Short post today. As many of you may have seen, Paul Finebaum penned a hatchet job against Les Miles and LSU, something he is becoming quite adept at doing.
Perhaps "adept" is not the right word, because it implies a high level of competence. I think the word I'm looking for in place of adept is "prolific". Anyway, all you need to know about this attempted assassination to know how flat it falls is this sentence:
It's so comical that I honestly feel sorry for LSU fans.
Oh really? The situation in LSU's football program is so comical that you "feel sorry" for us? Miles is 22-4 over two years, a two-year record Nick Saban matched exactly one time at LSU, even when he was coaching "Nick Saban talent". Miles did it in the face of a certain hurricane in 2006, the loss of his #1 running back to injury before the season started, and a hellish road schedule in 2007.
Then Les Miles put together the most heralded recruiting class in LSU history.
I realize one thing here, and it's something I've discussed before. Finebaum is deliberately being an agent prococateur and is writing simply to draw attention to himself. He doesn't care if it's negative attention he's getting. He knows that people who hate you are just as likely to read your columns and listen to your radio show as people who love you. It's good marketing.
He crossed the line from being a simple agent provocateur to being a pure yellow journalist, however. And his statement that he pities us is laughable. News flash: LSU is a top 5 program in the country. Bama is not a top 5 program in the SEC.
I'm going to do my part to turn that around. I'm taking 100.5 off of my radio presets. I won't listen to it at all anymore. And yes, I have in the past listened to Finebaum as well as other programs on that station, including the morning show with Jay Barker, Al del Greco, and whoever is the radio professional on that show. Not anymore. That which is associated with this level of yellow journalism must not be patronized.
Also, I won't read those newspapers which publish his columns.
I encourage others to do the same. Ignore him. Ignore his broadcasts. Ignore his colleagues. Don't discuss his opinions further. Don't ever give him any more attention whatsoever.
And no, I'm not linking the article.
Friday, May 4, 2007
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Big Media on the Draft
I was sitting here puttering around on the internet thinking, "I don't have anything I particularly want to write about today." News is slow as far as LSU football goes, and I don't want to write about the Troy Giddens/Joseph Barksdale incident. Enough has been said about that already, and frankly I see nothing really to analyze or discuss about it. While I have some ideas kicking around for a few columns that don't have any immediate import, nothing really jumped out at me today.
Then I ran into this. It's CNNSI's "Photo Gallery" wherein they take a topic, give it very little substance, but beef it up by posting it accompanied by very large pictures. It's like the print version of a musical montage. Very little substance, but it has a nice beat and you can dance to it.
Anyway, this "Photo Gallery" lists the Top 10 NFL Draft Steals for 2007. It helps me crystallize something I've been trying to articulate about "Draft Grades" and "Draft Analysis" in the media for a while. That thing I've been trying to say is that they do not mean much because they are heavily weighted towards rewarding teams that draft players from big schools that the reporters have seen on television. Here are the top 10 draft steals, in order:
CNNSI thinks, then, that the big "steals" of the draft almost uniformly came from schools that just so happen to get on television frequently. I wonder if the Top 10 Draft Steals of 2006 published in May of last year included Marques Colston from Hofstra?
I have nothing against any of these players personally, and there is certainly a chance that any of these guys will emerge as a major player in the NFL. And really, when you think about it, if you're a typical football fan not privy to scouting reports, combine reports, etc., there's a certain amount of decent logic in using as your measuring stick in evaluating talent, "Was he productive against top level competition?"
However, in an NFL where players routinely excel from unheralded programs and players from big schools often flop, don't even pretend an analysis that is heavily biased in favor of players from big programs is even remotely definitive.
To show you how far this goes, consider the case of Tarrell Brown, the 5th biggest steal of the draft. He was a cornerback at Texas, a school which had seven players drafted. In particular, two cornerbacks, one safety, and two defensive ends were drafted. That's 5 of the 6 most important positions on the field for defending against the pass. You have your two corners, one of your safeties, and both of your primary outside pass rushers going to the NFL. Three of them were first-day picks including two in the first round.
