25 things to consider in 2009

[Conan]

Just a bunch of tid-bits from around the country.
But it beats watching Oprah Winfrey.

1. Arizona offensive coordinator Sonny Dykes took a trip in the offseason to visit with the staff of the Dallas Cowboys. The purpose: To study how it used tight end Jason Witten. Dykes came back to Tucson with new ideas on how to involve junior tight end Rob Gronkowski. "We took some of the stuff we saw with the Cowboys," Dykes said. "We are trying to put it in our packages."

2. Gronkowski is a Lindy's second-team preseason All-American behind Oklahoma's Jermaine Gresham, who surprisingly came back for his senior season.

3. I normally wouldn't divulge Lindy's No. 1 team, but it didn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out this season. It's Florida. Question is, who is No. 2 . . . Texas or Oklahoma? Or should that be Oklahoma or Texas?

4. Lindy's picks the best of the decade in this year's editions, and the question about the 2009 Gators is if they can become the team of the decade. The champ in the clubhouse is 2001 Miami, which went undefeated, outscored opponents 512-117 and produced 15 first-round picks in the next three drafts.

5. I can't wait to see how Salpointe Catholic graduate and former Arizona assistant Rich Ellerson does at Army. Ellerson made one of the most fascinating moves of the spring, switching starting left tackle Ali Villanueva (6 feet 10 inches, 283 pounds) to wide receiver. Villanueva is expected to be a red-zone threat and serve as a heck of a blocker on screen passes.

6. Sure looks like a down year for the Pac-10, with eight of the teams having some sort of quarterback battle in the spring. The only ones that didn't were Oregon - Jeremiah Masoli and Washington -Jake Locker, coming back from a thumb injury. (Note: The guy that wrote this is an idiot that knows nothing about defense or about running backs of whom about 5 from the conference could start anywhere.)

7. It figures: East Carolina junior Dustin Lineback is a . . . linebacker.

8. It doesn't figure: Defensive back Miami Thomas plays for Illinois, running back Princeton McCarty plays for Idaho, Bob Toledo coaches Tulane, and the University of Washington doesn't have anyone named Washington, although it does have a player named Houston, which is something Houston doesn't have. Running back Darius Marshall got it right. He plays for - you guessed it - Marshall.

9. Looking for a reason why the Big Ten flops in big games? It's not because of speed at the skill positions; it's because of speed and athleticism at defensive tackle. Consider this: NFL teams have drafted 16 defensive tackles in the first round since 2004. None has been from the Big Ten.

10. The SEC, not deep in quarterbacks this season after Florida's Tim Tebow and Mississippi's Jevan Snead, is nonetheless the conference of elite quarterbacks. Five of the past 12 No. 1 overall draft picks have been SEC quarterbacks.

11. Salpointe Catholic graduate Kris O'Dowd, a junior at USC, is Lindy's first-team preseason All-America center.

12. The middle of the Pac-10 is a jumbled mess. The top three are USC, Cal and Oregon. The bottom two are Washington and Washington State. Flip a coin for the teams in between, although Lindy's picked Arizona fifth. Lindy's went with Oregon State at No. 4, because at least the Beavers have two quarterbacks they can win with - rehabbing Lyle Moevao (shoulder) and Sean Canfield. The rest of the Pac-10 middle has big questions at QB.

13. The ACC is 2-9 in BCS bowl games and has barely sniffed the national title since expansion. Blame a lack of skill: Of the past 29 first-round picks from the league, only four have been a quarterback, receiver or running back.

14. This year's BCS buster: TCU.

15. Then again, if Boise State beats visiting Oregon on Sept. 3, who is going to stop the Broncos?

16. Arizona opens against Central Michigan on Sept. 5. The Chippewas are the pick to win the Mid-American Conference, and good-looking pro prospect Dan LeFevour is rated the eighth-best quarterback in the country, higher than anyone from the Pac-10.

17. Notre Dame isn't in the preseason Top 25, but the Irish could get there because of an easy schedule and an offense that has a chance to be all grown up. Their receiving corps is a national top 10 group.

18. Florida's defense is this good: The Gators have the nation's top-rated defensive line, the second-rated linebackers and the top secondary.

19. And that Tebow guy is Lindy's favorite to win the Heisman.

20. Alabama launched its 12-0 regular season in 2008 with a season-opening blasting of ACC favorite Clemson in Atlanta. The Tide's path is the same, a season opener in Atlanta vs. ACC favorite Virginia Tech.

21. Would it kill the Pac-10 to hold a coaches' teleconference with the media in the spring like other major conferences?

22. Oklahoma State: Love 'em or hate 'em? The Cowboys have the nation's best trio of quarterback, receiver and running back. The defense hasn't finished better than 74th nationally since 2001. Is that the right combination to challenge Oklahoma and Texas? We might know after opening week. Georgia plays at Oklahoma State.

23. Steve Spurrier is still hoping Stephen Garcia is his long-awaited answer at quarterback for South Carolina. But an SEC coach, speaking to Lindy's on condition of anonymity, said this of the Gamecocks: "I don't see them being a very good football team. And I wouldn't be surprised if he (Spurrier) called it quits after this season."

24. The Pac-10 has four players rated the best at their positions: O'Dowd, USC safety Taylor Mays, Cal running back Jahvid Best, UCLA kicker Kai Forbath and Arizona TE Rob Gronkowski. (editors creative license.)

25. A year from now, Tennessee, Miami, Notre Dame and Michigan could be back in the preseason Top 25. But not this summer.

 

[russ1945]

Conan

About #23 - Who in their right mind would want to play QB under Steve Spurrier? Would you want your kid to play under him? He is as bad or worse then Bobby Knight for Christ's sake.

PS: I know a little bit more than I can tell about Arizona right now but I am mum until they play Iowa. I am glad you came across that bit about the Dallas Cowboys. That may open a few more eyes.

