Give Tim Lester His Own Thread

[TheCusian]

The subject matter was Tim Lester's offense.

When he had full control of the offense in 2015, I had a lot more fun watching us hang in there and challenge LSU and Clemson as opposed to watching us get our brains beaten in by Clemson this season.

I'll take the two games from 2015 any time over getting smeared/humiliated on national TV.

With Lester - and a walk-on QB - we showed the U.S.A something against great competition in 2015. I liked that.

I preferred actually beating a top 25 team.

 

[Millhouse]

The subject matter was Tim Lester's offense.

When he had full control of the offense in 2015, I had a lot more fun watching us hang in there and challenge LSU and Clemson as opposed to watching us get our brains beaten in by Clemson this season.

I'll take the two games from 2015 any time over getting smeared/humiliated on national TV.

With Lester - and a walk-on QB - we showed the U.S.A something against great competition in 2015. I liked that.

mahoney is way better than wilson.

 

[Finwad32]

There's so much garbage rationalization in this thread, it's maddening. No comparisons are absolute. And it's funny how arguments change to fit narratives. I'm not talking about any one poster, I'm talking about the trend of the entire board.

Two completely different philosophies. Undabatable. Two completely different brands of football. No ifs and thens, this isn't logic. It's football.

Much like gambling, each individual game is its own unique circumstance. Seeing roulette hit black four times in a row does not increase the probability of a red on the 5th.

You can't say, but if we played this game with that philosophy the outcome would've been X as opposed to Y. It doesn't work that way.

Pros & Cons to both systems, you can't cherry pick key moments to apply against any other moment. The only thing you can do is look at the aggregate.

Which philosophy gets us closer to our ultimate goal. In this case, it was '16 vs '15 and '16 won. That was largely because bowl qualification standards were lower, but, we still had an additional win regardless. Style points mean .

 

[OttoinGrotto]

There's so much garbage rationalization in this thread, it's maddening. No comparisons are absolute. And it's funny how arguments change to fit narratives. I'm not talking about any one poster, I'm talking about the trend of the entire board.

Two completely different philosophies. Undabatable. Two completely different brands of football. No ifs and thens, this isn't logic. It's football.

Much like gambling, each individual game is its own unique circumstance. Seeing roulette hit black four times in a row does not increase the probability of a red on the 5th.

You can't say, but if we played this game with that philosophy the outcome would've been X as opposed to Y. It doesn't work that way.

Pros & Cons to both systems, you can't cherry pick key moments to apply against any other moment. The only thing you can do is look at the aggregate.

Which philosophy gets us closer to our ultimate goal. In this case, it was '16 vs '15 and '16 won. That was largely because bowl qualification standards were lower, but, we still had an additional win regardless. Style points mean . . . . .

Lester's approach appealed to some fans because it reminded them of our glory days.

To other fans, like me, that approach concerned us because we feel that's not the way to win today in college football.

 

[Millhouse]

There's so much garbage rationalization in this thread, it's maddening. No comparisons are absolute. And it's funny how arguments change to fit narratives. I'm not talking about any one poster, I'm talking about the trend of the entire board.

Two completely different philosophies. Undabatable. Two completely different brands of football. No ifs and thens, this isn't logic. It's football.

Much like gambling, each individual game is its own unique circumstance. Seeing roulette hit black four times in a row does not increase the probability of a red on the 5th.

You can't say, but if we played this game with that philosophy the outcome would've been X as opposed to Y. It doesn't work that way.

Pros & Cons to both systems, you can't cherry pick key moments to apply against any other moment. The only thing you can do is look at the aggregate.

Which philosophy gets us closer to our ultimate goal. In this case, it was '16 vs '15 and '16 won. That was largely because bowl qualification standards were lower, but, we still had an additional win regardless. Style points mean . . . . .

The yards per game margin in 2016 was half of what it was in 2015.

The yards per play margin in 2016 was 27% worse than 2015. The defense declined more than the offense improved

Banking on lucky scores from defense and special teams over years is not smart

People don't like admitting that they've been stupid about punting their whole lives so they ignore what a difference it made to go for it more.