Wow, Texas's pass defense must have been excellent in 2006 to have had that much talent on the field. Think again. Texas's vaunted pass defense, which put so many players into the NFL, was tenth in the Big 12 in yards per game.
"OK", you say, "but Texas won a lot of games, and were undoubtedly ahead by large margins, forcing opponents to pass more, thereby giving up more yards."
Good try. They were also tenth in yards per attempt. Out of 12. Texas's pass defense compared to the rest of the Big 12 was poor. Despite this, the third member of the Texas secondary to be drafted gets labeled one of the Top Ten Biggest Draft Steals of 2007? How can this be explained other than by basic big-school bias?
Then I ran into this. It's CNNSI's "Photo Gallery" wherein they take a topic, give it very little substance, but beef it up by posting it accompanied by very large pictures. It's like the print version of a musical montage. Very little substance, but it has a nice beat and you can dance to it.
Anyway, this "Photo Gallery" lists the Top 10 NFL Draft Steals for 2007. It helps me crystallize something I've been trying to articulate about "Draft Grades" and "Draft Analysis" in the media for a while. That thing I've been trying to say is that they do not mean much because they are heavily weighted towards rewarding teams that draft players from big schools that the reporters have seen on television. Here are the top 10 draft steals, in order:
- Brady Quinn, QB, Notre Dame (late first round)
- Ryan Kalil, C, USC (late second round)
- Antonio Pittman, RB, Ohio St. (4th round)
- Steve Breaston, WR, Michigan (5th round)
- Dallas Sartz, LB, USC (5th round)
- Tarrell Brown, CB, Texas (5th round)
- Derek Landri, DT, Notre Dame (5th round)
- Adam Koets, OT, Oregon State (6th round)
- Mason Crosby, K, Colorado (6th round)
- David Irons, CB, Auburn (6th round)
CNNSI thinks, then, that the big "steals" of the draft almost uniformly came from schools that just so happen to get on television frequently. I wonder if the Top 10 Draft Steals of 2006 published in May of last year included Marques Colston from Hofstra?
I have nothing against any of these players personally, and there is certainly a chance that any of these guys will emerge as a major player in the NFL. And really, when you think about it, if you're a typical football fan not privy to scouting reports, combine reports, etc., there's a certain amount of decent logic in using as your measuring stick in evaluating talent, "Was he productive against top level competition?"
However, in an NFL where players routinely excel from unheralded programs and players from big schools often flop, don't even pretend an analysis that is heavily biased in favor of players from big programs is even remotely definitive.
To show you how far this goes, consider the case of Tarrell Brown, the 5th biggest steal of the draft. He was a cornerback at Texas, a school which had seven players drafted. In particular, two cornerbacks, one safety, and two defensive ends were drafted. That's 5 of the 6 most important positions on the field for defending against the pass. You have your two corners, one of your safeties, and both of your primary outside pass rushers going to the NFL. Three of them were first-day picks including two in the first round.
Wow, Texas's pass defense must have been excellent in 2006 to have had that much talent on the field. Think again. Texas's vaunted pass defense, which put so many players into the NFL, was tenth in the Big 12 in yards per game.
"OK", you say, "but Texas won a lot of games, and were undoubtedly ahead by large margins, forcing opponents to pass more, thereby giving up more yards."
Good try. They were also tenth in yards per attempt. Out of 12. Texas's pass defense compared to the rest of the Big 12 was poor. Despite this, the third member of the Texas secondary to be drafted gets labeled one of the Top Ten Biggest Draft Steals of 2007? How can this be explained other than by basic big-school bias?
Monday, April 30, 2007
Kreskin, I am not
I'm just going to stop trying to predict what professional football teams will do past the first 40 picks or so. It is clear that I am no good at predicting how college talent will translate to NFL talent. Or rather, I am not good at predicting how NFL teams will predict how college talent will translate to NFL talent.
I'm thinking of several players here:
Jessie Daniels, SS, LSU
Rory Johnson, LB, Ole Miss
Earl Everette, LB, Florida
Brandon Siler, LB, Florida
At LSU, Laron Landry and Jessie Daniels made up arguably the best safety duo in the country. Landry was a 4 year starter; Daniels was a 3 year starter. One publication said of them at the start of the season, "They're NFL safeties spending time in college." Landry was drafted #6 overall. Daniels wasn't drafted. Most expected he'd be a late round pick.
