Just in case you're curious, the determinations made in my last post were made by analyzing a series of factors about various players. I looked mainly at players' past production, and then asked if there was any reliable reason to believe that production would drop or increase. I basically eliminated inexperienced players from consideration in deciding who the best players are. Sure, it is possible that Matt Stafford or Tim Tebow will be better QB's this year than Blake Mitchell (but not Andre Woodson, most likely), but I'm not going to go out on a limb and predict it.
I basically asked myself the question: if I was putting together a team this year, which Eastern Division QB, RB, and WR would I want. The answers were Woodson, Boyd, and Bennett. Not Tebow, Coker, and Harvin. You're free to disagree if you want.
Also in case you're curious, here's my results when thinking about the SEC West.
Quarterback: Tough call. The Mississippi QBs were terrible last year. Casey Dick really had pretty decent rate statistics if you exclude the abysmal LSU game, but he was only a part-time starter on a running team, and you really shouldn't exclude the abysmal LSU game. Flynn has never been a full-time starter. Wilson was only average last year, but may improve in his second year as a starter. Brandon Cox was also very average, but he had the excuse of playing very hurt most of the year. I'll take Cox in a squeaker over John Parker Wilson.
Running Back: Easy one. Darren McFadden of Arkansas. The second pick would probably be Felix Jones of Arkansas. It really is incredible how much better Arkansas's running game was than ever other team in the conference last year. It remains to be seen if it can be as good this year after losing so many starting offensive linemen. After that, there's a decent group of guys that I think are more or less even at this point, such as Keiland Williams, BenJarvus Green-Ellis, and Brad Lester.
Wide Receiver: Early Doucet, LSU. Actually, Marcus Monk of Arkansas may be the best receiver in the conference, but he's never had a QB who could consistently get him the ball, so it's really hard to evaluate. Knowing what Doucet can do, I'd take him over Monk. DJ Hall of Alabama would be 3rd.
I think Andre Woodson is the best QB in the conference, and it's not particularly close. I think Darren McFadden is the best RB in the conference, and it's not particularly close. It's a lot closer at Wide Receiver, and I think I'd take Doucet over Earl Bennett in a squeaker.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Friday, May 18, 2007
Why the East Will be Exciting
The competitiveness of the East is one of the reasons I'm really looking forward to football season this year. Want to have a short list of reasons why the East will be so much fun this year? Here is my list of the best skill position players by position:
Best Quarterback: Andre Woodson, Kentucky
Best Running Back: Corey Boyd, South Carolina
Best Wide Receiver: Earl Bennett, Vanderbilt
You heard me. None of the best skill position players come out of the tradition Big Three of Florida, Tennessee, and Georgia. And really, the only argument here is at Wide Receiver. Percy Harvin and Andre Caldwell of Florida could have a claim on the #1 returning receiver spot, but Earl Bennett had more receiving yards and almost as many catches as the two of them combined last year.
What's more, the second best quarterback is probably Blake Mitchell of South Carolina. The second best running back is arguably Cason Jackson-Garrison of Vandy, but is more likely Lamarcus Coker of Tennessee.
That's why the East is going to be so fun this year. South Carolina is arguably the pre-season favorite to win the division. Kentucky, though not particularly good, is dangerous and capable of pulling an upset on anyone because Andre Woodson is so good. Even Vandy has a legitimate chance at a winning season and a bowl appearance if Chris Nickson develops as a quarterback.
So, happy watching this year.
Best Quarterback: Andre Woodson, Kentucky
Best Running Back: Corey Boyd, South Carolina
Best Wide Receiver: Earl Bennett, Vanderbilt
You heard me. None of the best skill position players come out of the tradition Big Three of Florida, Tennessee, and Georgia. And really, the only argument here is at Wide Receiver. Percy Harvin and Andre Caldwell of Florida could have a claim on the #1 returning receiver spot, but Earl Bennett had more receiving yards and almost as many catches as the two of them combined last year.
What's more, the second best quarterback is probably Blake Mitchell of South Carolina. The second best running back is arguably Cason Jackson-Garrison of Vandy, but is more likely Lamarcus Coker of Tennessee.
That's why the East is going to be so fun this year. South Carolina is arguably the pre-season favorite to win the division. Kentucky, though not particularly good, is dangerous and capable of pulling an upset on anyone because Andre Woodson is so good. Even Vandy has a legitimate chance at a winning season and a bowl appearance if Chris Nickson develops as a quarterback.
So, happy watching this year.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Whimsical Thursday
It completely slipped my mind that it was Wednesday yesterday. Hence, you got no Whimsical Wednesday. Today will be Whimsical Thursday.
At the risk of eroding my alt-rock street cred, I will reveal that one of my favorite bands is The Cranberries. Yes, I really like a good pop song, and I think The Cranberries put together a rock melody with catchy lyrics as well as anyone.