 

[Conan]

About #23 - Who in their right mind would want to play QB under Steve Spurrier? Would you want your kid to play under him? He is as bad or worse then Bobby Knight for Christ's sake.

PS: I know a little bit more than I can tell about Arizona right now but I am mum until they play Iowa. I am glad you came across that bit about the Dallas Cowboys. That may open a few more eyes.

For Chrisesakes Russ, can't you tell a desperate move when you see one? Dykes looking for new ways to get the ball to Gronk? Geez. What does that suggest to you about their QB problem? How big of a bag of tricks does Sonny Dykes think he needs?

Please get "unmumed" and explain youself. WTF are you protecting anyway? You?

I can tell you this much, I ain't biting on Zona without a damn good reason and I haven't heard anything that compells me yet. A subpar season with a cushy schedule like they had last year won't be nearly as easy to replicate this year with the schedule they have to face.

You just watch. By the time everyone figures out that they have no passing game, even the rushing game will take a hit because every defense they face will be stacking the box and bringing everyone.

If you want to make life easy on yourself, I would look more closely at their game totals because that offense pales by comparison to last season (unless Dykes picks up several dozen new ways to get the ball to Gronkowski, but even then, how will Tuitama's replacement get the ball to Thomas's replacement? Cowboy tricks?)

Everyone, will expect an encore scoring output this season and after 2 patsies to start off with (and I'm not even sure about CMU) the lines and totals will be terribly skewed and way too rich. Now there's a possible moneymaker for you.

PS... since you mentioned it, AFTER Iowa they go to Corvallis.
HONK -- Not good.

 

[Delta00]

on #24 you list 5 players

 

[russ1945]

Conan

There is nothing I can do or say to change your mind. I do not see that as "desperation" move, they simply want to utilize a proven weapon to the max and to use some innovations the opposition may have to adjust to.
Minnesota had the Texas OC come up and help them out. Every summer they have informal coaches clinics where OC's and DC's get together and share info on the spread, etc. I think it shows the dedication that Dykes has in expading his knowledge and that Arizona is not desperate, they are simply going to think outside of the box. Not a common trait in the Pac 10.
Arizona has three Asst coaches who have come over from Texas Tech, one of them being Sykes. Sykes must be like me and many others who believe that:
If you always do
What you always did
You will alway get
What you alway got.
I say good move by Sykes and be ready for a little more offense than you were expecting. With so many other Pac 10 schools in a state of flux due to coaching changes Arizona may get a leg up on one or two. You talk about their strength of schedule this year compared to last year, well they play 9 of the same teams, 2 patsies, and Iowa. They flip flop some home fields but it is not that much different in terms of competition. Arizona is coming back with the same coaches, third year in a system, QB's who grew up in that system, and with coaches from Texas Tech who know how to reload at QB. You and I have come to a fork in the road concerning Arizona, you are going one way and I am going the other. I really don't know what else we can discuss on that subject that we haven't already. I know the Pac 10 is your backyard and I have not questioned anything you have said about any of the other teams in the Pac 10. I could be wrong and if so you deserve the right to say you told me so.

 

[Conan]

Russ,

When you said, "Open a few more eyes," that's what started me off right there. There's nothing to see that anyone else hasn't seen on this board, it's about interpretation and I stand on what I know. So is it really about people's "eyes being open" or did you really mean "see it the way I you see it."

Secondly, I don't think any coach would waste their time traveling around because they chose to enrich their livelihood outside the envelope -- they do what they think they need to do or must do.

Gronkowski was one of the most impacting players on the Cat offense last season. Mike Thomas and Willie Tuitama were two others. What makes sense is that Dykes thinks he needs to do something more because Scott won't be able to get the ball to Gronkowski the way Tuitama did. That makes a lot of sense. Having doubts about a first year QB makes a lot more sense than just thinking outside the box for its own sake to further polish up what's already working. It is VITAL that they figure out ways to get the ball to Gronk because without Tuitama in there it's not going to happen easily. When you can't beat your opponent directly, you have to get creative. Tricks.

From what I've been reading, even Bob Stoops is old school and has had his problems with teams that are innovators. That's something that one would expect to run in the family. Arizona is very different in that respect from the rest of the teams in the Pac-10. Mike Stoops' style does't quite mesh with the brand of football played out here. They are very transparent and old school. That's why they won only 7 games last season with supposedly star studded cast of players and a very easy schedule. I'll get to that schedule bit later.

I have no idea where you came up with the notion that Pac-10 teams don't think outside the box. Offensive innovation has been a very west coast thing, historically, forever it seems. Have you never heard of the expression "innovation nation?" Or, how about the latest trend towards running backs with a very small physique? (a la Quizz) How many other teams have copied Oregon St's/James Rogers fly sweep? Jeff Tedford was one of Bill Walsh's best students of the West Coast Offense, and if you havent' made the association yet, the Pac-10 happens to be on the west coast. The west coast offense has found its way into football programs in nearly every corner of the country. SEC schools (the more successful ones) such as Florida and LSU have imported their coaches from out west because of their offensive genius.

You see Russ, it's casual remarks such as that that make me question the way you think and what you really know. It may seem like opinion to you but to me it's about basic football concepts. Nothing to do with "MY" oppinion or interpretation.

You count "returning" touchdowns heavily in your method. On paper it looks plausible however there are places that you didn't count but should have, even according to your way of sizing things up. They "LOST" a HUGE heap of touchdowns when Tuitama left. His ability to improvise on the fly and make plays work accounted for a lot more than just what he managed to scamble for. He WAS Zona's passing game incarnate. That opened up their running game because it made honest men out of opposing linebackers.