There was a similar story at Ole Miss. Patrick Willis and Rory Johnson made up arguably the best linebacker duo in the SEC. Together they made just about every tackle. Willis was drafted #11 overall. Rory Johnson was not drafted at all, despite the fact that I have seen mock drafts that had him going in the second round.
Earl Everett and Brandon Siler made up arguably the second best linebacker duo in the SEC last year, and together they led Florida's defensive front seven to the national title. Siler was one of the last picks of the draft, and Everett remained undrafted. I had seen mock drafts with both players going in the first day.
In the SEC, Florida led the way with nine players drafted, but three were picked in the final round, including Deshawn Wynn, who many predicted would be drafted around the 4th round. Dallas Baker was also a last-round pick, and I always thought he was just about as good of a wide receiver as Bowe, Meachem, and Sidney Rice, who went in the first and second rounds.
As for the Saints, most of the people they drafted after Meachem were guys I'd never heard of, with the exception of cousin Antonio from Ohio State in the 4th round. This was also the Saints most notable pick outside of the first round. I would never have predicted the Saints would draft a running back, let alone trade up to draft a running back.
I have to wonder what this signals about Deuce McAllister. Does this mean they've decided they have too much money tied up in running backs and will let McAllister walk after this year, and are preparing for it by grooming Antonio? If so, that runs the risk of angering McAllister, and we'd have a star player sulking for a season.
The Saints drafted a lot of small school type players. We got two MAC players on the first day and two Division II players on the second day. I have no problem with this strategy at all, though a lot of others do not like it. Yes, there are questions about the level of competition these guys have faced, but frankly everyone has to step up several levels from college to pro, and there are lots of guys in the NFL from smaller schools.
It comes down to one simple question, and that question cannot be answered not. Are these guys good NFL players? If so, it does not matter where they went to college, and it matters little who you passed up to get them.
The Saints probably want to pick up another linebacker, a defensive tackle, a tight end, and a quarterback on the free agent market. May I suggest Earl Everett or Rory Johnson as linebackers? Tyler Palko, Jared Zabranski, or Chris Leak as quarterbacks? I have no suggestions for DTs or TEs.
Oh, and finally, congratulations to cousin Chase for getting drafted by the Cleveland Browns. He can relive the old times by chasing Brady Quinn around at practice.
Update: we did indeed sign Palko.
I'm thinking of several players here:
Jessie Daniels, SS, LSU
Rory Johnson, LB, Ole Miss
Earl Everette, LB, Florida
Brandon Siler, LB, Florida
At LSU, Laron Landry and Jessie Daniels made up arguably the best safety duo in the country. Landry was a 4 year starter; Daniels was a 3 year starter. One publication said of them at the start of the season, "They're NFL safeties spending time in college." Landry was drafted #6 overall. Daniels wasn't drafted. Most expected he'd be a late round pick.
There was a similar story at Ole Miss. Patrick Willis and Rory Johnson made up arguably the best linebacker duo in the SEC. Together they made just about every tackle. Willis was drafted #11 overall. Rory Johnson was not drafted at all, despite the fact that I have seen mock drafts that had him going in the second round.
Earl Everett and Brandon Siler made up arguably the second best linebacker duo in the SEC last year, and together they led Florida's defensive front seven to the national title. Siler was one of the last picks of the draft, and Everett remained undrafted. I had seen mock drafts with both players going in the first day.
In the SEC, Florida led the way with nine players drafted, but three were picked in the final round, including Deshawn Wynn, who many predicted would be drafted around the 4th round. Dallas Baker was also a last-round pick, and I always thought he was just about as good of a wide receiver as Bowe, Meachem, and Sidney Rice, who went in the first and second rounds.
As for the Saints, most of the people they drafted after Meachem were guys I'd never heard of, with the exception of cousin Antonio from Ohio State in the 4th round. This was also the Saints most notable pick outside of the first round. I would never have predicted the Saints would draft a running back, let alone trade up to draft a running back.
