Do You See Improvement?

[44cuse]

That's like me saying we're 1 - 0 against FBS competition, and only counting UConn. Awfully, selective. The question was, I believe, has the team regressed since the bowl game. So you either have to take the record for all games since the bowl game, or address non-record indicators.

No you don't. It is possible that the team regressed and then got better again. Which is exactly what I believe has happened.

44cuse

 

[44cuse]

that pinstripe bowl team was 1-3 in its last 4 regular season games in 2010 with the only win being a nail-biter against a Rutgers team that finished dead last in the conference. They scored 26 pts in their last 3 games combined heading into the bowl game. The team that has been on the field this year and the one that played the first 7 games last season (at 5-2) was not a regression from the last half of 2010 team. Just depends on what you want to look at.

See below...this is absolutely the other side of the argument. I get that and certainly valid.

As I said below (well, I guess it's above now), I just viewed the Pinstripe Bowl as when I thought things were put together. I did not have higher expectations for 2011, but I also did not expect 1 win in conference. So for me, that's a regression.

But to the point of your post, I completely understand what you are saying.

44cuse

 

[GoSU96]

That wasn't the question. The question was did the team regress from the Pinstripe Bowl. Going 1-9 against FBS schools was a regression.

44cuse

The post that I responding to first said this.

"But has the team regressed since the Pinstripe Bowl? Yes".

Given the context I believe it was meant to say current state of the team, and the answer is that the team today is better than it was Dec. 2010.

Every program goes through ups and downs.

 

[44cuse]

The post that I responding to first said this.

"But has the team regressed since the Pinstripe Bowl? Yes".

Given the context I believe it was meant to say current state of the team, and the answer is that the team today is better than it was Dec. 2010.

Every program goes through ups and downs.

You and I will always read things completely differently. I think we know that by now.

I read that to mean "has the team gotten worse since the Pinstripe Bowl" and I believe that the team that ended the season in 2011 was worse than 2010 (adjusting for talent...in other words, coming off 2010, I expected more than a 1 win BE season).

But, to your point, all teams go through ups and downs. Completely agreed. For me, last year was a regression. This year is the opposite...far more progress than people are giving the team credit for.

I don't know if Marrone is the guy or not. But I do know this team is much much better than last year on multiple fronts.

44cuse

 

[dollarbill44]

You and I will always read things completely differently. I think we know that by now.

I read that to mean "has the team gotten worse since the Pinstripe Bowl" and I believe that the team that ended the season in 2011 was worse than 2010 (adjusting for talent...in other words, coming off 2010, I expected more than a 1 win BE season).

But, to your point, all teams go through ups and downs. Completely agreed. For me, last year was a regression. This year is the opposite...far more progress than people are giving the team credit for.

I don't know if Marrone is the guy or not. But I do know this team is much much better than last year on multiple fronts.

44cuse

I think this is the basis of the misunderstanding. I think most of us were taking the OP as asking is the team as it stands right now, improved since the Pinstripe Bowl? We probably would all agree that last season was a step backwards from the Pinstripe Bowl., at least in terms of performance.

 

[44cuse]

I think this is the basis of the misunderstanding. I think most of us were taking the OP as asking is the team as it stands right now, improved since the Pinstripe Bowl? We probably would all agree that last season was a step backwards from the Pinstripe Bowl., at least in terms of performance.

Yep, I get that. Totally understood.

44cuse

 

[OrangePA]

That wasn't the question. The question was did the team regress from the Pinstripe Bowl. Going 1-9 against FBS schools was a regression.

44cuse

No.

The question is has the team regressed.

And the answer is no.

Your perspective is apparently based strictly upon the W-L record for a give period of time.

That is an overly narrow perspective in my opinion. If the question is "has the team lost a lot of games since the Pinstripe Bowl?" your answer would be accurate. But that's not the issue or the question.

I am not naive enough to believe that weekly wins and losses do not drive most of the posts on this board - that's a fact of sports spectator life.

But, the overall progression of the program is what matters - and that is a multi-layered concept.

 

[OrangePA]

You and I will always read things completely differently. I think we know that by now.

I read that to mean "has the team gotten worse since the Pinstripe Bowl" and I believe that the team that ended the season in 2011 was worse than 2010 (adjusting for talent...in other words, coming off 2010, I expected more than a 1 win BE season).

But, to your point, all teams go through ups and downs. Completely agreed. For me, last year was a regression. This year is the opposite...far more progress than people are giving the team credit for.

I don't know if Marrone is the guy or not. But I do know this team is much much better than last year on multiple fronts.

44cuse

After the 1985 season, many viewed 1986 as a regression.

It turned out that 1986 was instead a necessary step to 1987 and beyond.

 

[44cuse]

No.

The question is has the team regressed.

And the answer is no.

Your perspective is apparently based strictly upon the W-L record for a give period of time.

That is an overly narrow perspective in my opinion. If the question is "has the team lost a lot of games since the Pinstripe Bowl?" your answer would be accurate. But that's not the issue or the question.