It was Tuitama's ability to read defenses, his skill and his experince that lifted Arizona at least up to where they were expected to do well. But even then they didn't do so well. He ain't there now and with a rookie QB that doesn't know squat instead of Tuitama's skill and leadership, that will cost their offense a ton. That makes a lot more sense as a reason why Dykes would visit the Cowboy camp than a mere desire to think outside the box, albeit it should do them some good to get a little more creative.

With so many other Pac 10 schools in a state of flux due to coaching changes Arizona may get a leg up on one or two.

Incorrect. Only Sarkisian is new unless you want to count Kelly moving up the chain of command which is nowhere near any kind of shakeup or "team in flux" situation. "So many other Pac-10 schools?" How many? Who are they? That's not even a correct statement. Where do you get these facts, or are you just blatantly being stubborn, making irresponsible statements like that? Not even a cogent argument Russ.

You talk about their strength of schedule this year compared to last year, well they play 9 of the same teams, 2 patsies, and Iowa. They flip flop some home fields but it is not that much different in terms of competition.

Russ, how can you possibly say "not much different in terms of competiton" as an argument against a tougher schedule? Home field advantage means EVERYTHING. When you have to play the tough teams in your conference on their turf, it is WAY harder to beat them than if you are playing them on your own turf. Does USC going to Corvallis and losing 2 times in a row there make sense? Could the Beavers home field have anything at all to do with that? I don't need to use that as one example to dispell the notion that their schedule isn't much harder when they play their tough games on the road.

Last year, even with Tuitama, Arizona beat NOBODY that was considered a good Pac-10 team at home which doesn't bode will for them much less going on the road to play them this year.

Swap Iowa for New Mexico and 3 road games instead of home games against Oregon State, USC and California and you start out with 3 or 4 sure losses. Likely 4. Throw in Oregon with their juggeraut offense as the sole home game vs the top 4 Pac-10 schools and you are practially guaranteed 5 losses.

I think they will have a rough time @Washington too and Stanford, though a revenge game situation is much improved in Harbaugh's 3rd year. Count on it. They bring with them a dynamic front line, a very good rushing game and a much better QB than Pritchard who beat the Wildcats last year.

Just tell me who you think they will beat on that list and why, and I will consider it. But I see 5 losses that are as guaranteed as they can possibly be without actually playing the game and very possibly a 6th loss somewhere between Stanford and a very pesky opponent in Seattle thrown in for good measure. They play a rematch vs their arch rival Sun Devils on their own turf this time in a revenge spot, a very big game in that state and that won't be easy either.

How can you say that isn't a much tougher schedule than last season? Everyone knew how easy their '08 schedule was and predicted a bowl trip. Everyone on this board knew that going in. But winning only 7 games last season with a schedule like that was disappointing for them when they could have done much better. With a schedule like they had, they had no business losing 5 games. But they did. Now it's more than twice as tough this year and their star offensive player who held the team together is gone.

I'm not just taking a wild stab at any of this Russ. These are probabilities laid out for you in the most logical way I can possibly do. If you want to take apart what I've said and argue the pont on each particular game then please do so. But I would appreciate some solid reasoning based on proven principles rather than making claims such as Dykes having the inside track on innovation in the Pac-10 where innovation is non-existant. That is utterly false. IF anything, the complete opposite is the truth.

Please don't make silly arguments about that because that shows lack of understanding of very fundamental principles about the game and the conference about which there is nothing to dispute.

You are safer saying that Scott is a new QB that has a tendency to make a lot of mistakes the way new QB's are known to do, so it will take a lot of cretivity for him to get the ball to their money players. That looks like a problem to me. And that's why I called Dykes trip to visit the Cowboys a desperate move. They are up shit's creek without Tuitama and Dykes knows it.

I know the Pac 10 is your backyard and I have not questioned anything you have said about any of the other teams in the Pac 10. I could be wrong and if so you deserve the right to say you told me so.

This has nothing to do with anyone dancing on anybody else's grave saying I told you so. It's about clear thinking about the game and knowing what sound handicapping principles are about. This is strictly about and dealing with facts, not "mum" ideas or predictions out of the blue based on things you keep to yourself. (until after they play Iowa?) Really man, spit it out or don't even mention it. This is not a contest among posters that keep secrets in waiting to win some kind of game vs other posters that doesn't exist.

If Arizona SOMEHOW manages to crack into the elite in the Pac-10 and win 8 or 9 games this year or more, I'll just say you were right. I'd be interested to see how they pull something like that off. But it ain't gonna happen like that. I have no idea how they can win on the road vs the top teams in the conference. And by the way, you don't seem to understand how difficult winning on the road is compared to playing at home. I think if they manage another bowl shot but win only 6 games or maybe 7, Stoops will find himself on the hot seat again in 2010.

I'm out.


PS... Delta, I threw in Gronk myself because I think he's the best TE in the country. I didn't write that piece. I found it in a Wildcat blog.

 

[russ1945]