I have to wonder what this signals about Deuce McAllister. Does this mean they've decided they have too much money tied up in running backs and will let McAllister walk after this year, and are preparing for it by grooming Antonio? If so, that runs the risk of angering McAllister, and we'd have a star player sulking for a season.
The Saints drafted a lot of small school type players. We got two MAC players on the first day and two Division II players on the second day. I have no problem with this strategy at all, though a lot of others do not like it. Yes, there are questions about the level of competition these guys have faced, but frankly everyone has to step up several levels from college to pro, and there are lots of guys in the NFL from smaller schools.
It comes down to one simple question, and that question cannot be answered not. Are these guys good NFL players? If so, it does not matter where they went to college, and it matters little who you passed up to get them.
The Saints probably want to pick up another linebacker, a defensive tackle, a tight end, and a quarterback on the free agent market. May I suggest Earl Everett or Rory Johnson as linebackers? Tyler Palko, Jared Zabranski, or Chris Leak as quarterbacks? I have no suggestions for DTs or TEs.
Oh, and finally, congratulations to cousin Chase for getting drafted by the Cleveland Browns. He can relive the old times by chasing Brady Quinn around at practice.
Update: we did indeed sign Palko.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Stats and Tools and JaMarcus Russell
With Pittman getting ready to take a rest, I think I should get more involved with this blog again. I just got out of law school finals, so I’ve got some free time again. And I’m no longer bitter about perhaps the worst NCAA basketball tourney ever played. They can’t all be winners, I guess. I also like to talk baseball, and things are getting intersting for the Tigers squad. But that's for another day.
I don’t really watch the Draft. I like player personnel decision and am actually quite interested in the actions of front offices, but actually sitting down and watching the Draft? That’s just excrutiating. Aside from a morbid fascination with Mel Kiper’s hair, I just can’t bring myself to watch it. Except for the first 15 minutes this year, because I wanted to see JaMarcus Russell go #1.
Most of the commentary made me happy. They talked about how great he was, his record as a starter (25-4), and his extraordinary physical tools (as if he’s ever going to be asked to throw a 60 yard pass from his knees). Ron Jaworksi, who I believe is the best NFL analyst on TV, called Russell the only franchise QB in this draft. High praise indeed. So I want to be clear, I’m not talking about some sort of ESPN conspiracy to badmouth LSU. That doesn’t exist except in the heads of some fans who equate any criticism with “bashing”. With that caveat in mind, I hate how there is this false debate between Quinn and Russell as a continuation of the stats vs. scouts argument.
I’m a stats guy. I think a player’s 40-time and his bench press are certainly relevant pieces of information, but take a backseat to the basic question: can he play football? Which means I like guys who have a record of performance. While it is possible for a successful college player to bomb in the pros, it is extremely unlikely for a player to fail in college and then succeed in the pros. The first thing I look at when evaluating a player in the Draft is simple: what has this guy done?
And the general storyline is that Quinn put up the big numbers in college, and Russell has the “tools” with mediocre numbers. Quinn is the, for lack of a better term, the “Moneybal” player and Russell is the tools goof. That general storyline is flat-out wrong. Russell’s numbers are unbelievably good.
232-342, 67.8%, 3129 yds, 28 TD/8 INT, 167.0 Rating, 9.15 yds/att
289-467, 61.9%, 3426 yds, 37 TD/7 INT, 146.7 Rating, 7.34 yds/att
That’s Russell vs. Quinn. Both players put up huge numbers, and I won’t even getting into an adjustment for playing in the SEC versus Notre Dame’s schedule. It took Quinn 125 more passes to throw for just 297 more yards. Russell completed a staggering 67.8% of his passes, which is so ridiculously high I can’t understand why people aren’t more impressed by it. And its not like he’s a dink and dunk passer. Every time Russell drops back to throw, he’s worth 9.15 yards to Quinn’s 7.34. Russell is worth almost two more yards a play. That’s a chasm.