It upset me for years that The Cranberries just unceremoniously disappeared from the scene. They faded away as '90s rock faded away, leaving me thinking they'd left something on the table. I simply always thought Delores O'Riordan had more good music in her.
Then I found out two days ago that Delores O'Riordan is coming out with a solo album. Unfortunately, my source of this news angered me by saying, "She has always sounded like Alanis Morissette and Lisa Loeb." I literally exclaimed at the television. First of all, Alanis Morissette and Lisa Loeb sound nothing like each other, and neither sounds like Delores O'Riordan. AM sounds angsty and screechy. LL has a pretty voice, but it is straight chick folk rock. DO'R has a distinct Irish brogue that comes through even in her singing, without sounding angsty or folky.
Here's a collection of videos:
LINGER
For some reason, that video of Linger seems to have the video and music off-sync. I don't know if it's just for me though.
Dreams - my personal favorite of their songs.
Zombie - rockin' out a little, but honestly the video looks a little ridiculous now.
Ridiculous Thoughts - with Elijah Wood
Free to Decide
At the risk of eroding my alt-rock street cred, I will reveal that one of my favorite bands is The Cranberries. Yes, I really like a good pop song, and I think The Cranberries put together a rock melody with catchy lyrics as well as anyone.
It upset me for years that The Cranberries just unceremoniously disappeared from the scene. They faded away as '90s rock faded away, leaving me thinking they'd left something on the table. I simply always thought Delores O'Riordan had more good music in her.
Then I found out two days ago that Delores O'Riordan is coming out with a solo album. Unfortunately, my source of this news angered me by saying, "She has always sounded like Alanis Morissette and Lisa Loeb." I literally exclaimed at the television. First of all, Alanis Morissette and Lisa Loeb sound nothing like each other, and neither sounds like Delores O'Riordan. AM sounds angsty and screechy. LL has a pretty voice, but it is straight chick folk rock. DO'R has a distinct Irish brogue that comes through even in her singing, without sounding angsty or folky.
Here's a collection of videos:
LINGER
For some reason, that video of Linger seems to have the video and music off-sync. I don't know if it's just for me though.
Dreams - my personal favorite of their songs.
Zombie - rockin' out a little, but honestly the video looks a little ridiculous now.
Ridiculous Thoughts - with Elijah Wood
Free to Decide
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
How to read
Whenever I write predictions or analysis of future games, I am usually careful to couch it in terms of what could happen or what will probably happen. I do this intentionally because I am a firm believer in the concept that the future is not predetermined, especially in sports, and even if it is predetermined, the future is not knowable with certainty.
Sometimes, though, when I write a pessimistic post either here or somewhere else about what might happen, someone inevitably misreads it. They may read a statement to the effect of, "I think we have to be worried about our quarterback play because we don't know how Matt Flynn will handle the full-time starter job," and somehow misread this as, "Matt Flynn sucks. We are doomed."
They may read a statement to the effect of, "South Carolina is better than a lot of people think," and somehow misread this as, "South Carolina will beat us by 40."
Does everyone see the differences between the statements in those examples? In the first, I am presenting QB play as a potential problem while people interpret that to say that our quarterback will be terrible. It's the difference between might and will. In the second, I am saying that South Carolina is a good team, while people are reading into it that I think South Carolina is a much better team than us. My statement is about South Carolina. The interpretation is about both South Carolina and LSU. The leap is unwarranted.
It always amazes me when people don't get that. I can't tell you how many times I've said something to the effect of, "It wouldn't shock me if [some generally unexpected event occurred]," only to have to defend my statement against angry people who insist on arguing as if I said, "You are foolish if you don't think [some generally unexpected event] will definitely happen."
Is it because of the dumbing down of the American school system? Is it because of some kind of hyper-confrontational streak in Americans these days? Is it because my legal training emphasized precise wording that I unreasonably expect others to respond only to what I say rather than what they think I say?
What bothers me is that I am so careful about what I say when I make predictions or analyze teams and players. I deliberately avoid making definitive predictions about things like that, and I don't like when other analysts do it. Why am I expected to have a definitive answer to the question of who will win a key matchup? I especially dislike that this has become such an important and big part of morning preview shows like GameDay. Analysts substitute predictions for useful analysis, and trash talking for insight. I don't find it entertaining, and as a result I stopped watching GameDay entirely before last season started. I don't miss it one bit.
I guess this analyzing style has become so ubiquitous that fans don't know how to process something different, and that's why I get treated like Lee Corso sometimes.
So, I encourage you to read and hear only what is actually said, and when I say something that sits wrong with you, relax and read it again. I may have said something entirely different from what you think.
