Assuming/Hoping We Start 3-0...*Knock on Wood*

[OttoinGrotto]

Also - the worse your offense the higher the probability something bad will happen, no? If you believe the main fault with the offense all season was that they played too tentative - then maybe the solution was to be more aggressive. I just think the problems were more in the bad system, mediocre to bad QB play, inept play calling, and injury vein.

A high probability of something bad happening to your offense is still a lower probability of something bad happening to your defense, but that's not even the main thing.

Defining something bad matters too. Something bad on offense is losing the ball. The worst case is that you lose the ball and the defense scores. That's really rare. I don't think it's a smart play to let fear of that happening dictate your choices on offense. Something bad on defense is giving up a score, which is pretty common. So contrasting something bad happening on offense, first you'd have to lose the ball, second you'd have to lose it in such a way to give up a score, again all rare things, whereas on defense you already don't have the ball, so something bad and your worst case is giving up a score, which again is a common thing.

I know we go around and around on this, but really, worrying about bad things happening on offense is complete nonsense. If something bad happens on offense, you lose the ball. Playing defense by nature is a worse outcome than any choice you can make on offense, because you already don't have the ball. The only way to score without the ball is to cause a safety, and that's only worth two points. So you have to have the ball, you have to move the ball, and when you get in position to score, you have to get blood from your stone. Having a bad offense doesn't make those opportunities less valuable, it makes them more valuable, because you don't know when you'll get those chances again. You have to maximize them when you have them.

Or, alternatively, you can feel good about losing because you kept it close. I'm concerned our program has been comfortable with that for a very long time now.

 

[TheCusian]

A high probability of something bad happening to your offense is still a lower probability of something bad happening to your defense, but that's not even the main thing. Defining something bad matters too. Something bad on offense is losing the ball. The worst case is that you lose the ball and the defense scores. That's really rare. I don't think it's a smart play to let fear of that happening dictate your choices on offense. Something bad on defense is giving up a score, which is pretty common. So contrasting something bad happening on offense, first you'd have to lose the ball, second you'd have to lose it in such a way to give up a score, again all rare things, whereas on defense you already don't have the ball, so something bad and your worst case is giving up a score, which again is a common thing. I know we go around and around on this, but really, worrying about bad things happening on offense is complete nonsense. If something bad happens on offense, you lose the ball. Playing defense by nature is a worse outcome than any choice you can make on offense, because you already don't have the ball. The only way to score without the ball is to cause a safety, and that's only worth two points. So you have to have the ball, you have to move the ball, and when you get in position to score, you have to get blood from your stone. Having a bad offense doesn't make those opportunities less valuable, it makes them more valuable, because you don't know when you'll get those chances again. You have to maximize them when you have them. Or, alternatively, you can feel good about losing because you kept it close. I'm concerned our program has been comfortable with that for a very long time now.

This is all stuff I agree with. You're removing the context of having a top 30 defense with a inept 100+ ranked offense.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

This is all stuff I agree with. You're removing the context of having a top 30 defense with a inept 100+ ranked offense.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that our 100+ ranked offense scored more points than our top 30 defense. I'm saying that a last ranked offense is better at scoring points than a first ranked defense. What people also don't realize is that an offense, any offense, is also better at playing defense than any defense, because if your offense has the ball the only way for the other team to score is to force a safety.

So again, playing for your defense is inevitably a loser's game. It's a ticking time bomb. I don't want us to think MacGruber is a hero.

 

[TheCusian]

No, I'm not. I'm saying that our 100+ ranked offense scored more points than our top 30 defense. I'm saying that a last ranked offense is better at scoring points than a first ranked defense. What people also don't realize is that an offense, any offense, is also better at playing defense than any defense, because if your offense has the ball the only way for the other team to score is to force a safety.

So again, playing for your defense is inevitably a loser's game. It's a ticking time bomb. I don't want us to think MacGruber is a hero.

Not to derail this whole conversation but aside from the weird punting decisions can you tell where and how we played more tentatively on offense after the switch from McDonald to Lester? Thinking about it - I think we threw it deep more. If all of you eggs are in the "choices Shafer made where he should have gone for it more on 4th down" basket - I don't think these choices swing games as much as you think they do...

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Not to derail this whole conversation but aside from the weird punting decisions can you tell where and how we played more tentatively on offense after the switch from McDonald to Lester? Thinking about it - I think we threw it deep more. If all of you eggs are in the "choices Shafer made where he should have gone for it more on 4th down" basket - I don't think these choices swing games as much as you think they do...