Columnist love to point to the TD/INT ratio, but the key number is not the TD’s but the INT’s. Are we really supposed to reward Quinn because the Irish had an absolutely anemic running game and had to pass if there were ever going to score? TD’s are a usage stat, like saves or RBIs. It’s the INT’s we should focus on, and it’s a dead heat between the two. Russell doesn’t just have the tools, he has better numbers than Quinn as well.
Which leads to the next layer of the argument against Russell, that he is a one-year wonder. Like his previous season was poor or something. His 2005 numbers?
188-311, 60.5%, 2443 yds, 15 TD/9 INT, 136.6 Rating, 7.86 yds/att
Same completion percentage as Quinn, and a similar QB Rating and yards attempt. OK, Quinn has the TD advantage and the INT advantage, but it’s not like Rusell’s numbers were terrible. They compare quite favorable to Quinn’s 2006 numbers. And the way people are trying to spin 9 interceptions in 13 games as a really bad thing is just silly. Russell has never thrown a lot of interceptions. He has always put up lots of yards coupled with great rate stats. On top of that, he has a gaudy winning percentage and an almost unbelievable record of coming through in the clutch. He had eight fourth quarter comebacks in his career, and would have had nine had Iowa not scored on a hail mary.
There is no performance vs. measurables debate with Russell and Quinn. Russell has better numbers and he has better tools. He even has better intangibles and soft leadership skills. The debate between Russell and Quinn has always been completely phony.
Now, Russell and Calvin Johnson…
I don’t really watch the Draft. I like player personnel decision and am actually quite interested in the actions of front offices, but actually sitting down and watching the Draft? That’s just excrutiating. Aside from a morbid fascination with Mel Kiper’s hair, I just can’t bring myself to watch it. Except for the first 15 minutes this year, because I wanted to see JaMarcus Russell go #1.
Most of the commentary made me happy. They talked about how great he was, his record as a starter (25-4), and his extraordinary physical tools (as if he’s ever going to be asked to throw a 60 yard pass from his knees). Ron Jaworksi, who I believe is the best NFL analyst on TV, called Russell the only franchise QB in this draft. High praise indeed. So I want to be clear, I’m not talking about some sort of ESPN conspiracy to badmouth LSU. That doesn’t exist except in the heads of some fans who equate any criticism with “bashing”. With that caveat in mind, I hate how there is this false debate between Quinn and Russell as a continuation of the stats vs. scouts argument.
I’m a stats guy. I think a player’s 40-time and his bench press are certainly relevant pieces of information, but take a backseat to the basic question: can he play football? Which means I like guys who have a record of performance. While it is possible for a successful college player to bomb in the pros, it is extremely unlikely for a player to fail in college and then succeed in the pros. The first thing I look at when evaluating a player in the Draft is simple: what has this guy done?
And the general storyline is that Quinn put up the big numbers in college, and Russell has the “tools” with mediocre numbers. Quinn is the, for lack of a better term, the “Moneybal” player and Russell is the tools goof. That general storyline is flat-out wrong. Russell’s numbers are unbelievably good.
232-342, 67.8%, 3129 yds, 28 TD/8 INT, 167.0 Rating, 9.15 yds/att
289-467, 61.9%, 3426 yds, 37 TD/7 INT, 146.7 Rating, 7.34 yds/att
That’s Russell vs. Quinn. Both players put up huge numbers, and I won’t even getting into an adjustment for playing in the SEC versus Notre Dame’s schedule. It took Quinn 125 more passes to throw for just 297 more yards. Russell completed a staggering 67.8% of his passes, which is so ridiculously high I can’t understand why people aren’t more impressed by it. And its not like he’s a dink and dunk passer. Every time Russell drops back to throw, he’s worth 9.15 yards to Quinn’s 7.34. Russell is worth almost two more yards a play. That’s a chasm.
Columnist love to point to the TD/INT ratio, but the key number is not the TD’s but the INT’s. Are we really supposed to reward Quinn because the Irish had an absolutely anemic running game and had to pass if there were ever going to score? TD’s are a usage stat, like saves or RBIs. It’s the INT’s we should focus on, and it’s a dead heat between the two. Russell doesn’t just have the tools, he has better numbers than Quinn as well.