I am not naive enough to believe that weekly wins and losses do not drive most of the posts on this board - that's a fact of sports spectator life.

The overall progression of the program is what matters - and that is multi-layered concept.

1-6 in a horrible College Football conference after a Bowl victory is a regression.

44cuse

 

[OrangePA]

1-6 in a horrible College Football conference after a Bowl victory is a regression.

44cuse

Oh yes, of course it's such a "horrible" conference.

Sorry, but I don't agree with you.

WVU was not horrible. Cincy was not horrible. Rutgers was not horrible. Louisville was not horrible. USF was not horrible. UConn was not horrible.

These were all competitive football teams - that we lost to some of them is not "horrible," but a reflection of the growth the team needed to push through.

The fact is that we probably won a few games in 2010 that could have easily lost or maybe should have lost.

Once again focusing simply on the W-L record is in my view an overly narrow method for assessing the growth of a college football program - at least one with financial challenges and a difficulty four years under a previous coach.

 

[wfschrec]

1-6 in a horrible College Football conference after a Bowl victory is a regression.

44cuse

Ok I'll give you they went 1-6 ... but you do realize that Cincy in went 4-8 in 2010 to 10-3 in 2011 and Rutgers went 4-8 in 2010 to 9-4 in 2011 and the other team we beat USF was the only one that seemingly regressed. So in going from 4-3 in conference to 1-6 two of those pivotal games were lost to teams significantly better than they were the year before ... only USF digressed. The other teams in conference maintained status quo and beat us anyway. Frankly we didn't digress ... we lost games we previously won because the teams we played were significantly better and we beat them by the skin of our teeth the season before. We also had severe injury problems which killed us down the stretch ... there is a lot more to that 1-6 then what you see on the scoreboard.

 

[javadoc]

See below...this is absolutely the other side of the argument. I get that and certainly valid.

As I said below (well, I guess it's above now), I just viewed the Pinstripe Bowl as when I thought things were put together. I did not have higher expectations for 2011, but I also did not expect 1 win in conference. So for me, that's a regression.

But to the point of your post, I completely understand what you are saying.

44cuse

I really think the Pinstripe Bowl was a statistical fluke. Nassib hit Sales deep several times, perfectly. He has not done so since, and we have 1.5 seasons of results to look at since that game. I think we won that game for two main reasons: (1) Nassib had the game of his career (2) The team had a chance to rest. Remember that we were depleted and thin, and guys were completely gassed by season's end.

 

[44cuse]

I really think the Pinstripe Bowl was a statistical fluke. Nassib hit Sales deep several times, perfectly. He has not done so since, and we have 1.5 seasons of results to look at since that game. I think we won that game for two main reasons: (1) Nassib had the game of his career (2) The team had a chance to rest. Remember that we were depleted and thin, and guys were completely gassed by season's end.

Fair enough. I'm not sure I see it that way, but I don't by any means dispute it as valid. It was probably a peak, but I guess if I were to argue that, I would say that I did not expect the fall off in 2011 to be what it was. Going 1-6 in conference was below certainly my expectations. And I don't recall anyone here (or even anyone I know) saying we were going to win 1 game in conference.

Hence why I believe the team regressed last year. If the consensus opinion was that we were a 1-win in-conference team, then I might think differently.

I guess what I am saying is that even if the Pinstripe Bowl were a statistical fluke, I still think the team regressed last year. But I do understand what you are saying.

44cuse

 

[GoSU96]

Fair enough. I'm not sure I see it that way, but I don't by any means dispute it as valid. It was probably a peak, but I guess if I were to argue that, I would say that I did not expect the fall off in 2011 to be what it was. Going 1-6 in conference was below certainly my expectations. And I don't recall anyone here (or even anyone I know) saying we were going to win 1 game in conference.

Hence why I believe the team regressed last year. If the consensus opinion was that we were a 1-win in-conference team, then I might think differently.

I guess what I am saying is that even if the Pinstripe Bowl were a statistical fluke, I still think the team regressed last year. But I do understand what you are saying.

44cuse

Last year wasn't part of the original point.

The comparison was now versus then, not last year vs the bowl.

 

[44cuse]

Last year wasn't part of the original point.

The comparison was now versus then, not last year vs the bowl.

I wasn't responding to the original post. I was responding to your post which was a response to someone else. And that statement was: "Has the team regressed since the Pinstripe Bowl?"

If you believe we should have been better than 1-6 in the BE last year, then you believe that the team regressed.

OrangeMojo actually the correct response/argument" That we actually weren't as good as the Pinstripe Bowl made us look. That may in fact be true. But even if it were, I expected more than 1 win in the BE last year. This team regressed last year plain and simple.

Are we better now? No doubt. Like I said before the UCONN game: we would hang 30 on them. But where we are now doesn't mean we didn't regress last year. And who cares anyway? We underperformed last year and we are better now? What does it matter?

44cuse

 

[44cuse]

Once again focusing simply on the W-L record is in my view an overly narrow method for assessing the growth of a college football program - at least one with financial challenges and a difficulty four years under a previous coach.

