Back in 1996, I started graduate school at the University of Delaware. I was 22 years old, and it was right after college. I didn't like it very much. I didn't like the work, and I didn't like living in Newark, Delaware.
I spent most of the time I was supposed to be studying doing other things like watching hockey (an obsession that has kind of ended), watching football (still going strong), watching cartoons (guilty again), and buying/listening to alternative rock music.
It was in this time that I really got into bands like The Pixies, Catherine Wheel, Throwing Muses, and Liz Phair. I started buying up every Matthew Sweet album I could find. Even the imports and demo collections. Was I slightly obsessed? Maybe. Do I regret it? Absolutely not. My career as a research scientist didn't last long, but my love of alternative rock remains.
Last night, I was puttering around the computer while the baby napped, and I found some Liz Phair songs on YouTube. Every so often, I have to be reminded of just how good early Liz Phair is. It's really really good. It's honest, frank, explicit without being exploitative, and kind of rockin'. Yes, it has the female-singer-songwriter-with-an-acoustic-guitar vibe going, but it's the VERY BEST of that particular overworked genre, and she is pretty much the one who brought that form into prominence again.
Her later stuff isn't very good, as she decided to start channeling her inner Avril Lavigne, which really doesn't work for someone in her late 30s. The early stuff is wonderful though, and her first album "Exile in Guyville" routinely makes lists of "Greatest Albums of All-Time". Quite rightly.
Here's a grainy clip of her playing a live show back in 1995, two years after her first album came out. The lyrics have many four-letter words, so kids shouldn't play it.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
College Football News Preview - Part III
This is perhaps the last part of this series, as I will now talk about CFN's preview of our defense.
Needless to say, they are highly complimentary of our abilities on defense.
They say of our defensive line, "Outlook: Utter destruction." They say of our linebackers, "All three starters return to an active group that dominated throughout last season." About our defensive backs, they say, " The corner spots are not just set, they're manned by two lockdown seniors who could end up forming the nation's best tandem."
Their criticisms? Mainly a lack of big plays a year ago, and there is a certain implication that they didn't always play up to their abilities. I think that's accurate. Our defense dominated some bad teams last year, but didn't always do well against average to good teams.
Against Alabama, we gave up 291 yards passing. Against Tennessee, the backup quarterback was 11 for 24 with 183 yards, 2 touchdowns, and 1 interception. Against Ole Miss, one of the worst rushing teams in the conference, we almost gave up a 100 yard rusher. Against Arkansas, McFadden and Jones combined for over 300 yards rushing.
The talent is there, but this year I'm looking for the kind of intensity that I didn't see game in and game out last year. This year, I want to see teams like Ole Miss and Alabama locked out of the game early, rather than stay in it all the way through like they did last year.
If we want to win the National Championship next year, or even the SEC Championship, we are going to have to be consistently dominant on defense like we were in 2003. That means we need to avoid giving up big games to teams like Arkansas, Ole Miss, and Alabama. It also means we're going to have to dominate lesser teams and end those games early.
Do I have any quibbles about their preview of our defense? Well, I've already talked about how I think they're overrating Chevis Jackson. I also think they're incorrect in saying that Ricky Jean-Francois is a backup. He's going to be starting at Right End if he's on the team.
Those are small complaints though. This was pretty darn good.
Needless to say, they are highly complimentary of our abilities on defense.
They say of our defensive line, "Outlook: Utter destruction." They say of our linebackers, "All three starters return to an active group that dominated throughout last season." About our defensive backs, they say, " The corner spots are not just set, they're manned by two lockdown seniors who could end up forming the nation's best tandem."
Their criticisms? Mainly a lack of big plays a year ago, and there is a certain implication that they didn't always play up to their abilities. I think that's accurate. Our defense dominated some bad teams last year, but didn't always do well against average to good teams.
Against Alabama, we gave up 291 yards passing. Against Tennessee, the backup quarterback was 11 for 24 with 183 yards, 2 touchdowns, and 1 interception. Against Ole Miss, one of the worst rushing teams in the conference, we almost gave up a 100 yard rusher. Against Arkansas, McFadden and Jones combined for over 300 yards rushing.
The talent is there, but this year I'm looking for the kind of intensity that I didn't see game in and game out last year. This year, I want to see teams like Ole Miss and Alabama locked out of the game early, rather than stay in it all the way through like they did last year.
If we want to win the National Championship next year, or even the SEC Championship, we are going to have to be consistently dominant on defense like we were in 2003. That means we need to avoid giving up big games to teams like Arkansas, Ole Miss, and Alabama. It also means we're going to have to dominate lesser teams and end those games early.