Which leads to the next layer of the argument against Russell, that he is a one-year wonder. Like his previous season was poor or something. His 2005 numbers?
188-311, 60.5%, 2443 yds, 15 TD/9 INT, 136.6 Rating, 7.86 yds/att
Same completion percentage as Quinn, and a similar QB Rating and yards attempt. OK, Quinn has the TD advantage and the INT advantage, but it’s not like Rusell’s numbers were terrible. They compare quite favorable to Quinn’s 2006 numbers. And the way people are trying to spin 9 interceptions in 13 games as a really bad thing is just silly. Russell has never thrown a lot of interceptions. He has always put up lots of yards coupled with great rate stats. On top of that, he has a gaudy winning percentage and an almost unbelievable record of coming through in the clutch. He had eight fourth quarter comebacks in his career, and would have had nine had Iowa not scored on a hail mary.
There is no performance vs. measurables debate with Russell and Quinn. Russell has better numbers and he has better tools. He even has better intangibles and soft leadership skills. The debate between Russell and Quinn has always been completely phony.
Now, Russell and Calvin Johnson…
Light bloggin - quick hits
Some quick hits on the draft:
- Congratulations to Craig Davis, who I think will be a very solid player, and who I think fits perfectly into the situation in San Diego.
- I'm not at all surprised or disappointed that the Saints went with a receiver. For all the talk of needing defense, I don't think people realize that Devery Henderson is entering the season as the Saints' #2 wide receiver. Ouch. Finding a productive wide receiver was probably the single biggest immediate need the Saints had remaining after signing a solid CB and a solid LB during free agency. Robert Meachem underachieved for much of his career at Tennessee, but broke out in a big way in 2006 with 71 catches for over 1,200 yards. I like the pick.
- If you want a receiver who probably was picked too late, how about Steve Smith from USC? He was a 3-year starter who caught 20 touchdown passes and had almost 3000 yards receiving in his career, despite being 2nd banana to Mike Williams and Dwayne Jarrett his entire career. He went in the middle of the second round.
- How did Georgia's Charles Johnson slip so far? Every time I saw Georgia play, Johnson was the best player on the field. He was a monster at rushing the passer. I hate to see a Division rival get better, but I have to think that Carolina got a steal by getting him in the middle of the third round.
- The Saints appear to be going heavy on the small schools, drafting a corner out of Kent State and a guard out of Akron. With a receiver in the fold, it was not necessary to get immediate contributors with these picks, so we could afford to take a chance.
- The Saints' biggest needs are now probably depth at defensive tackle and depth at linebacker. We have two picks in the 4th round, and we can get players at both of those positions. With my big-school, SEC bias (born out of ignorance of other systems), I'm hoping Brandon Siler is around when the Saints pick again. I'm very surprised he's still there, as I thought he would be picked in the second. Earl Everette, also of Florida, is still there as well.
- I don't have a problem if the Saints pick Marcus Thomas, the troubled defensive tackle from Florida. Yes, he's a major head case, but he's a first round talent at a position of need who could be available when we pick in the 5th round. We'd have to pick a second DT though, just in case he decides he'd rather go on a crack bender than show up to practice.
- Whatever happened to Quentin Culberson from Mississippi State? That dude was good, but he isn't even in nfl.com's list of Mississippi State's prospects. I checked, and he was senior last year. I don't get it.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Light blogging
There will be light blogging for the near future. There are several reasons:
As an LSU fan, you can watch and marvel as 3 LSU players will likely be drafted in the first round, including likely #1 overall pick Jamarcus Russell. Laron Landry will be drafted in the top 10, and Dwayne Bowe will be drafted in the mid-to-late first round. At least another three will likely be drafted later in the draft.
Look for Craig Davis to be taken in the second round, perhaps late in the 1st round, but that's unlikely. Jessie Daniels, Chase Pittman (no relation), Justin Vincent, Daniel Francis, Peter Dyakowski, and Brian Johnson also could be drafted. This draft will see anywhere from 5 to 10 LSU players drafted, though 10 is very unlikely.
