The More I Think About it, Lester is THE Problem

[HeaterCuse22]

I'm pretty sure we can count that time he was nearly decapitated as a concussion.

wrong.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Like our Virginia game? I was just as frustrated after Pitt. No difference in my eyes.

Virginia wasn't a high scoring game though. OT inflated fhat.

 

[Finwad32]

Virginia wasn't a high scoring game though. OT inflated fhat.

So those points weren't scored? Still doesn't change my perspective, a loss is a loss is a loss.

 

[TheCusian]

More points will put butts in the seats. But outside of that, a loss is a loss. Losing by not stopping people on defense after a bunch of years where we were kind of good makes me ill.

Pitt and UVa must have been rough on Shafer and Bullough.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

So those points weren't scored? Still doesn't change my perspective, a loss is a loss is a loss.

I'm not saying the points weren't scored. I'm saying it wasn't a high scoring game.

This is a stupid argument. Not all losses are created equal. We saw that this season - LSU. And why was that energizing? Because we saw our offense do a better than expected job scoring points against an SEC defense.

I suppose I have to be really specific - it's more fun and entertaining to lose a game that was high scoring in regulation than it is to lose a low scoring game in regulation. Especially when on offense, in a Dome, we've had horrid offense after horrid offense going on for a decade and a half.

 

[Finwad32]

I'm not saying the points weren't scored. I'm saying it wasn't a high scoring game.

This is a stupid argument. Not all losses are created equal. We saw that this season - LSU. And why was that energizing? Because we saw our offense do a better than expected job scoring points against an SEC defense.

I suppose I have to be really specific - it's more fun and entertaining to lose a game that was high scoring in regulation than it is to lose a low scoring game in regulation. Especially when on offense, in a Dome, we've had horrid offense after horrid offense going on for a decade and a half.

I know what you're saying, but, I disagree on this. Maybe it's because I view it a little differently in how I view a team.

Regardless of score, when it's all said and done it only matters which number on the board is higher. Whether that's 10 or 100 makes no difference to me.

And I hate that we say the game wasn't as high scoring because so many points came from overtime. Scoring a touchdown is scoring a touchdown regardless of circumstance. The record books show those touchdowns, the record books show that score. It doesn't matter if it was in the first quarter or 10th OT.

Some people derive more satisfaction out of an entertaining loss in which touchdowns are galore. I disagree.

I don't think this offense is as bad as it's made out to be, it's different. It's not as fast paced, not as many plays are run. Inevitably that's going to lead to less yardage and time of possession, given our current defensive situation. But, that's this offense. And I believe it's been relatively efficient at scoring in comparison to other squads we've seen. 3 out of 4 of Marrone/Hackett's offenses were less dangerous in my opinion. Greg Robinson's offenses never scraped the ability that this offense does.

There is not a statistic that accurately portrays everything. You can pick and choose any stat you like to prove a point. I just have a different viewpoint. I see a young team trying to find it's way. I see signs of progress. I see development.

Others choose not to, or it's just not at the level they want it to be at.

Fast paced, no huddle spread offenses are great. If you have a quarterback that can complete a high percentage of those throws and your line can block their assignments. You know what else high paced spread offenses can do? Take the ball out of your hands in 15 seconds flat if you're not efficient and don't move the chains. It works both ways.

It's easy to point elsewhere and say look at what they're doing! We should do that! It's a lot harder to find the right staff and then have that staff implement it. It's not something that can't be achieved, but, I'm not in the school of thought that thinks it's automatically the best decision either.

Regardless, you're right, this is a dumb argument. My main point is a loss is a loss is a loss. And I don't care if it's 10-7 or 63-61.

 

[Millhouse]

I know what you're saying, but, I disagree on this. Maybe it's because I view it a little differently in how I view a team.

Regardless of score, when it's all said and done it only matters which number on the board is higher. Whether that's 10 or 100 makes no difference to me.

And I hate that we say the game wasn't as high scoring because so many points came from overtime. Scoring a touchdown is scoring a touchdown regardless of circumstance. The record books show those touchdowns, the record books show that score. It doesn't matter if it was in the first quarter or 10th OT.

Some people derive more satisfaction out of an entertaining loss in which touchdowns are galore. I disagree.