There are too many giants fans on the board. Their ideal is Otis Anderson and LT and 10 minute drives.

My glory years were the Bills playing fast. Maybe i'd be a meathead if not for them. but the bills approach is the way to go for most non-factory teams in college football today, especially in a dome

 

[GoSU96]

The yards per game margin in 2016 was half of what it was in 2015.

The yards per play margin in 2016 was 27% worse than 2015. The defense declined more than the offense improved

Banking on lucky scores from defense and special teams over years is not smart

People don't like admitting that they've been stupid about punting their whole lives so they ignore what a difference it made to go for it more.

There are too many giants fans on the board. Their ideal is Otis Anderson and LT and 10 minute drives.

My glory years were the Bills playing fast. Maybe i'd be a meathead if not for them. but the bills approach is the way to go for most non-factory teams in college football today, especially in a dome

SU was 4th in punts per game, behind only Rutty, BC, and Texas State.

 

[KaiserUEO]

The yards per game margin in 2016 was half of what it was in 2015.

The yards per play margin in 2016 was 27% worse than 2015. The defense declined more than the offense improved

Banking on lucky scores from defense and special teams over years is not smart

People don't like admitting that they've been stupid about punting their whole lives so they ignore what a difference it made to go for it more.

There are too many giants fans on the board. Their ideal is Otis Anderson and LT and 10 minute drives.

My glory years were the Bills playing fast. Maybe i'd be a meathead if not for them. but the bills approach is the way to go for most non-factory teams in college football today, especially in a dome

did somebody say Giants and Ottis Jerome Anderson??

my Kingdom for Ottis Anderson on the 2016 Giants, he could block, catch and obviously run with the best of them.

ill take him right now for 2017 as well.

 

[Millhouse]

SU was 4th in punts per game, behind only Rutty, BC, and Texas State.

29% more plays in 2016

they had 19% more punts in 2016.

they had 80% more 4th down attempts in 2016 and 55% more 4th down conversions

if you want to know why the yards per game margin improved so much more than the yards per play margin, there's your answer

the running game was so bad that the offense wasn't that good per play.

maybe lester will go for it a lot more when he's calling the shots, i'd love to see it - not his fault they punted more here

 

[TheCusian]

SU was 4th in punts per game*, behind only Rutty, BC, and Texas State.

I know what you're trying to do, but your really just exposing a misunderstanding of tempo and stats.

You need an asterisk with that number:

* we ran 971 plays in 12 games
BC ran 862 in 13 games
Rutgers ran 821 in 12 games
Texas St ran 841 in 12 games

 

[GoSU96]

I know what you're trying to do, but your really just exposing a misunderstanding of tempo and stats.

You need an asterisk with that number:

* we ran 971 plays in 12 games
BC ran 862 in 13 games
Rutgers ran 821 in 12 games
Texas St ran 841 in 12 games

What am I trying to do?

 

[Chip]

Lester's offense would have needed 12 quarters to put up 61 pts at Pitt.

That wasn't a 12 quarter game?

Felt like it.

 

[CousCuse]

Would that test your loyalties?

You afraid of them?

 

[OrangePA]

There's so much garbage rationalization in this thread, it's maddening. No comparisons are absolute. And it's funny how arguments change to fit narratives. I'm not talking about any one poster, I'm talking about the trend of the entire board.

Two completely different philosophies. Undabatable. Two completely different brands of football. No ifs and thens, this isn't logic. It's football.

Much like gambling, each individual game is its own unique circumstance. Seeing roulette hit black four times in a row does not increase the probability of a red on the 5th.

You can't say, but if we played this game with that philosophy the outcome would've been X as opposed to Y. It doesn't work that way.

Pros & Cons to both systems, you can't cherry pick key moments to apply against any other moment. The only thing you can do is look at the aggregate.

