starters in on defense with our full playbook and we had some issues- then I think you might have a point.
We could have beaten them 70-0, maybe even 84-0 or whatever we wanted to if we had unleashed our full playbook on them and left our starters in- but we chose to be basic and play our reserves to build depth and experience. And I don't have a problem with that at all.
Coach and Azzurri have long provided their feedback the day after the game. Why don't you try the same instead of trying to trip Coach up on his choice of words. I suspect most people here are able to interpret his column without trying to argue semantics. Sure, it's fun to take on an internet celebrity and try to build up some cool points. It's better to provide some sort of insight that provides a basis for actual discussion.
So I'm a gigantic douche for challenging someone's faulty *** logic? You, just like the rest, have failed to respond with anything substantive.
No, you're a douche because you're taking yourself too seriously by arguing semantics with ****** reasoning.
Good catch. Again, another response without addressing the talking points. Why do people get so offended by challenging someone's thought process? I don't get it. If you disagree, fine. But calling people an idiot/douche without actually engaging in the discussion seems pretty simple minded to me.
Finally, a response beyond "Don't go questioning coach34!". Yet still no refuting the discussion. Indeed he does and when you have your own website you open yourself up to criticism. I wasn't trying to trip him up with his words. I took his words at face value. Besides, when he responded he in no way indicated he mis-spoke. In fact, he weakly attempted rationalization. So if you don't post a thesis each week then you can't call someone on their ********? Interesting.
Hardly. I'm taking none of this seriously. It's an Internet message board after all. The ones getting upset at someone challenging the resident CFB god who's been trained since birth but can't soundly defend his own takes are the ones too serious. No lost sleep for me, I assure you.
Robinson is def our best RB. He never went down after 1st contact and was always falling forward. He never had any holes to run through that I can remember. All are pretty good but Robinson will get the bulk of carries before the year is over.
Todd, I was using that example regarding the defense generically. Not this past weekend's game.
34 was chastising people for downplaying JSU's talent, like they are some sort of valid measuring stick. That is ******* laughable. The SWAC is widely known as being one of the weakest conferences. Hell, they quit participating in the DIi playoffs because they we're getting their **** pushed in.
My point was this: There were identified assumed strengths and weaknesses before the season. I don't believe that any on either side were confirmed. You know why? Because it's Jackson ******* State!
If someone feels that JSU is a good measuring stick, great. Discuss your position or don't. I don't get attacking people for questioning someone. (Not directing that at you). I thought that was the whole purpose of these boards.
34 was chastising people for downplaying JSU's talent, like they are some sort of valid measuring stick. That is ******* laughable. The SWAC is widely known as being one of the weakest conferences. Hell, they quit participating in the DIi playoffs because they we're getting their **** pushed in.
My point was this: There were identified assumed strengths and weaknesses before the season. I don't believe that any on either side were confirmed. You know why? Because it's Jackson ******* State!
If someone feels that JSU is a good measuring stick, great. Discuss your position or don't. I don't get attacking people for questioning someone. (Not directing that at you). I thought that was the whole purpose of these boards.
Really, you/re talking about the substance of other posts?
2. It's difficult to judge an offense when they're going against a subpar defense, but it's impossible when the D is subpar athletically and poorly coached. Playing against a D that doesn't have a bunch of blown coverages and generally is in position tells you more about an offense than you would expect to learn from playing a SWAC team. Still don't learn much, but you learn a little.
3. Yes, that was hyperbole. It's a legitimate tool. He was making the point that we pretty much played as simple a defense as possible. Pointing out hyperbole is not an effective argument if the hyperbole was intentional.
7. Pro tip: If people are talking about the future, they are generally making predictions, even if they don't come out and say, "this is what I think will happen in the future."
8. Watch our game against Memphis last year. You could tell Carmon was still adjusting. You could tell we had zero behind him or pretty much any other position. Last night, we basically gave our two backup guards last night agood bit of game experience and they didn't look totally incompetent. No starter looked terrible. We may not have an adequate backup OT.
13. Had we looked like we looked last year versus Memphis, we could be pretty sure we're closer to a 6 to 8 win team. We don't know that we're an 8-10 win team, but it does provide some info that we cannot rule out an 8-10 win season based on last night. Bayes 'n ****.
2. It's difficult to judge an offense when they're going against a subpar defense, but it's impossible when the D is subpar athletically and poorly coached. Playing against a D that doesn't have a bunch of blown coverages and generally is in position tells you more about an offense than you would expect to learn from playing a SWAC team. Still don't learn much, but you learn a little.
3. Yes, that was hyperbole. It's a legitimate tool. He was making the point that we pretty much played as simple a defense as possible. Pointing out hyperbole is not an effective argument if the hyperbole was intentional.
7. Pro tip: If people are talking about the future, they are generally making predictions, even if they don't come out and say, "this is what I think will happen in the future."
8. Watch our game against Memphis last year. You could tell Carmon was still adjusting. You could tell we had zero behind him or pretty much any other position. Last night, we basically gave our two backup guards last night agood bit of game experience and they didn't look totally incompetent. No starter looked terrible. We may not have an adequate backup OT.
13. Had we looked like we looked last year versus Memphis, we could be pretty sure we're closer to a 6 to 8 win team. We don't know that we're an 8-10 win team, but it does provide some info that we cannot rule out an 8-10 win season based on last night. Bayes 'n ****.
Possibly. But damn near every discussion on here can be fickle depending on your perspective. I didn't intend to make a big deal about. I just prefer people not speak in such certainty on subjects that are in no way certain or verifiable. Quite communistic one might say. Maybe it's just a character flaw on my part. Anyhow, I only questioned his logic. It's not like I questioned his sexual preference. There's an old thread addressing that. Zing!
I agree and posted the same earlier....Milton will or should
get more carries. We will need him to run inside against SEC defenses. I think Robinson did a good job as well but Milton was impressive.
get more carries. We will need him to run inside against SEC defenses. I think Robinson did a good job as well but Milton was impressive.