It really does come down to the punting. We punted a ton in the opponent's territory. That's a problem given how little we scored. I actually do think it swung things a lot because we outright gave up on a lot of possessions. It seemed like every game late we had an opportunity to attempt to keep a drive alive and we passed on it in favor of trying to "pin 'em deep." Why? So we can hope to get a three and out and good field position back we already had?

I remember somebody posted all the times we punted in the opponent's territory. It was depressing.

I will say I think we did throw down field more with Lester calling plays. That was a very positive change.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Also, I should add, I put a lot of weight on the punting over the QB stuff, injuries, how tough the schedule ended up being, etc. because we make choices about the punts. The other stuff is out of our control. Part of the way to deal with chaos is to make smart calls on the things that are your choices. If we don't see more of that this year, I think we've built a low cieling for ourselves.

I'll tell you this. With Ishmael, Washington, etc. I sure hope our tendency becomes letting them do what they do.

 

[TheCusian]

Also, I should add, I put a lot of weight on the punting over the QB stuff, injuries, how tough the schedule ended up being, etc. because we make choices about the punts. The other stuff is out of our control. Part of the way to deal with chaos is to make smart calls on the things that are your choices. If we don't see more of that this year, I think we've built a low cieling for ourselves. I'll tell you this. With Ishmael, Washington, etc. I sure hope our tendency becomes letting them do what they do.

We haven't had a good offense under Shafer. I don't know what he will do reunting once the probabilities improve (in his mind at least).

 

[jekelish]

So, would everyone think it's fair to say we SHOULD probably be 4-1 after the first five games?

 

[anomander]

So, would everyone think it's fair to say we SHOULD probably be 4-1 after the first five games?

We better be. And we better be at very worst 4-2 after 6.

 

[Scooch]

So, would everyone think it's fair to say we SHOULD probably be 4-1 after the first five games?

If we have a functional program, absolutely.

If we're not get ready for a few more years lost in the wilderness.

 

[Consigliere]

With the landing of Robert Washington and the sudden opening up of new levels of recruiting...

How important and how winnable is this game? I think this game is lining up to be our most important in years.

Deflecting bad mojo: "Assuming we start 0-0..."

 

[Chris02M]

Deflecting bad mojo: "Assuming we start 0-0..."

why cant we start out 3-0 before a gameis played so when we win 6 -8 were in title picture

 

[retro44]

I would disagree with that because the likelihood of SU winning that game is far less than 50%. Sure, if SU were to win it could do good things for the rest of the season and for recruiting. But I'm not going to pin the "most important game" tag on a game that will have SU opening as 28 point dogs at home.

The only way we become 28 point dogs is if we are 0-3 .
If anything we will put Miles on the hot seat after game 4
That team was a lucky 8-5 team last year.

 

[TexanMark]

Right. I would also say that 4-1 is probably critical as well. Need to beat USF. Then you're looking for 2 wins.

LSU, if we're 3-0 and we at least get some ounce of buzz over our record, it doesn't really matter what happens. They crush us, everyone expected it. We hang tough for 2-3 quarters, great confidence builder. We (gulp) win, and we're all invited to the pants party.

But even if we lose, we can bounce back against a bad USF program, and go from there.

I say all of that knowing full well we're coming off a 3 win season where, by the end, we were only good for one offensive drive per game.

As long as we don't get creamed like we did vs FSU in '13. Literally one of the worst days watching SU FB...I mean I have seen 62-0 but FSU was worst from the physical beating the kids took that day. Wish the 10 run Softball rule was in effect.

Retro...all indications is LSU will be much better this year. If we stay within 14 pts and no serious injuries...that will be a moral victory.

 

[djorange1989]

As long as we don't get creamed like we did vs FSU in '13. Literally one of the worst days watching SU FB...I mean I have seen 62-0 but FSU was worst from the physical beating the kids took that day. Wish the 10 run Softball rule was in effect.

Retro...all indications is LSU will be much better this year. If we stay within 14 pts and no serious injuries...that will be a moral victory.

Totally agree with the LSU game, we have to hope our players don't get maimed like they did against FSU in 2013. 4-1 out of the gate is an absolute necessity. Can't see us beating LSU, FSU, Clemson or Louisville. I can see us going 2-2 against BC, Pitt, NC State and UVA. We need that 4-1 start. Obviously games have to be played one at a time, but as long as the players aren't looking ahead, we can, and have fun with it

 

[rosconey]

better start out hot- the early bye week is a killer once again

 

[Chris02M]

better start out hot- the early bye week is a killer once again

week 5 is not an early bye. Wouldn't surprise me if we requested the bye following the lsu game