I don't think this offense is as bad as it's made out to be, it's different. It's not as fast paced, not as many plays are run. Inevitably that's going to lead to less yardage and time of possession, given our current defensive situation. But, that's this offense. And I believe it's been relatively efficient at scoring in comparison to other squads we've seen. 3 out of 4 of Marrone/Hackett's offenses were less dangerous in my opinion. Greg Robinson's offenses never scraped the ability that this offense does.

There is not a statistic that accurately portrays everything. You can pick and choose any stat you like to prove a point. I just have a different viewpoint. I see a young team trying to find it's way. I see signs of progress. I see development.

Others choose not to, or it's just not at the level they want it to be at.

Fast paced, no huddle spread offenses are great. If you have a quarterback that can complete a high percentage of those throws and your line can block their assignments. You know what else high paced spread offenses can do? Take the ball out of your hands in 15 seconds flat if you're not efficient and don't move the chains. It works both ways.

It's easy to point elsewhere and say look at what they're doing! We should do that! It's a lot harder to find the right staff and then have that staff implement it. It's not something that can't be achieved, but, I'm not in the school of thought that thinks it's automatically the best decision either.

Regardless, you're right, this is a dumb argument. My main point is a loss is a loss is a loss. And I don't care if it's 10-7 or 63-61.

if you want to pretend like it's not easier to score more when the game is longer, ok fine. the rest of us will scratch our heads less when those 4 extra short field drives and clusters of defensive/special teams touchdowns get diluted and it looks like the offense is getting worse.

because let's face it, when scoring average declines over time (which it has) , you guys are not likely to want to blame the offense for it.

sabres got 50 shots in their epic overtime game against the devils in 94. 4 OT whatever, 50 is 50! that was not predictive, game 7 they got 18.

 

[Finwad32]

if you want to pretend like it's not easier to score more when the game is longer, ok fine. the rest of us will scratch our heads less when those 4 extra short field drives and clusters of defensive/special teams touchdowns get diluted and it looks like the offense is getting worse.

because let's face it, when scoring average declines over time (which it has) , you guys are not likely to want to blame the offense for it.

sabres got 50 shots in their epic overtime game against the devils in 94. 4 OT whatever, 50 is 50! that was not predictive, game 7 they got 18.

Never said it wasn't easier to score from 25 out instead of 75. What I did say is that's still a touchdown. That's not rocket science. The ball still crossed the goal line.

This offense is not a world beater, once again, not what I said. Keep banging that drum though.

Bowling Green has another real up and comer!

 

[Finwad32]

if you want to pretend like it's not easier to score more when the game is longer, ok fine. the rest of us will scratch our heads less when those 4 extra short field drives and clusters of defensive/special teams touchdowns get diluted and it looks like the offense is getting worse.

because let's face it, when scoring average declines over time (which it has) , you guys are not likely to want to blame the offense for it.

sabres got 50 shots in their epic overtime game against the devils in 94. 4 OT whatever, 50 is 50! that was not predictive, game 7 they got 18.

Who's looking for predictive? Each game is it's own individual entity, that's undeniable. Predictive will give you an indication of what may happen more often than not, but, if it was that accurate, there'd be a lot more millionaires from gambling.

 

[Millhouse]

Who's looking for predictive? Each game is it's own individual entity, that's undeniable. Predictive will give you an indication of what may happen more often than not, but, if it was that accurate, there'd be a lot more millionaires from gambling.

if no one cares about predictions, why did everyone get so bent out of shape at gosu96 for his harmless post

 

[Finwad32]

if no one cares about predictions, why did everyone get so bent out of shape at gosu96 for his harmless post

I can tell you who doesn't care about predictions... Every football team in America.

 

[AZOrange]

