This season was all about confirmation bias

[Pyle]

gerg was an offensive hire because... he tried to put in an offense?

Do you not remember all the USC of the East garbage that Grob and Gross spewed after his hire? Robinson may have been an defensive coordinator but the idea was to light up the dome and take advantage of our natural advantage, basically alot of the same stuff Dino said. All I remember around that time was West coast this, west coast that. It's all anyone talked about. I get it though, he was a DC and didn't really touch the offense but it's not like the idea was to play Addazio/Diaco ball.

 

[TheCusian]

Guys. Were the Post Standard stats wrong? If they were, which I wouldn't be surprised, then fine. But the figures stated that more points were scored in 2015 than 2016. Is this wrong? If not, then you can talk about regulation all you want, but the facts remain that more points were scored in 2015 than 2016.

And to another point: had Shafer given up more points in 2015 compared to Dino's defense in 2016 (due to Shafer's extra overtime periods), then I would assuredly state that Shafer gave up more points than Dino--without any caveats.

I absolutely give you the fact (as I have already stated earlier) that based on other factors, like yards per play/game, that we have a rosier offensive outlook in 2017 with Dino than we probably would have with Shafer.

Yes. They said O scoring while showing team scoring stats (D and ST scores are not O scored and OT scores are debatable as to how much they should count - since Babers didn't get those same chances.)

It makes no sense to say Lester's O scored more points than Babers while citing team scoring averages.

 

[Pyle]

I agree that Robinson was an offensive hire, but what does that have to do with the kind of offense he tried to bring? :rimshot:

Marrone was an offensive hire that put his chips behind defense and didn't really leap forward until his breakthrough on offense.

Shafer had no conviction on offense and couldn't recover on rolling the dice on a guy that turned out to not be ready and may not ever be.

Listen, being good on both defense and offense is ideal. I'm not saying I want us to pull our defensive players off the field. But being good on defense can be a lot more illusion than people want to admit, and we have a whole lot of recent history to suggest it doesn't translate into wins. I am saying that we need an identity and need to do something well first. The Dome begs to have a high flying offense, nobody else has a Dome, and nobody else in our near geography tries to establish their identity on offense. So let's carve out that we're the premier program in the Northeast for offense and let the defense try to catch up. If it can't ever catch up, or is only periodically good, that may be how it goes. But people will have a lot more fun if we master offense first. I get that you didn't like that Pitt scored a bunch. But the opponent scoring a bunch while you score a bunch but a little less is way more enjoyable than the excruciating situation we've endured far too long of our opponent scoring a little bit and us not being able to score at all.

FORTISSIMO*

KaiserUEO working on it, not there yet

This is a really good post and explains your side very well. I agree the Dome begs for this kind of offense, and I'm not even saying that we need to be good on defense, just not give up 45+ points 6 times a year bad either. Also I'll back off a little on my losing this way is better than that way. Losing is losing and it sucks and it doesn't matter if it was because you were in a shootout and got out gunned or if you're in WWI type of scrum where you lose by a point. Losing sucks and we've done alot more it lately that any of us can stomach. And I'm still really pissed about that Pitt game and probably will be until next Sept.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

This is a really good post and explains your side very well. I agree the Dome begs for this kind of offense, and I'm not even saying that we need to be good on defense, just not give up 45+ points 6 times a year bad either. Also I'll back off a little on my losing this way is better than that way. Losing is losing and it sucks and it doesn't matter if it was because you were in a shootout and got out gunned or if you're in WWI type of scrum where you lose by a point. Losing sucks and we've done alot more it lately that any of us can stomach. And I'm still really pissed about that Pitt game and probably will be until next Sept.

I think generally losing in a shootout is more fun than losing a low scoring game. I think the way we lost against Pitt was just kind of unprecedented and that's why it's sticking with you. You can say we lost to Pitt by 14. Doesn't sound crazy. You can say we gave up 70+ points to Pitt and lost. Sounds crazy. Even though those two statements are exactly the same.

 

[Millhouse]

This is a really good post and explains your side very well. I agree the Dome begs for this kind of offense, and I'm not even saying that we need to be good on defense, just not give up 45+ points 6 times a year bad either. Also I'll back off a little on my losing this way is better than that way. Losing is losing and it sucks and it doesn't matter if it was because you were in a shootout and got out gunned or if you're in WWI type of scrum where you lose by a point. Losing sucks and we've done alot more it lately that any of us can stomach. And I'm still really pissed about that Pitt game and probably will be until next Sept.

everyone agrees that it's unacceptable to be this bad at defense.

my view is, we're not going to be good at both and it's easier to be good at offense and not terrible on defense than it is to be good at defense and not terrible on offense. but we all agree that being terrible at offense or defense is going to doom you.

 

[Orijinal]

this is so dumb

if you want to say that shafer's defense was better at scoring points than babers - go for it!

You could have just said the points in 2015 included defensive scoring instead of throwing the insult. But what do I know, right?

 

[Millhouse]

You could have just said the points in 2015 included defensive scoring instead of throwing the insult. But what do I know, right?

Sorry but I've said it a thousand times

If I were any more blue in the face, I would be like chip when his wife is away

 

[Ish88888]

We have been scheduling ourselves OUT of bowls for decades now. Oh Lord
And have another similar schedule lined up for '17. :bang::bang::bang:

Meanwhile, peer teams like BC, NC State, Duke, and Rutgers have been playing laughably easy OOC schedules for years, then laughing all the way to the bank when their 4-0 starts lead them to only needing 2 more conf wins to lock down a bowl bid.