Do I have any quibbles about their preview of our defense? Well, I've already talked about how I think they're overrating Chevis Jackson. I also think they're incorrect in saying that Ricky Jean-Francois is a backup. He's going to be starting at Right End if he's on the team.
Those are small complaints though. This was pretty darn good.
Monday, April 23, 2007
College Football News Preview - Part II
Today we cover CFN's preview of our offense.
CFN says the "Strength of our offense" is our "speed, starting offensive line, running options". I'll agree with two of those three. We definitely have speed to burn and a ton of running options.
I'm not sure our starting offensive line is such a great strength however. Here's the starting five at the end of spring, left to right: Ciron Black, Herman Johnson, Brett Helms, Lyle Hitt, Carnell Stewart. I have no problem with the first three of those. They'll make a terrific center-left side of the line. It could be even better if Will Arnold can return healthy to the Right Guard spot, moving Johnson back to left guard.
I am not so comfortable with the right side of that line. Hitt is a converted tight end who found himself deep down the depth chart there. Stewart is a converted defensive tackle, once again finding himself deep on the depth chart. He has played little in his career and is now a 5th year senior.
Frankly, Saban recruited this position terribly. He got some decent players, but he really neglected this position, and as a result we're currently starting two players who began their careers at other positions, and we have very little experienced depth.
It is however a position where a freshman can come in and play right away, because the depth isn't very good. Miles has recruited eight offensive linemen in the last two years, one of whom was recently kicked off the team, but the remaining seven will all be freshmen or redshirt freshmen. It is, however, a position where you rarely want to rely on a true freshman to contribute immediately.
Continuing, CFN says our weaknesses are "backup offensive linemen, proven number two receiver". I think that's exactly right. We have VERY few experienced backup offensive linemen. It's telling that the CFN depth chart lists two of the primary backups at the OL position to be walkons. I'm not sure this is accurate, but it illustrates the problem. Plus, we recently lost two backup offensive linemen to dismissal.
We are very vulnerable to injuries on the offensive line. If we get a little bad luck at that position, we could end having a real patch-work offensive line this year.
As for the receivers, I'm still not sold on Lafell. I'm just not.
We have recruited the wide receiver position lights out since Miles got here, and that talent will soon make an impact. It's just hard to know if those guys are ready to step into key productive roles now. Guys like Chris and Jared Mitchell, Terrance Tolliver, John Williams, and others are one day going to make an excellent corp of receivers. I'm just not sure that this year is going to be that year, as those guys are still pretty young. Frankly, we haven't had a lot of really productive young receivers over the last several years.
The talent is there at receiver. We're just going to have to see if it translates to production this soon.
I'd throw QB in there as a potential weakness as well. I have nothing against Matt Flynn, but any time you're starting a QB who has never been a regular starter, you have to expect problems. Add to that the questionable receiver corp, and you have a potential problem with your passing game.
If we avoid injuries on the offensive line, and if Matt Flynn and the receivers are able to connect, our offensive could end up VERY VERY good. National Championship contender good.
CFN says the "Strength of our offense" is our "speed, starting offensive line, running options". I'll agree with two of those three. We definitely have speed to burn and a ton of running options.
I'm not sure our starting offensive line is such a great strength however. Here's the starting five at the end of spring, left to right: Ciron Black, Herman Johnson, Brett Helms, Lyle Hitt, Carnell Stewart. I have no problem with the first three of those. They'll make a terrific center-left side of the line. It could be even better if Will Arnold can return healthy to the Right Guard spot, moving Johnson back to left guard.
I am not so comfortable with the right side of that line. Hitt is a converted tight end who found himself deep down the depth chart there. Stewart is a converted defensive tackle, once again finding himself deep on the depth chart. He has played little in his career and is now a 5th year senior.
Frankly, Saban recruited this position terribly. He got some decent players, but he really neglected this position, and as a result we're currently starting two players who began their careers at other positions, and we have very little experienced depth.
It is however a position where a freshman can come in and play right away, because the depth isn't very good. Miles has recruited eight offensive linemen in the last two years, one of whom was recently kicked off the team, but the remaining seven will all be freshmen or redshirt freshmen. It is, however, a position where you rarely want to rely on a true freshman to contribute immediately.
Continuing, CFN says our weaknesses are "backup offensive linemen, proven number two receiver". I think that's exactly right. We have VERY few experienced backup offensive linemen. It's telling that the CFN depth chart lists two of the primary backups at the OL position to be walkons. I'm not sure this is accurate, but it illustrates the problem. Plus, we recently lost two backup offensive linemen to dismissal.
We are very vulnerable to injuries on the offensive line. If we get a little bad luck at that position, we could end having a real patch-work offensive line this year.