Which philosophy gets us closer to our ultimate goal. In this case, it was '16 vs '15 and '16 won. That was largely because bowl qualification standards were lower, but, we still had an additional win regardless. Style points mean . . . . .

I had some fun moments in 2016. And I had some horrific moments in 2016 - the game against Clemson was horrific in many ways.

I had some fun moments in 2015 - I was crushed that we lost games - VA and Pitt - that we should have won.

But there were times when I really enjoyed the Lester offense - sorry if that doesn't fit with the Board-View.

For me 2016 was fun because of the new coach and the new system - Dungey and Etta had some great moments.

And I'm optimistic for the future.

But that doesn't mean that I was not impressed with Tim Lester and his approach - I was. Sorry again if that is not line with the Board's conventional wisdom.

It's just how I feel.

 

[OrangePA]

Lester's approach appealed to some fans because it reminded them of our glory days.

To other fans, like me, that approach concerned us because we feel that's not the way to win today in college football.

The way to win football games is with talent.

Systems vary - talent is the ultimate answer.

 

[Finwad32]

I had some fun moments in 2016. And I had some horrific moments in 2016 - the game against Clemson was horrific in many ways.

I had some fun moments in 2015 - I was crushed that we lost games - VA and Pitt - that we should have won.

But there were times when I really enjoyed the Lester offense - sorry if that doesn't fit with the Board-View.

For me 2016 was fun because of the new coach and the new system - Dungey and Etta had some great moments.

And I'm optimistic for the future.

But that doesn't mean that I was not impressed with Tim Lester and his approach - I was. Sorry again if that is not line with the Board's conventional wisdom.

It's just how I feel.

This wasn't directed at you my man... it was a more general statement.

 

[OrangePA]

This wasn't directed at you my man... it was a more general statement.

Understood.

 

[TheCusian]

You afraid of them?

Nope.

 

[TheCusian]

What am I trying to do?

You know what - the more I look at it the more I realize I don't know what the point of that post was.

But I do know that it's deceiving in that it leaves out tempo.

Explain?

 

[Millhouse]

You know what - the more I look at it the more I realize I don't know what the point of that post was.

But I do know that it's deceiving in that it leaves out tempo.

Explain?

he doesn't want to admit that being more aggressive on fourth down made a big difference or that I might've been, gasp, right

 

[Ish88888]

I had some fun moments in 2016. And I had some horrific moments in 2016 - the game against Clemson was horrific in many ways.

I had some fun moments in 2015 - I was crushed that we lost games - VA and Pitt - that we should have won.

But there were times when I really enjoyed the Lester offense - sorry if that doesn't fit with the Board-View.

For me 2016 was fun because of the new coach and the new system - Dungey and Etta had some great moments.

And I'm optimistic for the future.

But that doesn't mean that I was not impressed with Tim Lester and his approach - I was. Sorry again if that is not line with the Board's conventional wisdom.

It's just how I feel.

Sooooo agree, i had, we had some amazing moments with offensive success against BC and then the all around performance on D and O vs VT. it was a Rollercoaster. The Clemson game was the trough.

 

[brandokc]

Looks like Tim is making some good hires. Will be pulling for the Broncos.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

The way to win football games is with talent.

Systems vary - talent is the ultimate answer.

The good ones develop systems that allow lesser talents to punch above their weight class.

 

[Millhouse]

The way to win football games is with talent.

Systems vary - talent is the ultimate answer.

If talent is everything, why do systems vary? Why bother varying you're system?

 

[OrangeXtreme]

 

[JHarris44]

The Broncos football Twitter page announced Wednesday morning there would be a new coach announced every 15 minutes beginning at 8:30 a.m., although many are already apparent.

According to their Twitter profiles and chatter from potential recruits, those joining the staff include Tim Daoust, Lou Esposito and Kevin Johns, Jake Moreland, Eric Evans, Cory Sanders and Ashton Aikens.

Daoust and Esposito will likely wind up as co-defensive coordinators under Lester while Johns will be the offensive coordinator.

Western Michigan announces football coaching staff on Twitter