Sometimes, though, when I write a pessimistic post either here or somewhere else about what might happen, someone inevitably misreads it. They may read a statement to the effect of, "I think we have to be worried about our quarterback play because we don't know how Matt Flynn will handle the full-time starter job," and somehow misread this as, "Matt Flynn sucks. We are doomed."
They may read a statement to the effect of, "South Carolina is better than a lot of people think," and somehow misread this as, "South Carolina will beat us by 40."
Does everyone see the differences between the statements in those examples? In the first, I am presenting QB play as a potential problem while people interpret that to say that our quarterback will be terrible. It's the difference between might and will. In the second, I am saying that South Carolina is a good team, while people are reading into it that I think South Carolina is a much better team than us. My statement is about South Carolina. The interpretation is about both South Carolina and LSU. The leap is unwarranted.
It always amazes me when people don't get that. I can't tell you how many times I've said something to the effect of, "It wouldn't shock me if [some generally unexpected event occurred]," only to have to defend my statement against angry people who insist on arguing as if I said, "You are foolish if you don't think [some generally unexpected event] will definitely happen."
Is it because of the dumbing down of the American school system? Is it because of some kind of hyper-confrontational streak in Americans these days? Is it because my legal training emphasized precise wording that I unreasonably expect others to respond only to what I say rather than what they think I say?
What bothers me is that I am so careful about what I say when I make predictions or analyze teams and players. I deliberately avoid making definitive predictions about things like that, and I don't like when other analysts do it. Why am I expected to have a definitive answer to the question of who will win a key matchup? I especially dislike that this has become such an important and big part of morning preview shows like GameDay. Analysts substitute predictions for useful analysis, and trash talking for insight. I don't find it entertaining, and as a result I stopped watching GameDay entirely before last season started. I don't miss it one bit.
I guess this analyzing style has become so ubiquitous that fans don't know how to process something different, and that's why I get treated like Lee Corso sometimes.
So, I encourage you to read and hear only what is actually said, and when I say something that sits wrong with you, relax and read it again. I may have said something entirely different from what you think.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Being there
Up at the top of this blog, it says my writing will be in part about "life in enemy territory." I've done precious little writing on what it's like to be a Baton Rouge-area native and LSU fan in Tuscaloosa, Alabama
For the most part it's not bad.
I wear LSU gear sometimes, and I've never been hassled for it. Rarely does anyone give me a hard time. Of course, Bama has only beaten LSU in football once since I moved here in 2002. I imagine it could get worse if that turns around.
I can get Popeye's chicken now, though Cal's donuts still elude me. (Krispie Kreme is nasty crap if you ask me).
I think Bama fans tend to be better informed about football than is typical. I think they better know how the game is played and what is important. I doubt I'd talk to a lot of Bama fans who would mock the idea that a running back's poor pass blocking abilities might relegate him to the bench, like has happened to me in a discussion with an LSU fan.
I have talked about Bama fans sometimes being a little overconfident. That's not that common, though. Most Bama fans I know understand that the football team does not have the talent to be an elite team right now. If Bama fans have lofty expectations, it's not about where they are now. It's about where they should be, or will be in the future. They understand that while the team isn't that good right now, they fully expect to be an SEC and national contender in a few years.
I think that's ultimately what cost Mike Shula his job. While the loss to Mississippi State, an inferior team, certainly hurt, I think the biggest problem Shula had was that there seemed to be little prospect that he would bring Bama consistently into the upper reaches of the SEC. So, he left and they got someone else.
I'm not convinced that Bama will ever be one of the consistently strong teams in the SEC, but they expect it here. If they ever get there again, I wonder what it will be like to live here.
For the most part it's not bad.
I wear LSU gear sometimes, and I've never been hassled for it. Rarely does anyone give me a hard time. Of course, Bama has only beaten LSU in football once since I moved here in 2002. I imagine it could get worse if that turns around.
I can get Popeye's chicken now, though Cal's donuts still elude me. (Krispie Kreme is nasty crap if you ask me).
I think Bama fans tend to be better informed about football than is typical. I think they better know how the game is played and what is important. I doubt I'd talk to a lot of Bama fans who would mock the idea that a running back's poor pass blocking abilities might relegate him to the bench, like has happened to me in a discussion with an LSU fan.
I have talked about Bama fans sometimes being a little overconfident. That's not that common, though. Most Bama fans I know understand that the football team does not have the talent to be an elite team right now. If Bama fans have lofty expectations, it's not about where they are now. It's about where they should be, or will be in the future. They understand that while the team isn't that good right now, they fully expect to be an SEC and national contender in a few years.
I think that's ultimately what cost Mike Shula his job. While the loss to Mississippi State, an inferior team, certainly hurt, I think the biggest problem Shula had was that there seemed to be little prospect that he would bring Bama consistently into the upper reaches of the SEC. So, he left and they got someone else.