As for the receivers, I'm still not sold on Lafell. I'm just not.
We have recruited the wide receiver position lights out since Miles got here, and that talent will soon make an impact. It's just hard to know if those guys are ready to step into key productive roles now. Guys like Chris and Jared Mitchell, Terrance Tolliver, John Williams, and others are one day going to make an excellent corp of receivers. I'm just not sure that this year is going to be that year, as those guys are still pretty young. Frankly, we haven't had a lot of really productive young receivers over the last several years.
The talent is there at receiver. We're just going to have to see if it translates to production this soon.
I'd throw QB in there as a potential weakness as well. I have nothing against Matt Flynn, but any time you're starting a QB who has never been a regular starter, you have to expect problems. Add to that the questionable receiver corp, and you have a potential problem with your passing game.
If we avoid injuries on the offensive line, and if Matt Flynn and the receivers are able to connect, our offensive could end up VERY VERY good. National Championship contender good.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
College Football News Preview - Part I
This article will be fodder for my posts for some time to come. It is the College Football News preview of the 2007 LSU Fightin' Tigers. This post is going to be about the segment called "Ten Best Tiger Players".
CFN says that our ten best players, in order, are:
I think they are far too kind to Chevis Jackson. They rank him as the 3rd best player on the team. Elsewhere in their preview, when discussing the secondary, they state, "The star of the show is Chevis Jackson, a great hitter who came up with 46 tackles last year to go along with 14 broken up passes and two interceptions. Unlike Zenon, Jackson has NFL written all over him, but first, he might earn a few All-America honors with the speed, size, and technique to be a lock-down defender on anyone's number one.
I just don't see it. I like Chevis Jackson and think he is a legitimate good player. I just don't see this All-American ability that CFN sees. I haven't noticed any quarterbacks avoiding Jackson's side of the field. I haven't seen him make spectacular plays on the ball. I've just seen a pretty good cornerback. Anyway, I think he's rated way too high.
Next, I think Early Doucet is highly underrated. I think he's second to Glenn Dorsey on this list. He was second on the team in receptions and touchdown receptions last year. He has an amazing vertical jump, and when JR gave him jump balls last year, Doucet was unstoppable. He's the kind of receiver that a QB can go to when he ABSOLUTELY NEEDS A COMPLETION. See JR throwing him the ball on a crucial 4th down against Tennessee on a play designed to go to him all along (not the touchdown pass, but the other 4th down pass on that drive). Plus, he's good in the red zone, where a lot of receivers' games falter.
I think Early is a sure-fire 1st round pick in next year's NFL draft, and if Flynn becomes the QB we think he can become, Doucet is a potential All-American candidate.
My next observation is that it excludes Darry Beckwith, who is probably the 3rd best returning Tiger defender. I think Beckwith was clearly our best linebacker last year, and I would slot him ahead of Highsmith, who I thought had a rather quiet year last year. Both are very athletic and both have All-SEC potential though.
I question the Matt Flynn rating. It just seems a little strange to me to rate someone who has never been a regular starter as one of the 10 best players on the team, especially when he took only about 50-70 snaps last year. But, I know that an offense pretty much goes where its QB has the ability to take it. However, I think there are several players who have proven more, andn proven to be very good. See Jacob Hester, Brett Helms, Herman Johnson, Richard Dickson, Rickey Jean-Francois, Jonathan Zenon, Craig Steltz, Colt David, and Charles Alexander.
Special teams are routinely under-appreciated on these lists. Hardly anyone ever claims that a punter is one of the best players on the team, though a punter can easily make the difference between a win and a loss. As an illustration, I sincerely believe that punting made the difference in the game against Auburn last year. (Other things did too, but that's neither here nor there). Kody Bliss averaged an eye-popping 48 yards per punt in that game while Chris Jackson averaged a respectable 42. However, we also got more than one illegal formation penalty on the punts, and when the teams traded punts, we routinely lost several yards of field position. In a tight game, Kody Bliss was probably Auburn's best player that day.
I think Trindon's going to be a great special teams player who can change a game with a return. Just witness the game against Arkansas last year, which we might not have won without Trindon's kickoff return for a touchdown.
Finally, I would like to know what exactly Brandon Lafell has proven. The man made 5 catches last year. Granted, two of them went for over 50 yards, but still. The guy was our infrequently-used fourth receiver, and his anticipated position (second WR) is one of the big question marks on the offense.