Conan

I think it is laughable how you guys buck the Arizona thing and get so defensive and astute. If you think that Dykes went to Dallas in a state of panic on how to use a TE that was already being used then I can't straighten that horseshoe for you. Almost all of you guys talk about is inexperienced QB's and you throw them all into one big pile without bothering to continue to further sift and separate them individually. Any moron can say well they are unproven at QB. That has been said about many QB's who have gone on to succeed and fit into a system. I am talking about fitting into a system, a system run by a staff with Texas Tech roots and a proven track record of moving on no matter who was the QB. The Arizona QB does not even have to carry the team and you guys do not understand that Tuitama was very good but replaceable. There will be life after Tuitama.
Arizona can beat C. Mich, N. Arizona, Iowa, Oregon St, Wash, Stanford, UCLA Washington St, and Arizona St., will give Cal, Oregon, and especially USC a dog fight. Will they be 9-3, who knows. Will USC go undfeated, who knows. All the ballyhoo about Oregon and they could lose to Boise St, Utah, and Cal and start the season off 1-3. Willl they? Who knows.
Oregon lost a shit load of players and everyone is still celebrating beating Okie St. What you fail to see is that I do my homework and I do not necessarily agree with everything you say. That ruffles your feathers. If I hit a nerve you develop a turkey tail and lash back. This is the same kind of pissing contest you get into when you talk smack about the SEC and try to defend the Pac 10. None of the banter about rankings or potential won lost records means anything until the season is over. I know you do your homework but you imply I don't do mine. I read every spring game summary for every team in the Pac 10 and most other teams too. I have studied last years records, this years schedules, returning players, and just about every team and individual statistic that is available. The fact that I don't agree with you leads you to say I don't know what I am talking about. I suggest the following, let it go it is a pissing contest. Also look outside of the Pac 10 and study something else. I came across Arizona when I was studying something else. I did not just target them to piss you off. Look at their numbers, compare them to the other teams especially returning players in the Pac 10. They are eye opening. They opened my eyes and I will probably have to defend it until the season is over. You have your opinion which in your mind is based on a myriad of irrefutable facts and years of experience concentrating on the Pac 10.
Me I am just a dummy from Oklahoma who doesn't know shit. If you have paid any attention at all I stay out of the conference comparisons and avoid pissing contests at all costs. However, it looks like you have more or less called me out so I have responded. I respect your right to your opinion but you do not seem to respect mine. So be it.

 

[GoSooners]

Russ...If you remember even Graham Harrell struggled mightily in the first year he quarterbacked at Texas Tech. Lots of passing yards, but lot's of mistakes that cost them games and also caused him to get banged up a little.. It really doesn't have anything to do with being in a "system." It's about learning the game at a higher level. Every new level of football presents a new problem for QB's. Some "get it" early, some don't. That's where the gamble comes in. I'm always hesitant and like to play a wait and see game when it comes to betting on teams with new QB's. No matter who it is. It's nothing against Zona. I'm just as apt to take a wait and see with the very good teams with new QB's like USC. Even though Corp has a much better supporting cast than the Zona QB will have.

 

[russ1945]

Arizona - empircal date

The first time I commented about Arizona I based it on the following:
( the above should read empircal data)

They return 59 of 73 players from their roster. They lose their QB and leading WR (yardage). They return players who scored 50 of LY's 57 TD's (30 rushing, 20 passing/receivers). They return 27 off ppg and LY's defense gave up 21.2 which gives them a won/loss point differential of +6.8ppg. There is more but that is enough for now. By comparison Stanford has a returning won/loss point differential of -7.4ppg, Oregon is at -4.4ppg, UCLA is at -22.6ppg, Wash is at -20,5ppg, Wash St is at -39.7ppg, Arizona St is at -13.3ppg, Cal is at even, Oregon St is at -3.9ppg, USC is at +18ppg. So only three teams in the Pac 10 are at even or better in won/loss points differential.(based on returning players). My question to you is would this open your eyes. I hear all this talk about players, coaches, asst coaches, but do you ever stop to look at the numbers. As a conference these are not good numbers and without USC it is not very good at all. Now I here all this talk about Washington resurrecting under a veteran QB with new coaches and they will play LSU really tough. As bad as LSU was last year they were still on the plus side of the differential at +1.3 and played most of the year with a QB that couldn't tie Lockers shoestrings.
To sum it up, yes I have studied the Pac 10. My come back would be were you aware of all of the above, if not why not. I assumed you did.
I also assumed that if you did you may have been a little more open minded to possibilities based on real numbers. I know there are other factors other than what I presented above. And I repeat, these were the figures that opened my eyes concerning Arizona. I was studying the Pac 10 and the numbers were there. You may not agree with my metholds but you cannot argue with the numbers.

 

[russ1945]

Gs

Russ...If you remember even Graham Harrell struggled mightily in the first year he quarterbacked at Texas Tech. Lots of passing yards, but lot's of mistakes that cost them games and also caused him to get banged up a little.. It really doesn't have anything to do with being in a "system." It's about learning the game at a higher level. Every new level of football presents a new problem for QB's. Some "get it" early, some don't. That's where the gamble comes in. I'm always hesitant and like to play a wait and see game when it comes to betting on teams with new QB's. No matter who it is. It's nothing against Zona. I'm just as apt to take a wait and see with the very good teams with new QB's like USC. Even though Corp has a much better supporting cast than the Zona QB will have.

Harrell couldn't run, Scott can. If all of the defenses in the Pac 10 think they are going to face a Tuitama type attack they are mistaken. Arizona is going to stretch defenses, use the QB run/option, throw dump offs that test the discipline of a defense, and use their TE efficiently and differently this year. They will be more ball control oriented. Is there a big IF, well maybe but not definitely. I have spent more time defending something that is about number 50 on my list of priorities than I could have ever imagined. I do not follow the pack as a rule. This is way more than an instinct thing however. I have said all along that Iowa is the litmus test, why, because the Iowa defense is better than any defense in the Pac 10 except USC and USC has a pretty raw bunch this year. I laid out my numbers on here a minute ago just to show why and how Arizona caught my attention. If it is a who is right and who is wrong thing then we will have to wait. Meanwhile I have imparted my take on here not to satisfy anyone but myself other than to show that I did my homework.

 

[Conan]

Russ, why don't you do this...

Take a look at all of the teams that started a new QB last year and then look at teams with 2nd and possibly 3rd year starters. You will find a trend that exemplifies my point.

Tuitama may indeed be replaceable but I doubt it will happen soon. In the history of Arizona football, there has never been a QB of Tuitama's caliber. What do you know about Scott that leads you to think that he can replace a QB that distinguished himself the way Tuitama did? Please. That is the issue. I have read nothing to indicate that Scott has done anything noteworthy. Have you?