I know what you're saying, but, I disagree on this. Maybe it's because I view it a little differently in how I view a team. Regardless of score, when it's all said and done it only matters which number on the board is higher. Whether that's 10 or 100 makes no difference to me. And I hate that we say the game wasn't as high scoring because so many points came from overtime. Scoring a touchdown is scoring a touchdown regardless of circumstance. The record books show those touchdowns, the record books show that score. It doesn't matter if it was in the first quarter or 10th OT. Some people derive more satisfaction out of an entertaining loss in which touchdowns are galore. I disagree. I don't think this offense is as bad as it's made out to be, it's different. It's not as fast paced, not as many plays are run. Inevitably that's going to lead to less yardage and time of possession, given our current defensive situation. But, that's this offense. And I believe it's been relatively efficient at scoring in comparison to other squads we've seen. 3 out of 4 of Marrone/Hackett's offenses were less dangerous in my opinion. Greg Robinson's offenses never scraped the ability that this offense does. There is not a statistic that accurately portrays everything. You can pick and choose any stat you like to prove a point. I just have a different viewpoint. I see a young team trying to find it's way. I see signs of progress. I see development. Others choose not to, or it's just not at the level they want it to be at. Fast paced, no huddle spread offenses are great. If you have a quarterback that can complete a high percentage of those throws and your line can block their assignments. You know what else high paced spread offenses can do? Take the ball out of your hands in 15 seconds flat if you're not efficient and don't move the chains. It works both ways. It's easy to point elsewhere and say look at what they're doing! We should do that! It's a lot harder to find the right staff and then have that staff implement it. It's not something that can't be achieved, but, I'm not in the school of thought that thinks it's automatically the best decision either. Regardless, you're right, this is a dumb argument. My main point is a loss is a loss is a loss. And I don't care if it's 10-7 or 63-61.

I think everyone is just beyond frustrated at this point both with the disappointments recently and the 15 year lull we've been in.

 

[Finwad32]

I think everyone is just beyond frustrated at this point both with the disappointments recently and the 15 year lull we've been in.

There's no doubt about it, but 15 years shouldn't be lumped in together.

 

[TheCusian]

if you want to pretend like it's not easier to score more when the game is longer, ok fine. the rest of us will scratch our heads less when those 4 extra short field drives and clusters of defensive/special teams touchdowns get diluted and it looks like the offense is getting worse.

because let's face it, when scoring average declines over time (which it has) , you guys are not likely to want to blame the offense for it.

sabres got 50 shots in their epic overtime game against the devils in 94. 4 OT whatever, 50 is 50! that was not predictive, game 7 they got 18.

C'mon. You use the non-offense TD's as a way to bludgeon your points about this particular offense being crap. But big picture points are points. And you and everyone else will take them over losing.

People have acknowledged that the offense is scoring less and that OT and defensive TD's affect the numbers people look at. It's also not a surprise that as the offense goes against better defenses, the numbers look worse (this tends to happen to all offenses).

What none of that addresses is that this offense is young has a true freshman and has looked really good at times. It looks as good as the 2012 team in small spurts. That's something! Enough to keep the staff? I dunno. But the signs are there that this offense could break out.

 

[TheCusian]

I think everyone is just beyond frustrated at this point both with the disappointments recently and the 15 year lull we've been in.

Exactly. Shafer is responsible for 2.75 of that. Lester's offense is responsible for .75.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Regardless of score, when it's all said and done it only matters which number on the board is higher. Whether that's 10 or 100 makes no difference to me.

The problem is we're in a landscape where scoring, on average, is up. And we're not riding that wave.

Here's the honest question for our offense - do we believe in any given game that we are capable of scoring five touchdowns in regulation?

My answer is no.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

There's no doubt about it, but 15 years shouldn't be lumped in together.

Well, it is.

Look, our entire record book on offense is BEGGING to be rewritten by somebody. It's pathetic.

 

[Finwad32]

Well, it is.

Look, our entire record book on offense is BEGGING to be rewritten by somebody. It's pathetic.

I agree, but, it's not Tim Lester's fault that his 9 predecessor's had terrible results.

Heck, the only reason Hackett had any success in 2012 was due to complete dumb luck, changing the entire offense 6 days before the season opener. He thought he was getting fired before the season even started.

 

[reedny]

The problem is we're in a landscape where scoring, on average, is up. And we're not riding that wave.

Here's the honest question for our offense - do we believe in any given game that we are capable of scoring five touchdowns in regulation?

My answer is no.

Not only would I answer "no", I think it's amazing that we're even scoring 3 TD's given the talent deficits we face on the O/D lines and at the non-QB skill positions:

1. In the offensive backfield, we have no thunder to go with the lightening. We move the ball with some creative plays, but we have no power running game. And to make matters worse, our D-line (and LB's) has no answer for the thunder coming from opposing teams -- those big fast RB's we're seeing every week (that we can't tackle).
2. Our O-Line has been a disappointment ... a huge factor that reduces running and passing opportunities;
3. We lack a tight-end who can stay healthy, has enough speed to get separation and enough talent to make consistent catches in traffic;
4. Same goes for our receivers. Our WR's can make some underneath plays (mostly Ishmael and Parris), but our vertical passing game is weak or non-existent. This makes it even harder to run b/c the opposition can stack the box.