Here's my list of our ten best players:
CFN says that our ten best players, in order, are:
- Glenn Dorsey, DT
- [Tyson] Jackson, DE
- Chevis Jackson, CB
- Ali Highsmith, LB
- Ciron Black, OT
- Early Doucet, WR
- Keiland Williams, RB
- Matt Flynn, QB
- Will Arnold, OG
- Brandon Lafell, WR
I think they are far too kind to Chevis Jackson. They rank him as the 3rd best player on the team. Elsewhere in their preview, when discussing the secondary, they state, "The star of the show is Chevis Jackson, a great hitter who came up with 46 tackles last year to go along with 14 broken up passes and two interceptions. Unlike Zenon, Jackson has NFL written all over him, but first, he might earn a few All-America honors with the speed, size, and technique to be a lock-down defender on anyone's number one.
I just don't see it. I like Chevis Jackson and think he is a legitimate good player. I just don't see this All-American ability that CFN sees. I haven't noticed any quarterbacks avoiding Jackson's side of the field. I haven't seen him make spectacular plays on the ball. I've just seen a pretty good cornerback. Anyway, I think he's rated way too high.
Next, I think Early Doucet is highly underrated. I think he's second to Glenn Dorsey on this list. He was second on the team in receptions and touchdown receptions last year. He has an amazing vertical jump, and when JR gave him jump balls last year, Doucet was unstoppable. He's the kind of receiver that a QB can go to when he ABSOLUTELY NEEDS A COMPLETION. See JR throwing him the ball on a crucial 4th down against Tennessee on a play designed to go to him all along (not the touchdown pass, but the other 4th down pass on that drive). Plus, he's good in the red zone, where a lot of receivers' games falter.
I think Early is a sure-fire 1st round pick in next year's NFL draft, and if Flynn becomes the QB we think he can become, Doucet is a potential All-American candidate.
My next observation is that it excludes Darry Beckwith, who is probably the 3rd best returning Tiger defender. I think Beckwith was clearly our best linebacker last year, and I would slot him ahead of Highsmith, who I thought had a rather quiet year last year. Both are very athletic and both have All-SEC potential though.
I question the Matt Flynn rating. It just seems a little strange to me to rate someone who has never been a regular starter as one of the 10 best players on the team, especially when he took only about 50-70 snaps last year. But, I know that an offense pretty much goes where its QB has the ability to take it. However, I think there are several players who have proven more, andn proven to be very good. See Jacob Hester, Brett Helms, Herman Johnson, Richard Dickson, Rickey Jean-Francois, Jonathan Zenon, Craig Steltz, Colt David, and Charles Alexander.
Special teams are routinely under-appreciated on these lists. Hardly anyone ever claims that a punter is one of the best players on the team, though a punter can easily make the difference between a win and a loss. As an illustration, I sincerely believe that punting made the difference in the game against Auburn last year. (Other things did too, but that's neither here nor there). Kody Bliss averaged an eye-popping 48 yards per punt in that game while Chris Jackson averaged a respectable 42. However, we also got more than one illegal formation penalty on the punts, and when the teams traded punts, we routinely lost several yards of field position. In a tight game, Kody Bliss was probably Auburn's best player that day.
I think Trindon's going to be a great special teams player who can change a game with a return. Just witness the game against Arkansas last year, which we might not have won without Trindon's kickoff return for a touchdown.
Finally, I would like to know what exactly Brandon Lafell has proven. The man made 5 catches last year. Granted, two of them went for over 50 yards, but still. The guy was our infrequently-used fourth receiver, and his anticipated position (second WR) is one of the big question marks on the offense.
Here's my list of our ten best players:
- Glenn Dorsey, DT: OK, they got this one right.
- Early Doucet, WR
- Tyson Jackson, DE
- Darry Beckwith, LB
- Keiland Williams, RB
- Ciron Black, LT
- Ali Highsmith, LB
- Will Arnold, OG (if healthy)
- Ricky Jean-Francois, DE/DT (if his academics allow him to remain on the team)
- Trindon Holliday: doesn't get the ball a lot, but is a threat to take it to the house every time.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
More on the Dismissed Three
I think the dismissal of three LSU players deserves a few more words.
Let me just start by saying that while I may end up sounding very harsh with regard to these three people, I do not think that all people who commit crimes, even violent crimes, are bad people incapable of being redeemed. I'm an attorney who sometimes represents criminal defendants. If I believed that all my clients are bad people, I doubt I could do the job. I do believe, however, that people have to respond to bad acts.
Most people are generally in agreement that Thomas and Giddens needed to go for what they supposedly did. To recap, they supposedly broke into someone's apartment and stole some stuff. Giddens then supposedly used a stolen credit card to buy some more stuff.
People are divided on whether Kyle Anderson deserved to be dismissed. To recap, Anderson allegedly laid in wait outside of a bar and attacked someone, causing permanent injuries and a trip to the hospital.