I don't know why I responded to you. I was doing just fine by not responding to you for two years.

But I'll bite...so, you presume what you want to see. "...simply focusing on W-L record..."

Total Offense:
2010-343.29 (80th)
2011-348.17 (90th)

Total Defense:
2010-301.57 (16th)
2011-386.42 (64th)

Special Teams:
Net Punting:
2010-39.08 (22nd)
2011-34.78 (98th)

Punt Returns:
2010-12.10 (25th)
2011-3.08 (116th)

Kickoff Returns:
2010-22.96 (48th)
2011-22.64 (42nd)

Other:
TO Margin:
2010--.29 (82nd)
2011-.17 (42nd)

Sacks:
2010-2.71 (20th)
2011-2.33 (28th)

Sacks Allowed:
2010-1.86 (57th)
2011-2.42 (90th)

Obviously you are going to have wider swings when you are rebuilding as we were/are. That is a given. Low talent + graduation= not a good situation. But...

This team was:
-Basically the same on Offense
-Significantly worse on Defense
-Worse on Special Teams
-Defensive pressure was the same
-Significantly worse on the OL

When you go 1-6 in conference and lose 5 games in a row (yes, I know you think every team in the world is better than we are. I read the Rutgers thread.) and you allow more sacks, get fewer sacks, are nearly last in the country in Punt Returns (from something you WERE good at), and give up 85 more ypg than the year previous...you regressed.

Because...the season before you won 4 games in conference, were in the Top 25 in total defense, Top 25 in Net Punting, Top 25 in punt Returns, and Top 25 in sacks.

So whether you look at it in terms of W-L or statistics, the team regressed. It happens. Re-building programs go through regressions. It's not a straight line back to good. Given that you are the: "It takes time" guy...I figured this would be obvious to you. Since that position is essentially based on the premise that patience and consistency is required to build, most smart people realize that a part of being patient may require enduring some regressions.

44cuse

 

[kingottoiii]

44cuse

All that matters is Ws and Ls. When SU won @RU in 2010 it made SU a winner in 5 of its last 8 Big East games. Since that point SU is 3-8 in Big East games. Not sure how it is even possible to say we didn't take a step back. This upcoming game @USF is huge. If SU wins then it makes it 3 of 4 and a sign of improvement. If SU loses then we are still waiting to get back.

 

[44cuse]

All that matters is Ws and Ls. When SU won @RU in 2010 it made SU a winner in 5 of its last 8 Big East games. Since that point SU is 3-8 in Big East games. Not sure how it is even possible to say we didn't take a step back. This upcoming game @USF is huge. If SU wins then it makes it 3 of 4 and a sign of improvement. If SU loses then we are still waiting to get back.

Well, I kind of thought that was implied in my statement, but apparently at least to one person it was not.

44cuse

 

[CU44SE]

Fair enough. I'm not sure I see it that way, but I don't by any means dispute it as valid. It was probably a peak, but I guess if I were to argue that, I would say that I did not expect the fall off in 2011 to be what it was. Going 1-6 in conference was below certainly my expectations. And I don't recall anyone here (or even anyone I know) saying we were going to win 1 game in conference.

Hence why I believe the team regressed last year. If the consensus opinion was that we were a 1-win in-conference team, then I might think differently.

I guess what I am saying is that even if the Pinstripe Bowl were a statistical fluke, I still think the team regressed last year. But I do understand what you are saying.

44cuse

In honesty, we lost some major senior contributors after the Pinstripe bowl. Not to mention, a lot of the other Big East teams improved like someone else mentioned. Last year was tough, and I expected it with all of the new starters. Carter was the offense in 2010, and in 2011 we were left with no one. On Defense, we replaced both our DT and 2 big-time linebackers and it showed, we couldn't stop the run. I guess you could call it regression, but thats what happens when you are re-building a program. You lost all of the senior contributors and now replace them with younger guys. Its okay if your only replacing 2 maybe 3 players on each side of the ball, but when you replaced the amount of players we did on both sides of the ball, there is going to be a drop off.

Edit:

On Offense: 3 offensive starters Carter (main offensive weapon) was drafted, Adam Rosner, and Ryan Bartholomew (played in NFL). Lost our main offensive weapon, and 2 starting offensive lineman (one of the hardest positions to play younger players at).

On Defense: 7 Starters (included Anthony Perkins) 3 DT in Bud Tribbey, Anthony Perkins, and Andrew Lewis. 2 Starting Linebackers (Doug Hogue and Derrel Smith) who both played in the NFL, Not to mention that now Spruil had to learn a completely new positions so in essence we replaced our whole Linebacking crew. 1 CB Da'Mon Merkerson, and 1 Safety (Mike Holmes) who played in the NFL.

To me, its easy to understand why their was a bit of a drop-off last year.

 

[SWC75]

He needs 20 lbs and more strength. Has the quickness but can't get off blockers.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

When we finanly got a good lead on the oppoent I felt free to turn the binochs on indinvidal match-ups and I watched MPB for a could of UCONN posssions. On play after play he was just waltzing with a single blocker.