Bowl/no-bowl is not a remotely accurate barometer for how a team has performed in a given season.

6-6 is the floor next year . we have plenty of winnable games at home and if ZM can lead this offense, so can Culpepper, a frosh TD, and of course ED. Tired of the wining about the schedule , LSU on the road is one game. lets see what ward does with this Swiss cheese defense. lets just make the jump from historically bad to bad .

 

[TheCusian]

You could have just said the points in 2015 included defensive scoring instead of throwing the insult. But what do I know, right?

If you include defensive and special teams scores in evaluating the offense, you're not evaluating offense anymore.

OT scores are silly to include too since Babers didn't have any OT chances.

That's the crux of it. People wanting to include those things - including syr.com - are being disingenuous.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

If you include defensive and special teams scores in evaluating the offense, you're not evaluating offense anymore.

OT scores are silly to include too since Babers didn't have any OT chances.

That's the crux of it. People wanting to include those things - including syr.com - are being disingenuous.

not to mention insubordinate and churlish

 

[Orijinal]

If you include defensive and special teams scores in evaluating the offense, you're not evaluating offense anymore.

OT scores are silly to include too since Babers didn't have any OT chances.

That's the crux of it. People wanting to include those things - including syr.com - are being disingenuous.

This, I completely agree with. I thought Syracuse.com was comparing offenses to offenses. That's completely misleading

 

[UnknownOrange]

Guys. Were the Post Standard stats wrong? If they were, which I wouldn't be surprised, then fine. But the figures stated that more points were scored in 2015 than 2016. Is this wrong? If not, then you can talk about regulation all you want, but the facts remain that more points were scored in 2015 than 2016.

And to another point: had Shafer given up more points in 2015 compared to Dino's defense in 2016 (due to Shafer's extra overtime periods), then I would assuredly state that Shafer gave up more points than Dino--without any caveats.

I absolutely give you the fact (as I have already stated earlier) that based on other factors, like yards per play/game, that we have a rosier offensive outlook in 2017 with Dino than we probably would have with Shafer.

It is wrong.

 

[UnknownOrange]

2016.

 

[UnknownOrange]

2015.

 

[SUforme]

This, I completely agree with. I thought Syracuse.com was comparing offenses to offenses. That's completely misleading

Good ole Syr.com.

 

[SUFaninNJ]

So you're saying you think this years team would take their more prolific offense into 4 extra OT periods and do worse than the less prolific 2015 team.

Where did I ever intimate that? You seem to be looking for an argument. I will restate what I said earlier, I think all of the stats for the season should be include.

 

[721Comstock]

6-6 is the floor next year .

NO, it's not. You saying it is, doesn't make it so.

Tired of the wining (sic) about the schedule.

If our scheduling wasn't sooo moronic, nobody would need to whine about it.
Terrible OOC scheduling is completely undermining our chances for success.
"Success" being the 6-win (or better) season.

We could have a GREAT year next year - and still finish at 5-7.
Because @ LSU is 99% guaranteed to be a LOSS.

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

This, I completely agree with. I thought Syracuse.com was comparing offenses to offenses. That's completely misleading

They probably didn't think of it. It took 3 pages of discussion on a message board to boil it down.

 

[TheCusian]

Where did I ever intimate that? You seem to be looking for an argument. I will restate what I said earlier, I think all of the stats for the season should be include.

I'm not looking for an argument. I really just think that including periods of time for one team that they other team didn't get, makes the stats misleading. It would be like comparing the TD total between this season and 2102, when 2012 was a bowl year (4 extra periods of football).

It's like this:

2015
Regulation Points = X
OT points = Y

2016
Regulation Points = X
OT points = ?

Not:

2015
Regulation Points + OT = X

2016
Regulation Points = X

 

[TheCusian]

This, I completely agree with. I thought Syracuse.com was comparing offenses to offenses. That's completely misleading

I tweeted them the question "Did you mean to include defensive, special teams, and OT scores in your OFFENSIVE comparison?"

<Crickets>

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I tweeted them the question "Did you mean to include defensive, special teams, and OT scores in your OFFENSIVE comparison?"

<Crickets>

just a couple journos talking

 

[tbonezone]

SYRACUSE avg points scored was 26 . average points surrendered was 39. that's minus 13 points per game. how does that compare to past teams ?

 

[bnoro]

Because @ LSU is 99% guaranteed to be a LOSS.

No it's not.

Orgeron has never had a winning season as a full-time head coach. He's been a great interim coach. Let's see if he can do it over a full season.

It's not like we'll be favored, but let's not act like LSU is Alabama.

 

[TheCusian]

SYRACUSE avg points scored was 26 . average points surrendered was 39. that's minus 13 points per game. how does that compare to past teams ?

Ain't no sugar coating that one. We gave up too many points on big plays and didn't replace those points with big plays of our own.

The only thing in our favor is the promise that the inefficiency on offense be greatly reduced by the 4th game next season. If the 61 is the damn breaking, it means we don't have to be great on D to get 6 wins next year (which is good, because while I see it as getting better, I don't think it will be "good")

 

[Ish88888]

NO, it's not. You saying it is, doesn't make it so.



If our scheduling wasn't sooo moronic, nobody would need to whine about it.
Terrible OOC scheduling is completely undermining our chances for success.
"Success" being the 6-win (or better) season.

We could have a GREAT year next year - and still finish at 5-7.
Because @ LSU is 99% guaranteed to be a LOSS.

@LSU is one game . whats your beef with the rest of the schedule? fcs, Mac , and C-usa for the other ooc Match ups . thats a perfect formula.