I do not mean to sound insulting, but when you make comments like you did about a teams schedule being no harder than the previous year when the fact is that they play their tougher opponents on the road instead of at home...

or make statements like the Pac-10 is not known for being an innovative conference save for Sonny Dykes and he alone is out of the box, an innovator...

or to claim that so may teams are in a state of flux with all these new coaches when in fact there are only 2 new coaches, one of which is actually new to his program.

How can you blame me for questioning your accuracy when you make misleading or innaccurate statements like that?

Maybe you have read up a lot and studied stats a lot, but how can you say things like that if you really have done your all of your homework? Please at least do me the favor of citing your references if you wish to make statements like that.

You have every right to state your oppinion, but it is my duty to point out misleading statements that are not factual. This has nothing to do with anyone's opinion. It has everything to do with being factual. If that bothers you it's your problem. I've got news for you, you may think it's me, but I'm not the problem. I'm the messenger.

USC, Cal, OregonSt., UCLA and ASU will all have formidable defenses this season. Oregon will likely have an unstoppable offense. To claim that Iowa alone represents the litmus test defensively and they are superior to teams like Cal defensively means to me that you don't understand the Pac-10 conference. That's an opinion and I believe I am on solid ground with that, historically and statistically and most of all, by reading their rosters this season and also knowing something about their coaching staffs. Feel free to disagree but at least tell me why.

 

[russ1945]

Conan

See that is what I am talking about. I never said Sykes was the only Pac 10 coach to think out of the box. My point was, or at least I meant it to be, that I think Sykes did a good postive thing and you thought it was a sign of panic. Maybe no one in the Pac 10 had sought out advice like that because it seemed foreign to you the way you responded. You saw it as a negative and I saw it as a positive.
Forty years, yes I am a man too. I have been wagering on college football for forty years. Now you think I have never considered first year QB's as a possible liability. Give me a break. Your one valid point is why do I think Scott (or whoever) will be the exception. Well firstly, I don't know but I do think he will only have to manage the game, run a little, and not make turnovers (and I don't mean apple or cherry). It is in my mind, not a quantum leap for that to happen in the 85% range of success. At that range of success Arizona will surprise a lot of people, and I will be one of them. Why will it surprise me? Only because so many people have said it can't or won't happen, don't count on it, the odds are against it, etc. I almost expect it because of the caliber of coaching on the offensive side. I especially like the addition of Scott Littell who co-captained an OU national championship team. He is a players guy, maybe an offset to Stoops the taskmaster who I think has finally left the Offensive coaches to do their thing. I know it is a big pill to swallow but pills are supposed to make you feel better. And that is about it, I feel very good about this team and you probably feel the same way about some other team. I could have cratered and left it alone but as you know by now that is not my style. I may learn a lot from the numbers this year that will help me more next year than this year. I am more about matchups not predicting how a team will rank in its conference or nationally. I got pushed into a corner and I came out swinging, what would you do. Meanwhile we are right back where we started.

 

[Conan]

Let me give you a little background here that you know nothing about.

Last season, both Ducks and I were very high on Arizona's hopes of having a breakout season. We both figured them to be among the top finishers in the conference. They had a cake schedule and were a cinch to make a bowl game. Every tough conference opponent except Oregon State was a home game and they had no tough OOC games.

What happened? They blow it to a team they had no business losing to in New Mexico. 2 weeks later, Stanford a rebuilding team beats them. Then later on in the year Oregon State beats them in their own back yard. There are 3 games right there they had no business losing. They could have gone 10-2 or at the very least 9-3 but they didn't. Why was that? What was so different about them last season than this season? If anything they are less skilled than before.

They also had a ton of returning players last year as they do this year but with a few major differences. No Tuitama, no Thomas and they also lose their kingpin OT Eban Britton. Aside from Grigsby and Gronkowski, where are all their skill players now?

If you had been watching this team for the last 3 years as I have, you would understand how critical and how important a part of their team Tuitama was. But they blew it anyway with him and they did so with a schedule made in heaven!

This year they have about as many returning players as they did in '08. Actually a few less and I've already told you who will not be on the roster. Furthermore, this year they have to play Cal, USC and Oregon St. on their turf.

Cal is expected to challenge USC for the conference title and for all we know, they could be good enough to win the whole enchilada. Seriously. That is how good Cal is expected to be and for good reason. They have more returning talent than ANYONE in the conference including Arizona. Oddly enough, Cal was the ONLY good Pac-10 team the Wildcats were able to beat in Arizona last season and they did so with the Bears playing Nate Longshore at QB most of the game. He was kind of a dud, lacked leadership and was inconsistent. This year however they must play them in Berkeley and Cal will be waiting for them with an improved (by all accounts) Kevin Riley at QB.

So will USC and Oregon St., who by the way rarely if ever loses at Reser Stadium and who Arizona hasn't been able to handle for what seems like a decade. Throw in a 9-4 Iowa team on the road who returns plenty themselves and I don't see them winning any of those games. They won't have the horses to keep up with Oregon either. Not a chance.

I have not heard you mention anything complementary about any of the defenses Arizona will face in conference play either. You seem unaware of the across the board improvement throughout the conference and you claim a 4th place Big-10 team is a better defensive test than any of them other than USC. Not true. 2 other Pac-10 teams ranked higher defensively in the conference than Arizona last season and there are 2 teams ranked below them that have much improved talent on defense compared to the Wildcats this year. UCLA and ASU. Zona's biggest weakness was their rush defense. They also had a hard time getting to opposing QB's. They beat the weak teams (most of the time) but lost to the good teams in the most advantageous setting, that being with home field advantage. They will be no such thing going for them this season.

You need to look at those factors more closely Russ because a team with an overall offense and defense that rated as high as they did in the conference but won just 7 games with an easy schedule, and loses their star QB and home field advantage where it's most needed doesn't look like they are ready to set the world on fire.

I'm sure all of this will come up again before the season begins but for now I'm outta here. My office awaits me.