Despite all these deficits, the kids are fighting to compete. We have a very talented young QB and a couple of exciting skill players (Phillips and Estime). I'm not in the a "fire SS" crowd b/c I actually think the coaching's pretty good given our talent deficiencies. And we're getting better players. It's just a long, frustrating haul to improve the program to the point where we can compete with the upper-half of the ACC.

 

[TheCusian]

Not only would I answer "no", I think it's amazing that we're even scoring 3 TD's given the talent deficits we face on the O/D lines and at the non-QB skill positions: 1. In the offensive backfield, we have no thunder to go with the lightening. We move the ball with some creative plays, but we have no power running game. And to make matters worse, our D-line (and LB's) has no answer for the thunder coming from opposing teams -- those big fast RB's we're seeing every week (that we can't tackle). 2. Our O-Line has been a disappointment ... a huge factor that reduces running and passing opportunities; 3. We lack a tight-end who can stay healthy, has enough speed to get separation and enough talent to make consistent catches in traffic; 4. Same goes for our receivers. Our WR's can make some underneath plays (mostly Ishmael and Parris), but our vertical passing game is weak or non-existent. This makes it even harder to run b/c the opposition can stack the box. Despite all these deficits, the kids are fighting to compete. We have a very talented young QB and a couple of exciting skill players (Phillips and Estime). I'm not in the a "fire SS" crowd b/c I actually think the coaching's pretty good given our talent deficiencies. And we're getting better players. It's just a long, frustrating haul to improve the program to the point where we can compete with the upper-half of the ACC.

You guys are crazy.

17 pts vs Pitt in the first half
21 pts vs USF in the second half
14 pts vs FSU in the first half

3 pts total in the other halves combined of those games.

We've been playing 1 half of offense for the whole season. I think it's mostly youth.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

You guys are crazy.

17 pts vs Pitt in the first half
21 pts vs USF in the second half
14 pts vs FSU in the first half

3 pts total in the other halves combined of those games.

We've been playing 1 half of offense for the whole season. I think it's mostly youth.

I think early in the season last year we were a dynamite offense between the red zones, but were bad overall.

I think this season we're only a good offense for one half. That means we're not a good offense. The pattern is there.

There are just so many excuses. Youth, past recruiting failures, injuries, switching QBs, systems changing, coaches changing, etc. There's always going to be something to point to. Next year we have a built in excuse ready to go that the line won't be ready.

At some point, we need an offense that just handles its business.

 

[TheCusian]

I think early in the season last year we were a dynamite offense between the red zones, but were bad overall. I think this season we're only a good offense for one half. That means we're not a good offense. The pattern is there. There are just so many excuses. Youth, past recruiting failures, injuries, switching QBs, systems changing, coaches changing, etc. There's always going to be something to point to. Next year we have a built in excuse ready to go that the line won't be ready. At some point, we need an offense that just handles its business.

Yeah that's a fair take. I'm not saying we're a good offense. I'm saying I don't think we're that far off. But I get the apathy and being tired of waiting.

 

[anglerman]

I like Fredericks a lot but his YPC carry is really no different than Morris who people seem to take issue with all the time. I wouldn't call anyone on this team above average in creating plays other than Dungey. I just would not. People don't fear anyone out there. Mike Williams is the last great offensive player that we had. 2012, bunch of really good seniors with a really good scheme and nice balance. That said, I think with the right coach we can be a lot more productive, we have more depth just not a lot of top end.

I know we are fans but people get carried away with "the talent" upgrade posts.

Strickland and fredricks may be the town west backs to play here's in the past 20 years. They are very very avoid and are true frosh. Give them time.

 

[OrangeJohn]

wrong.

http://www.syracuse.com/orangefootb...ey_hit_syracuse_football_mitch_stanitzek.html

 

[TheCusian]

http://www.syracuse.com/orangefootb...ey_hit_syracuse_football_mitch_stanitzek.html

Didn't see where there was confirmation of a concussion ...