People ask, "You think the same would've been done if it was Flynn or Doucet that got in trouble?" I don't know if the same would have been done if it was Flynn or Doucet, but I challenge the conventional wisdom that the same should be done in that situation.
Let me use an analogy. Let's say two people work at a medium sized place. Employee X is vital to the operation of Employer. He is conscientious. He is at the top of his game. Replacing him would be a great hardship. Employee Y is a peon. He's not exactly worthless, but he is not a vital cog in Employer's operation, and is fairly easily replaced. Employee X and Employee Y both get caught, say, using their company computers to access pornographic web sites.
Should Employee X and Employee Y be treated the same? Not necessarily. Employee Y, being really low on the totem pole, will probably be summarily fired. Employee X, by virtue of his past and expected future contributions to the bottom line, may be let off with a warning, or maybe even tolerated.
Early Doucet is Employee X. Kyle Anderson is Employee Y. Early Doucet is going to be heavily relied upon by the Tigers next year. Kyle Anderson was not likely to ever be a starter. Why should it almost go without saying that they should be treated the same by their bosses? If you're more valuable, you get treated better. Welcome to life.
In sports, no one is bigger than the team, but that doesn't mean that everyone is the same size.
Am I suggesting that Doucet, Flynn, Glen Dorsey, Ali Highsmith, Keiland Williams, Tyson Jackson, Ciron Black, and Darry Beckwith should be allowed to get away with whatever they want to do? Absolutely not.
I'm saying that when a player gets into trouble like these three young men did, every coach is faced with a decision that has several competing interests:
Focusing on the first two, you have an obvious trade-off. Either go light and help your team win immediately but potentially develop a reputation for coddling wrongdoers, or be tough and protect your long term reputation while putting the immediate future at risk.
Obviously, the better the player, the bigger the risk in immediately suspending/dismissing him. If a player is not important, there is no obvious reason not to be severe. Corporate America figured this out a long time ago, and no one thinks anything of it when a peon gets fired for something a valuable employee could have gotten away with. Why should it be OK for some people to acknowledge the trade off, but for some reason be illegitimate for a football coach to acknowledge that there's a trade off.
The point is though that thinking purely selfishly, Les Miles had no reason not to lay the hammer on Kyle Anderson. A backup lineman doesn't do much to help Les win games, and Anderson had embarrassed the program. Kyle Anderson isn't going to make anyone say that Les Miles doesn't run a tight ship. Maybe Early Doucet would, but Kyle Anderson won't.
There's also another issue. One that can be tough to quantify as well. Suspending or dismissing players can hurt the morale of the team. For those of you who don't know, Trindon Holliday didn't approve of the dismissals. I don't begrudge Trindon his opinions. These guys were, after all, his friends. I think he'll eventually get over it though, and if not, well, Miles will figure out something.
Let me just start by saying that while I may end up sounding very harsh with regard to these three people, I do not think that all people who commit crimes, even violent crimes, are bad people incapable of being redeemed. I'm an attorney who sometimes represents criminal defendants. If I believed that all my clients are bad people, I doubt I could do the job. I do believe, however, that people have to respond to bad acts.
Most people are generally in agreement that Thomas and Giddens needed to go for what they supposedly did. To recap, they supposedly broke into someone's apartment and stole some stuff. Giddens then supposedly used a stolen credit card to buy some more stuff.
People are divided on whether Kyle Anderson deserved to be dismissed. To recap, Anderson allegedly laid in wait outside of a bar and attacked someone, causing permanent injuries and a trip to the hospital.
People ask, "You think the same would've been done if it was Flynn or Doucet that got in trouble?" I don't know if the same would have been done if it was Flynn or Doucet, but I challenge the conventional wisdom that the same should be done in that situation.
Let me use an analogy. Let's say two people work at a medium sized place. Employee X is vital to the operation of Employer. He is conscientious. He is at the top of his game. Replacing him would be a great hardship. Employee Y is a peon. He's not exactly worthless, but he is not a vital cog in Employer's operation, and is fairly easily replaced. Employee X and Employee Y both get caught, say, using their company computers to access pornographic web sites.
Should Employee X and Employee Y be treated the same? Not necessarily. Employee Y, being really low on the totem pole, will probably be summarily fired. Employee X, by virtue of his past and expected future contributions to the bottom line, may be let off with a warning, or maybe even tolerated.
Early Doucet is Employee X. Kyle Anderson is Employee Y. Early Doucet is going to be heavily relied upon by the Tigers next year. Kyle Anderson was not likely to ever be a starter. Why should it almost go without saying that they should be treated the same by their bosses? If you're more valuable, you get treated better. Welcome to life.