 

[Conan]

Russ,
I have no idea where you came up with the notion that Pac-10 teams don't think outside the box. Offensive innovation has been a very west coast thing, historically, forever it seems. Have you never heard of the expression "innovation nation?" Or, how about the latest trend towards running backs with a very small physique? (a la Quizz) How many other teams have copied Oregon St's/James Rogers fly sweep? Jeff Tedford was one of Bill Walsh's best students of the West Coast Offense, and if you havent' made the association yet, the Pac-10 happens to be on the west coast. The west coast offense has found its way into football programs in nearly every corner of the country. SEC schools (the more successful ones) such as Florida and LSU have imported their coaches from out west because of their offensive genius.

See that is what I am talking about. I never said Dykes was the only Pac 10 coach to think out of the box.

Oh I think you did. But you didn't say "only" You said it was uncommon and that was not true.

I think it shows the dedication that Dykes has in expanding his knowledge and that Arizona is not desperate, they are simply going to think outside of the box. Not a common trait in the Pac 10.

 

[russ1945]

For God's Sake

Oh I think you did. But you didn't say "only" You said it was uncommon and that was not true.

If it was not uncommon why were you so shocked that Dykes went to Dallas.
I was going to leave this alone but here is some more. You want me to throw out some compliments about Pac 10 Defenses. Ok here goes, USC is great. Other than that you have 4 teams that are better than average (Arizona, Arizona State, Cal, and Oregon State), if you took the other 5, took their total def rankings and divided them by 5 it would be #95. Thus no compliments other than to say Cal was #23 and Arizona was 33rd.

I offered up the won/loss point differentials for the Pac 10 they cannot score more than they can give up.

You bring up what a dissapointment Arizona was to you LY maybe that is why you are spooked this year. Burn me once attitude.

LY Cal was loaded and Arizona beat them 47-27. Yes they lost 5 games and they lost them by a combined 28 points (5.7 ppg). Made a hell of a come back against Oregon LY and get them at home this year. Yes, I think that would be a circle/revenge game. LY Oregon was 82nd in the nation in scoring defense.

If you took all ten Pac 10 teams and averaged their scoring defenses together you would come up with an average of 61.7. There are 120 teams and they would be right in the middle of the pack. I don't think that deserves many accolades.

I did not realize that you were this edgey when it comes to the Pac 10.
I am sorry if I rattled your cage but that was not my intention. I would sincerely like to put this to rest. Feel free to give me a come back if you want, I will read it and consider it just like I do everything else you put in here but I am shelving this one on my end. Like I said earlier we just wind up right back where we started. I respect your input and maybe you see me as an outsider looking in at the conference you know best. Again, I am an outsider but I have to call them as I see them. Please respect me for that.

 

[Conan]

Russ, get one thing straight. I have no feelings about anything you mentioned the way you put it. I was not shocked by Dykes trip to Dallas. I do not feel burned by Zona last year, once burned twice shy. I do not feel edgy about the Pac-10 and most of all, you have not rattled my cage.

What I object to is what strikes me as very odd is how you seem to state facts but then come up with this unusual nonsequiter logic to connect the dots or how you use data in ways that I cannot construe meaning in a relevant way. What seems logical to you, somehow, seems very disjointed and inconclusive to me. Your conclusions make no sense from a analytical perspective. Cause and effect seem to be unrelated or at best remotely connected. I am not saying any of this to make you mad or to argue with you. Just being honest, giving you honest feedback. Take that for what it's worth. I am uncertain whether you draw conclusion from facts or draw facts from conclusions or inappropriate representations that contain only remotely relevant information.

I am not looking for a thumbs up or a thumbs down. I do not seek praise for any team nor criticism. I only want information that directly relates in a useful way to something that will help create an angle so when games happen, I will be able to look at the teams and come to some conclusions about how I thing a game should play out. Facts, even more than that, RELEVANT and MEANINGFUL facts and logical conclusions is all I am after. I do not like to see misstated information that is misleading. I will say something if that happens. I have done that in every case and in every post I have made except perhaps when I am playing around and those time are pretty obvious. I approach this sport with an open mind about every team and every player and every scenario. If something doesn't ring true, I'll say so and explain why. That is the true spirit of debate and discussion and it is a good thing to read and to participate in.

Also, there are numerous fundmentals that you seem to dismiss and you do it often. Failure to acknowledge the difference between strength of schedule where playing a team at home vs going out on the road is a no-brainer but you have blatantly ignored that simple truth.

Calling a 4th place B-10 team's defense as superior to some very skilled defenses out here also strikes me as grossly inaccurate. It is not so much that I am defending the conference as I am defending the truth. When my sensibilities are offended, I speak out. But that in no way means that I am taking anything personally or being defensive.

Everything I have written is an honest reaction to what I read. I have no agenda other than to be as factual and as logical with what I know and reason and if there is something that strikes a sour note, I will speak out. There is no emotion, fear or trepidation in my words or in my head.

I have been in touch with these teams for years which is one reason why I win bets at a very decent clip and in the money. I am also glad that sometimes I get a little lucky but it's a lot easier to be lucky when you are also right about most everything else, especially where cause and effect must be understood in a logical relationship to each other, in a football sense.

Most importantly though, I level with myself. I am not afraid to ask questions about things I am uncertain of. I am not here to be a know-it-all but I do know a lot. I have a lot of credibility because I have paid the price.

You do not deserve a free pass here. You will never get respect if you have not paid your dues and earned it. You do that by being truthful and relevant and logical. You can be different but you'd better make sense because people here are a lot smarter than you give them credit for. Careful what you say because you will be held accountable and if you are bsing yourself or anyone else, you will get burned for it.