The part of me that is a combination LSU-fan and Saints fan would really like for the Saints to be in position to draft Dwayne Bowe, but it's unlikely that he will fall all the way to the Saints' pick at #27. Craig Davis will likely be available then, but that's really too high to pick him, and he probably won't be available when the Saints pick in the second round.
I don't know if the Saints are even looking at those guys, but I would love to see one of those guys in a Saints uniform.
- I have taken my small, young family to Louisiana to go on the "Baby Tour", bringing our child to friends and relatives who have not yet seen her.
- Not a lot is going on at the moment LSU-wise, except for the NFL Draft. Everyone is pretty much done with their Spring practices. We're entering kind of a dead period for football news.
As an LSU fan, you can watch and marvel as 3 LSU players will likely be drafted in the first round, including likely #1 overall pick Jamarcus Russell. Laron Landry will be drafted in the top 10, and Dwayne Bowe will be drafted in the mid-to-late first round. At least another three will likely be drafted later in the draft.
Look for Craig Davis to be taken in the second round, perhaps late in the 1st round, but that's unlikely. Jessie Daniels, Chase Pittman (no relation), Justin Vincent, Daniel Francis, Peter Dyakowski, and Brian Johnson also could be drafted. This draft will see anywhere from 5 to 10 LSU players drafted, though 10 is very unlikely.
The part of me that is a combination LSU-fan and Saints fan would really like for the Saints to be in position to draft Dwayne Bowe, but it's unlikely that he will fall all the way to the Saints' pick at #27. Craig Davis will likely be available then, but that's really too high to pick him, and he probably won't be available when the Saints pick in the second round.
I don't know if the Saints are even looking at those guys, but I would love to see one of those guys in a Saints uniform.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Tuberville sucks?
No he doesn't. A lot of people here seem to think so, but I think by any objective measure you have to say that Tommy Tuberville is probably as good of a coach as there is in the SEC.
Let's look at the last five years of SEC football. Auburn's record is 50-14 in that time. LSU is 52-13 over the same span. Alabama's record over that same span is 36-27. Of course, Bama was ravaged by sanctions during most of that time.
Auburn won the SEC West twice in that time, and had an undefeated season: the only SEC team to do so in that span.
Alright, so Auburn has had the best or second best SEC West program over the last 5 years. Why does that mean that Tuberville is such a good coach? My answer to that is simple. If recruiting is the life-blood of a football program, Auburn has been anemic compared to LSU. Here is Auburn's recruiting breakdown over the same span of time (according to Rivals):
2003 (after 2002 season): 1 five-star, 6 four-stars, 17 three-stars, and 3 two-stars, average: 3.19
2004: 0 five-stars, 4 four-stars, 10 three-stars,13 two-stars, average: 2.67
2005: 1 five-star, 7 four-stars, 10 three-stars, 3 two-stars, average: 3.29
2006: 1 five-star, 14 four-stars, 7 three-stars, 3 two-stars, average: 3.52
2007: 0 five-stars, 13 four-stars, 15 three-stars, 2 two-stars, average: 3.37
Over the same time period, LSU has done significantly better in terms of getting the top level recruits into the organization. We have recruited 9 five-star players, 67 four-stars, 41 three-stars, and only 1 two-star. Our overall average is 3.71 stars per recruit. Our overall average rating of our recruits over a 5 year period is better than Auburn average in any one year. And yet, Auburn's record is very close to ours over that same period, and they are 3-2 against us head-to-head in that time period.
If you accept the notion that star-ratings are based on overall athleticism, then Tuberville, using less athletic players, has done almost as well as LSU.
Wait, but doesn't that just mean that Tuberville is a bad recruiter compared to LSU's recruiters?
No, it doesn't. Recruiting doesn't happen in a vacuum. Recruiting is not a level playing field. LSU has recruiting advantages based as much on geography as anything else. Advantages Auburn doesn't share.
LSU: only major football program in the state.
Auburn: shares the state with one of the most storied programs in the country, a school which is beloved by the overwhelming majority of the state.
LSU: rabidly supported by most of its home state.
Auburn: rabidly despised by a significant percentage of its home state.
LSU: one hour drive from New Orleans.
Auburn: one hour drive from... Montgomery.