In sports, no one is bigger than the team, but that doesn't mean that everyone is the same size.
Am I suggesting that Doucet, Flynn, Glen Dorsey, Ali Highsmith, Keiland Williams, Tyson Jackson, Ciron Black, and Darry Beckwith should be allowed to get away with whatever they want to do? Absolutely not.
I'm saying that when a player gets into trouble like these three young men did, every coach is faced with a decision that has several competing interests:
- Punish him lightly, thereby achieving a short term benefit of having the player available when needed, or
- Punish him severely, thereby protecting the long term interest the team has in preserving its good reputation, or
- Do whatever may be best for the player himself.
Focusing on the first two, you have an obvious trade-off. Either go light and help your team win immediately but potentially develop a reputation for coddling wrongdoers, or be tough and protect your long term reputation while putting the immediate future at risk.
Obviously, the better the player, the bigger the risk in immediately suspending/dismissing him. If a player is not important, there is no obvious reason not to be severe. Corporate America figured this out a long time ago, and no one thinks anything of it when a peon gets fired for something a valuable employee could have gotten away with. Why should it be OK for some people to acknowledge the trade off, but for some reason be illegitimate for a football coach to acknowledge that there's a trade off.
The point is though that thinking purely selfishly, Les Miles had no reason not to lay the hammer on Kyle Anderson. A backup lineman doesn't do much to help Les win games, and Anderson had embarrassed the program. Kyle Anderson isn't going to make anyone say that Les Miles doesn't run a tight ship. Maybe Early Doucet would, but Kyle Anderson won't.
There's also another issue. One that can be tough to quantify as well. Suspending or dismissing players can hurt the morale of the team. For those of you who don't know, Trindon Holliday didn't approve of the dismissals. I don't begrudge Trindon his opinions. These guys were, after all, his friends. I think he'll eventually get over it though, and if not, well, Miles will figure out something.
Friday, April 20, 2007
3 outs, End of the Inning
I commented some time ago that we would not comment on arrests of two LSU football players until more information was known. Now it appears that more information became known. Les Miles kicked Troy Giddens and Zhamal Thomas off the football team, apparently forever.
If you believe the scuttlebutt, Giddens and Thomas broke into a apartment when no one was home, took some items including a credit card, and then tried to use the credit card. Malicious. Premeditated. Purely for selfish gain.
Yeah, I think they had to go.
Kyle Anderson also felt the wrath. He was kicked off the team the same day, ostensibly over a bar fight in Tigerland. (As an aside, I don't think I have ever been to a bar in Tigerland. Too many fights.) Bar fight? Football player? It shocks the conscience.
Well, hold on there just a second. Once again, if you believe the scuttlebutt, there's more to the story. According to sources, Anderson got kicked out of the bar after an altercation, then waited outside for the guy and attacked him in the parking lot, knocking out 4 teeth and putting him in the hospital. Malicious. Premeditated. Violent. Permanent injury. A very serious penalty was warranted.
If you also believe the other rumors that Anderson has been a bit of a problem child since he arrived on campus, then complete dismissal was probably warranted.
I think it's all for the best for LSU. We do not want to get a reputation for lawlessness or thuggish behavior, like what has plagued Miami and Florida State over the years. Part of the problem with those programs is that their coaches were willing to be lenient with bad-acting athletes. Anyone remember Free Shoes University? That reputation has dogged both programs for over a decade. Les took pretty harsh action to avoid that bad result, and I personally have no problem with it.
What does it mean to the team? None of them were expected to be key players this year, but it hurts depth.
Giddens was a redshirt freshman safety running with the second team. He was probably our 4th safety behind Steltz, Curtis Taylor, and Danny McCray. We have three very good true freshmen safeties coming in this year, and it probably just means one or more of those will have to have significant time.
Zhamal Thomas was a redshirt freshman offensive tackle running with the second team as well. He was backing up Carnell Stewart, and could maybe have won the starting job. We are rather thin at offensive tackle, and it probably means that a true freshman will have to come in and get up to speed quickly to get into the two-deep.
Kyle Anderson was a tight end, kind of far down the depth chart, but he got playing time last year primarily as a blocker. Between Keith Zinger, Richard Dickson, Mit Cole, and the three tight ends we recruited this year, we'll be fine there.
It also means we're closer to having a full complement of 25 scholarships to give out next year.
If you believe the scuttlebutt, Giddens and Thomas broke into a apartment when no one was home, took some items including a credit card, and then tried to use the credit card. Malicious. Premeditated. Purely for selfish gain.
Yeah, I think they had to go.