So to address your misconceptions once again, I bring up the Cal game. LY they had a big problem with consistency from their senior QB Nate Longshore. Typical for them last year was to blow a game here and there when he threw the game away with untimely picks. If I recall that game correctly, Longshore took his team out of the game with a couple of untimely interceptions and the game was played in Tucson. They will not repeat the same mistakes again this season.

Cal was the sole exception where Arizona played at home vs the better conference opponents. They lost to USC and to Oregon St., 2 of the other top teams and they also lost @Oregon. That means that even with Tuitama and a host of returning players, they still couldn't compete with the big boys losing 3 of 4 games even with Tuitama at QB. THERE IS NO OTHER POSSIBLE CONCLUSION TO DRAW FROM THOSE FACTS. PERIOD! This has nothing to do with being different or following the crowd or being a distinguished individual. It has everything to do with logical thinking.

Now you want to make Oregon a circled game for them. Do you know this for a fact? Is this really about revenge or is it more about them being able to keep pace with Oregon again with a somewhat stunted offense and a rookie QB. Which seem more relevant to you and why? Those are the questions that need to be answered before you come off making a case for Arizona. Anyone can pick any fact out of thin air and say this is why this will happen, but you show no reason in your thought. You do now acknowledge that it is very possible that Masoli in his second season will be a dominant player along the lines of Tuitama or even better. You do not consider the fact that Oregon comes to play with a much more balanced and experinced offense, but I will say that Oregon is not done with their offense yet, not until they get their OL worked out.

But on the other hand, what about Scott? It seems a much bigger stretch to me that a first year starter have his game together. I will allow for future developments on both sides but as it stands, Oregon looks poied and ready and Scott has yet to take a single snap. Why do I get the impression that your thinking has been short circuited somehow, perhaps just defending the Cats for the sake of defending the Cats? What about examining the game in a more honest way and admitting that as I said, Scott has not taken a single snap. But I will give you this, the venue is different. Hopefully that will sink in and play a bigger part in your thinking with a rookie QB starting. But will it be enough? That all depends on several factors. Oregon's OL and Zona's linebackers, particularly where speed is needed to neutralize Masoli's speed and his ability to check down his targets. Also LGB's ability to move the ball both North/South. That one is a biggie because Zona's defense was very mediocre vs the run.

Arizona will also need to be more effective getting to the passer which they have not done too well. Masoli will have a free range and can do whatever he wants to do if there isn't enough pressure put on him and if Zona's linebackers can't get to the outside in a hurry on the option. Are you aware of these important and very critical aspects that will most certainly affect the game flow? I don't see it. Just a short circuited train of thought. I'm just being honest with you. Not trying to jump your shit without cause.

Now all of this is based on things I know to be true so far. I will know more later and so will you but will it matter?

There is no point in looking at last year's defenses either. Last year and this year are very different. Wholesale changes are everywhere to be found, but especially where teams have improved since the start of last year, not how they averaged from the beginning to the end. I have already pointed out where there will be imorovements and you can either take me at my word or look more closely at who has moved up in the spring reports and analyses. It also helps to have an inkling of how well various teams have recruited in recent years. That will give you an idea about their depth and about their development.

I'm sorry Russ, but I just see too many holes in your logic and in your use of statistics. I am just being straight with you. No offense intended.

If it was not uncommon why were you so shocked that Dykes went to Dallas.
I was going to leave this alone but here is some more. You want me to throw out some compliments about Pac 10 Defenses. Ok here goes, USC is great. Other than that you have 4 teams that are better than average (Arizona, Arizona State, Cal, and Oregon State), if you took the other 5, took their total def rankings and divided them by 5 it would be #95. Thus no compliments other than to say Cal was #23 and Arizona was 33rd.

I offered up the won/loss point differentials for the Pac 10 they cannot score more than they can give up.

You bring up what a disappointment Arizona was to you LY maybe that is why you are spooked this year. Burn me once attitude.

LY Cal was loaded and Arizona beat them 47-27. Yes they lost 5 games and the lost them by a combined 28 points (5.7 ppg). Made a hell o a come back against Oregon LY and get them at home this year. Yes, I think that would be a circle/revenge game. LY Oregon was 82nd in the nation in scoring defense.

If you took all ten Pac 10 teams and averaged their scoring defenses together you would come up with an average of 61.7. There are 120 teams and they would be right in the middle of the pack. I don't think that deserves many accolades.

I did not realize that you were this edgey when it comes to the Pac 10.
I am sorry if I rattled your cage but that was not my intention. I would sincerely like to put this to rest. Feel free to give me a come back if you want, I will read it and consider it just like I do everything else you put in here but I am shelving this one on my end. Like I said earlier we just wind up right back where we started. I respect you input and maybe you see me as an outsider looking in at the conference you know best. Again, I am an outsider but I have to call them as I see them. Please respect me for that.

 

[russ1945]

I am not bothered in the least by the fact that you cannot follow my logic. I am not bothered that you cannot connect dots that I can. I am bothered that you can ignore the facts that I do throw at you. The stats on the defenses are anywhere you want to find them. I have not made them up. I have accepted the fact that you want to apply as many or more tangents into the mix as me and maybe your logic is harder to follow than mine. You say throw out last years stats, even for the defense, and do what, start all over from scratch. Come on, you start where you ended and you make adjustments. So in other words, according to you, you throw every thing out except where it suits you and whatever case you are trying to make and start from scratch ignoring returning players and dwell on the players who are not returning.

 

[Conan]

I am not bothered in the least by the fact that you cannot follow my logic. I am not bothered that you cannot connect dots that I can. I am bothered that you can ignore the facts that I do throw at you. The stats on the defenses are anywhere you want to find them. I have not made them up. I have accepted the fact that you want to apply as many or more tangents into the mix as me and maybe your logic is harder to follow than mine. You say throw out last years stats, even for the defense, and do what, start all over from scratch. Come on, you start where you ended and you make adjustments. So in other words, according to you, you throw every thing out except where it suits you and whatever case you are trying to make and start from scratch ignoring returning players and dwell on the players who are not returning.