All of these translate to recruiting disadvantages, which are then manifested in less effective recruiting. Auburn has to compete for every in-state prospect with a more beloved and more storied program. Auburn probably has to convince a number of born-and-raised Bama fans to not just bypass Bama, but to go to Bama's biggest rival every single year. That's gotta be tough. If you gave Tuberville the geographic advantages that are present at LSU, what would happen? I don't know and neither does anyone else.
I don't really like Tuberville very much. I don't like how he allowed his players to smoke cigars on the field at Tiger Stadium after their last win there. I don't like his smug attitude. I do, however, think he's a great coach. He's probably the best coach in the SEC.
And now the guy I think is the best coach in the SEC West is going against the guy who built LSU into the powerhouse it is. I think Tuberville is overall a better coach than Saban, but Saban has a recruiting advantage over Auburn (though LSU has a recruiting advantage over both). It'll be fun to watch.
Let's look at the last five years of SEC football. Auburn's record is 50-14 in that time. LSU is 52-13 over the same span. Alabama's record over that same span is 36-27. Of course, Bama was ravaged by sanctions during most of that time.
Auburn won the SEC West twice in that time, and had an undefeated season: the only SEC team to do so in that span.
Alright, so Auburn has had the best or second best SEC West program over the last 5 years. Why does that mean that Tuberville is such a good coach? My answer to that is simple. If recruiting is the life-blood of a football program, Auburn has been anemic compared to LSU. Here is Auburn's recruiting breakdown over the same span of time (according to Rivals):
2003 (after 2002 season): 1 five-star, 6 four-stars, 17 three-stars, and 3 two-stars, average: 3.19
2004: 0 five-stars, 4 four-stars, 10 three-stars,13 two-stars, average: 2.67
2005: 1 five-star, 7 four-stars, 10 three-stars, 3 two-stars, average: 3.29
2006: 1 five-star, 14 four-stars, 7 three-stars, 3 two-stars, average: 3.52
2007: 0 five-stars, 13 four-stars, 15 three-stars, 2 two-stars, average: 3.37
Over the same time period, LSU has done significantly better in terms of getting the top level recruits into the organization. We have recruited 9 five-star players, 67 four-stars, 41 three-stars, and only 1 two-star. Our overall average is 3.71 stars per recruit. Our overall average rating of our recruits over a 5 year period is better than Auburn average in any one year. And yet, Auburn's record is very close to ours over that same period, and they are 3-2 against us head-to-head in that time period.
If you accept the notion that star-ratings are based on overall athleticism, then Tuberville, using less athletic players, has done almost as well as LSU.
Wait, but doesn't that just mean that Tuberville is a bad recruiter compared to LSU's recruiters?
No, it doesn't. Recruiting doesn't happen in a vacuum. Recruiting is not a level playing field. LSU has recruiting advantages based as much on geography as anything else. Advantages Auburn doesn't share.
LSU: only major football program in the state.
Auburn: shares the state with one of the most storied programs in the country, a school which is beloved by the overwhelming majority of the state.
LSU: rabidly supported by most of its home state.
Auburn: rabidly despised by a significant percentage of its home state.
LSU: one hour drive from New Orleans.
Auburn: one hour drive from... Montgomery.
All of these translate to recruiting disadvantages, which are then manifested in less effective recruiting. Auburn has to compete for every in-state prospect with a more beloved and more storied program. Auburn probably has to convince a number of born-and-raised Bama fans to not just bypass Bama, but to go to Bama's biggest rival every single year. That's gotta be tough. If you gave Tuberville the geographic advantages that are present at LSU, what would happen? I don't know and neither does anyone else.
I don't really like Tuberville very much. I don't like how he allowed his players to smoke cigars on the field at Tiger Stadium after their last win there. I don't like his smug attitude. I do, however, think he's a great coach. He's probably the best coach in the SEC.
And now the guy I think is the best coach in the SEC West is going against the guy who built LSU into the powerhouse it is. I think Tuberville is overall a better coach than Saban, but Saban has a recruiting advantage over Auburn (though LSU has a recruiting advantage over both). It'll be fun to watch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