Kyle Anderson also felt the wrath. He was kicked off the team the same day, ostensibly over a bar fight in Tigerland. (As an aside, I don't think I have ever been to a bar in Tigerland. Too many fights.) Bar fight? Football player? It shocks the conscience.
Well, hold on there just a second. Once again, if you believe the scuttlebutt, there's more to the story. According to sources, Anderson got kicked out of the bar after an altercation, then waited outside for the guy and attacked him in the parking lot, knocking out 4 teeth and putting him in the hospital. Malicious. Premeditated. Violent. Permanent injury. A very serious penalty was warranted.
If you also believe the other rumors that Anderson has been a bit of a problem child since he arrived on campus, then complete dismissal was probably warranted.
I think it's all for the best for LSU. We do not want to get a reputation for lawlessness or thuggish behavior, like what has plagued Miami and Florida State over the years. Part of the problem with those programs is that their coaches were willing to be lenient with bad-acting athletes. Anyone remember Free Shoes University? That reputation has dogged both programs for over a decade. Les took pretty harsh action to avoid that bad result, and I personally have no problem with it.
What does it mean to the team? None of them were expected to be key players this year, but it hurts depth.
Giddens was a redshirt freshman safety running with the second team. He was probably our 4th safety behind Steltz, Curtis Taylor, and Danny McCray. We have three very good true freshmen safeties coming in this year, and it probably just means one or more of those will have to have significant time.
Zhamal Thomas was a redshirt freshman offensive tackle running with the second team as well. He was backing up Carnell Stewart, and could maybe have won the starting job. We are rather thin at offensive tackle, and it probably means that a true freshman will have to come in and get up to speed quickly to get into the two-deep.
Kyle Anderson was a tight end, kind of far down the depth chart, but he got playing time last year primarily as a blocker. Between Keith Zinger, Richard Dickson, Mit Cole, and the three tight ends we recruited this year, we'll be fine there.
It also means we're closer to having a full complement of 25 scholarships to give out next year.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Evaluating a running back
I wrote about running backs earlier this week in a column in which I argued, through statistics, that LSU's running game as a whole was one of the most effective in the SEC. I got thinking though, how can I statistically evaluate a single running back in a way similar to the way I evaluated quarterbacks, attempting to mesh the entirety of their production into one reasonably meaningful statistic?
I could do it exactly the same way as I did it for quarterbacks, using a formula like this
Runner rating = (yards rushing + 20*touchdowns - 30*fumbles lost)/rushing attempts + (yards receiving + 20*touchdowns -30*fumbles lost)/passes thrown to
I think that result will turn out OK, but I find it unsatisfying for several reasons. First, I'm not sure I can find a statistic on the number of times a ball was thrown to a back. I'd be stuck with pass catches, but that would miss the effect of any dropped passes.
Second, I just don't think it breaks down the information enough. It treats all rushing yards as the same, except for the ones that get you into the end zone. I think a run on 1st and 10 is much different from a run on 3rd and 2. On 3rd and 2, you're just trying to move the chains. On 1st and 10, you're really trying to break a big gain or set up a good down and distance for the rest of the set of downs. It comes down to, on 3rd and 2, a three yard gain is a big success. On 1st and 10, a three yard gain is a let down.
I want to know more than just yards-per-carry. I want to know if the guy broke off a lot of big runs, changing field position. I want to know if he was an effective short-yardage runner too. These statistics just don't do it.
So I think you'd have to break it up by downs, or at least count runs for a 1st down differently, and you'd want to have some way of tracking longer runs. Then again, I wanted to do that for quarterbacks, but again those statistics just aren't kept. I wouldn't want to short-change an excellent short-yardage specialist just because he doesn't have a lot of runs of more than a few yards.
And let's not even begin to discuss how it ignores blocking, which is no small thing. A guy who can't block probably can't be on the field in an obvious passing situation, and his presence on the field may be a tell that it's a running play.
I think the only way to account for the impact of blocking is to drop the yards receiving and use a measurement along the lines of a yards per pass attempt with the player in the game - yards per pass attempt without the player in the game. Good luck compiling that.
Maybe in the end we should not try to develop a single statistic for a running back. Maybe yards per carry, yards per reception, touchdowns, and fumbles should be examined individually. Blocking? Well, just try to forget that there's no good way to statistically measure a blocker.