Not at all Russ. You didn't read what I said. I never said throw out last years stats. I just don't use them the same way you do because conclusions cannot be drawn using past stats to predict a teams future in a consistent and reliable way. Why do you insist on misquoting and misrepresenting my words? You are being defensive and argumentative instead of showing that you understand.

It is better to know if a team is trending up or down. I think that gives one a better idea of what to expect than to include where a team was at in the beginning of the previous year before they gained any experience. Stats can easily screw one up that way. Seasonal averages too often ignore trends.

I am sorry if you find this way of thinking confusing. I find it easier to be on the cutting edge and win more often by knowing where a team is at closer to the present.

I have my way and it suits me because when I have enough time to finish what I attempt to evaluate, I get a true picture of a game and at times it's almost as good as having a crystal ball.

Statistics can be much more useful where one compares strengths and weaknesses in very specific ways. For example, if a team has a good rush, they are more likely to be effective vs a drop back passer than a roll out QB. But then again, it depends on who is getting the sacks. The DE's? The LB's? The DL's? Why does a team have good stats sacking their opponent's QBs?

So if you are looking at pass defense, it's worth breaking it down into its components in order to gauge what to expect vs a specific opponent according to their individual style. That is more pertinent than using bulk statistics or last year's numbers as a means of gauging how a game is likely to unfold. Numbers alone are artificial and incomplete snapshots. Without close inspection of many other factors, they are nothing more than a very glib cookie cutter approach to handicapping.

I think if you look at the more experienced posters here, you will find them referring to specific players and specific aspects of a team rather than using bulk numbers alone. But when you look at a teams numbers in very specific ways, you can often get an idea how a game will play itself out. But even then, if you can't answer WHY a statistic is what it is, and be thorough about it, you can easily be mislead by the numbers.

There are aspects that are more reliable than numbers alone are. Linebacker speed is one. Defensive end speed too. Offensive line conditioning is another. QB experience is a major factor, possibly the most influential of all. Those aspects normally have a direct impact on and are responsible for and create statistics. Isn't it better to know the cause of a stat than to assume a stat will just happen all over again? Stats don't answer questions the way they create questions.

Statistics are predictable when certain aspects are strong. But statistics don't tell the whole story. They should always be taken with a grain of salt. Stats are useful to a point but they can do no more than give you a general idea, but lacking reason they can also be misleading.

Linemakers know all about statistics and they are built into a lined game. Statistics don't often reveal why but things like speed at certain positions can reveal reasons behind a statistic. They can provide an edge where statistics alone can mislead or get you nowhere.

Why did Oregon State beat USC last year? They did it with blazing speed all over the field on defense and they also found a way to run straight at them, and, they played the game in Corvallis. No stat in the world could have led you to predict that outcome, but knowing about the situation, about specific strengths and weaknesses and how to apply those qualities reveals everything.

Bottom line... you come across as very glib when you rattle off numbers without explaining why. Numbers are only useful to a point but they are a poor substitute for deeper understanding. You might even make a mistake like assuming that Iowa's defense is second only to USC on Arizona's schedule.

Kapish? Now please show me that you got it instead of misquoting me and showing that you don't comprehend.

 

[russ1945]

Conan

I do get it. I don't rely on numbers alone. I can put faces to the numbers for any team in the country not just the Pac 10. I use the numbers for emphasis and for a starting place for building new comparison frameworks. I put faces to the numbers and I consider schedule, coaches, coaching changes, systems, returning players, returning players who score points, and players lost. Numbers are the corner stone and basically that is what linmakers use first and foremost. So do I as I first attempt to see why a line is set where it has been set. From there on we all do some of the some kinds of logical comparisons and we all do something the may individualize the way we look at a matchup. That is my main point, it is all about matchups. I am not concerned about Arizona winning the Pac 10 or where they place nationally. I see them as probably one of the most competive teams in the country last year losing only 5 games by 27 points does get my attention. Scott (or whoever) is the only new face who will put points on the board. My line of thought is that under the guidance of Dykes, Scott will become a manager in a fairly conservative offense that will have a huge emphasis on controlling clock and not making turnovers. Scott can run and although not a Tuitama, you are not me, I am not you and we both kick bookie ass but we do it a little differently.
IF, and I emhasize IF, Scott comes through with around the 85% efficeincy level I am looking for, then Arizona will remain just as competitive as they were last year even without Tuitama. It is kind of like saying how good would Tonto do without the Lone Ranger. Some might say quite well thank you. Others might say Tonto would not be shit without the Lone Ranger. Others might say the Lone Ranger would not be shit without Tonto. In the end they would both do fine without each other but make a good team when they are together. I am all about TEAM. I look at the Arizona team I see a huge offensive line. How good will they be nobody knows. One thing is for sure you cannot coach huge and in all probablity they will get better as the season progesses. When a team loses five games by a total of 27 points and returns players who scored 50 of LY's 57 TD's I am very interested. That is how this whole thing started and when I threw them out there I got thumbs down from you and others. I try to stay ahead of the curve and when you gamble that can be good or that can be bad but you have to make your own personal calls along those lines. You say you try to do the same thing, anticiapation gives you an edge if you are right. Could be wrong. Sure, but if I am right I am ahead of the curve. I don't care if anyone agrees with me or not. I am not looking for approval. I am throwing it out there for consideration only. If you reject my line of thought and think I only see numbers and do not use common sense you are wrong but you are seeing it from your perspective and I don't use your same processes.
That is about it. I did not mean to start a controversy and above all I do not want us to drag this down to a personal thing. Your system works for you and my system works for me. Thus, either fork in the road may get you to the same destination. I luv you man!

 

[Conan]

You say you beat bookies? I'll believe it when I see it.