Looking at our running backs, what stands out? Well, Keiland's 5.7 yard-per carry average is excellent, but Charles Scott's 6.0 yards per carry is eye-popping. I think it's important to realize though that Keiland Williams did it against the core of the SEC schedule, while Scott did it against a weaker early schedule. Hester averaged 4.7 yards per carry, which is very respectable. Justin Vincent and Alley Broussard got plenty of chances, carrying the ball over 130 times between them, but pulled up the rear getting only 3.7 and 3.8 yards per carry respectively. All of our top 4 rushers got between 4 and 6 touchdowns, so they were all basically equally productive on the scoreboard.
Jacob Hester's 35 catches for 7.7 yards per catch and three touchdowns was excellent, and while Justin Vincent didn't catch a lot, he averaged 12.2 yards per catch. Keiland Williams and Charles Scott were basically non-factors in the passing game, catching only 7 balls between them, with no touchdowns.
I think for this coming year, one of the things to watch for is how much Scott gets into the game. It seemed that as the season progressed, the coaches turned to Keiland Williams at the expense of Charles Scott. Early in the season, Scott got the carries, but then as Keiland got in the game, Scott left it. Will he get back in?
Also, look to see if Scott and Williams are used a little more in the passing game. Last year, Hester and Vincent were the passing down backs. Vincent is gone, but Hester remains, and he is very good at that role.
Also, how does Richard Murphy play into this. Will he step into the Justin Vincent role (but hopefully more effective)?
I could do it exactly the same way as I did it for quarterbacks, using a formula like this
Runner rating = (yards rushing + 20*touchdowns - 30*fumbles lost)/rushing attempts + (yards receiving + 20*touchdowns -30*fumbles lost)/passes thrown to
I think that result will turn out OK, but I find it unsatisfying for several reasons. First, I'm not sure I can find a statistic on the number of times a ball was thrown to a back. I'd be stuck with pass catches, but that would miss the effect of any dropped passes.
Second, I just don't think it breaks down the information enough. It treats all rushing yards as the same, except for the ones that get you into the end zone. I think a run on 1st and 10 is much different from a run on 3rd and 2. On 3rd and 2, you're just trying to move the chains. On 1st and 10, you're really trying to break a big gain or set up a good down and distance for the rest of the set of downs. It comes down to, on 3rd and 2, a three yard gain is a big success. On 1st and 10, a three yard gain is a let down.
I want to know more than just yards-per-carry. I want to know if the guy broke off a lot of big runs, changing field position. I want to know if he was an effective short-yardage runner too. These statistics just don't do it.
So I think you'd have to break it up by downs, or at least count runs for a 1st down differently, and you'd want to have some way of tracking longer runs. Then again, I wanted to do that for quarterbacks, but again those statistics just aren't kept. I wouldn't want to short-change an excellent short-yardage specialist just because he doesn't have a lot of runs of more than a few yards.
And let's not even begin to discuss how it ignores blocking, which is no small thing. A guy who can't block probably can't be on the field in an obvious passing situation, and his presence on the field may be a tell that it's a running play.
I think the only way to account for the impact of blocking is to drop the yards receiving and use a measurement along the lines of a yards per pass attempt with the player in the game - yards per pass attempt without the player in the game. Good luck compiling that.
Maybe in the end we should not try to develop a single statistic for a running back. Maybe yards per carry, yards per reception, touchdowns, and fumbles should be examined individually. Blocking? Well, just try to forget that there's no good way to statistically measure a blocker.
Looking at our running backs, what stands out? Well, Keiland's 5.7 yard-per carry average is excellent, but Charles Scott's 6.0 yards per carry is eye-popping. I think it's important to realize though that Keiland Williams did it against the core of the SEC schedule, while Scott did it against a weaker early schedule. Hester averaged 4.7 yards per carry, which is very respectable. Justin Vincent and Alley Broussard got plenty of chances, carrying the ball over 130 times between them, but pulled up the rear getting only 3.7 and 3.8 yards per carry respectively. All of our top 4 rushers got between 4 and 6 touchdowns, so they were all basically equally productive on the scoreboard.
Jacob Hester's 35 catches for 7.7 yards per catch and three touchdowns was excellent, and while Justin Vincent didn't catch a lot, he averaged 12.2 yards per catch. Keiland Williams and Charles Scott were basically non-factors in the passing game, catching only 7 balls between them, with no touchdowns.
I think for this coming year, one of the things to watch for is how much Scott gets into the game. It seemed that as the season progressed, the coaches turned to Keiland Williams at the expense of Charles Scott. Early in the season, Scott got the carries, but then as Keiland got in the game, Scott left it. Will he get back in?
Also, look to see if Scott and Williams are used a little more in the passing game. Last year, Hester and Vincent were the passing down backs. Vincent is gone, but Hester remains, and he is very good at that role.
Also, how does Richard Murphy play into this. Will he step into the Justin Vincent role (but hopefully more effective)?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