I'm not convinced that Bama will ever be one of the consistently strong teams in the SEC, but they expect it here. If they ever get there again, I wonder what it will be like to live here.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Caught sleeping
I didn't update yesterday because I really had nothing worthwhile to talk about. This of course leads to the almost unsupportable proposition that on other days I have something "worthwhile" to talk about. But I digress.
We're expected to be a very good team this year. I agree with that expectation. While there is the prospect that certain things will fail to fall into place, leading to great disappointment, I think the most likely scenario is that we end up being a very good team. Yes, we could even challenge for the SEC and national championship (more on that in coming days/weeks).
We will have titanic home struggles against the likes of Auburn and Florida. We will also have a tough early-season matchup against Virginia Tech, which may be the most anticipated non-conference game in all of college football this year. We also play the new Saban-led Bama here in Tuscaloosa this year; a game that is sure to have lots of drama and attention.
If you're looking for a "lesser" game to trip us up, I have a couple for you:
This year will be different. Kentucky has the best quarterback in the conference. South Carolina has tremendous skill-position players, a lot of experience returning, and some real playmakers on defense.
Blake Mitchell, as established, was the 2nd most effective QB in the league on a per play basis. He loses his most talented receiving target in Sidney Rice, but returns Kenny McKinley, whose numbers last year were excellent in the #2 role. Also returning is arguably the 3rd best running back in the country in Corey Boyd. The defense will be solid with the return of Jasper Brinkley at linebacker and his twin brother Casper. Don't overlook the return of kicker/punter Ryan Succop, who didn't miss an extra point or a field goal from under 40 yards last year, all while punting for a 44 yard average without putting the ball in the end zone once.
These players return to a team that only had one bad loss in 2006, and played Florida, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Auburn close.
This is a team that, if its offensive line is good, and if it can find a solid #2 receiving target, is a really good team. We really need to be looking at this game as a big matchup, especially if they manage to beat Georgia on September 8, which could be their coming-out party. If they win that game, I think they challenge for the division title. They will have to overcome a tough road schedule though, which includes games in Baton Rouge, Athens, Fayetteville, and Knoxville (and in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, but I'm not counting that one).
The good thing is that game is sandwiched between games against Middle Tennessee State and Tulane. We won't be beaten up, and we won't be looking ahead. We should be up and ready for this game.
Andre Woodson makes Kentucky dangerous. Finding a running game would make Kentucky REALLY dangerous. I don't know if they can do it, but that Kentucky game sits between games against Auburn and Florida. If there is any game in which we will be either beaten up or looking ahead, it will be the Kentucky game. Put that game on the road against a dangerous QB, and there is the potential of trouble. I think we're a lot better than Kentucky, but if we aren't ready for them, they can beat us.
The good news is that Kentucky had a poor running game, a poor defense, and poor pass protection last year. That's pretty much every phase of the game other than passing and special teams. (Special teams weren't that great either). The weakness showed as LSU beat Kentucky 49-0 at home, but Woodson alone was good enough to lead Kentucky to a bowl game, and a bowl win. I don't think you can ever say a team with a QB that good doesn't have a chance, particularly given where Kentucky falls on the schedule.
So, definitely look forward to the big matchups, but don't forget about these two.
We're expected to be a very good team this year. I agree with that expectation. While there is the prospect that certain things will fail to fall into place, leading to great disappointment, I think the most likely scenario is that we end up being a very good team. Yes, we could even challenge for the SEC and national championship (more on that in coming days/weeks).
We will have titanic home struggles against the likes of Auburn and Florida. We will also have a tough early-season matchup against Virginia Tech, which may be the most anticipated non-conference game in all of college football this year. We also play the new Saban-led Bama here in Tuscaloosa this year; a game that is sure to have lots of drama and attention.
If you're looking for a "lesser" game to trip us up, I have a couple for you:
- September 22: Home game against South Carolina
- October 13: Road game against Kentucky
This year will be different. Kentucky has the best quarterback in the conference. South Carolina has tremendous skill-position players, a lot of experience returning, and some real playmakers on defense.
Blake Mitchell, as established, was the 2nd most effective QB in the league on a per play basis. He loses his most talented receiving target in Sidney Rice, but returns Kenny McKinley, whose numbers last year were excellent in the #2 role. Also returning is arguably the 3rd best running back in the country in Corey Boyd. The defense will be solid with the return of Jasper Brinkley at linebacker and his twin brother Casper. Don't overlook the return of kicker/punter Ryan Succop, who didn't miss an extra point or a field goal from under 40 yards last year, all while punting for a 44 yard average without putting the ball in the end zone once.
These players return to a team that only had one bad loss in 2006, and played Florida, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Auburn close.
This is a team that, if its offensive line is good, and if it can find a solid #2 receiving target, is a really good team. We really need to be looking at this game as a big matchup, especially if they manage to beat Georgia on September 8, which could be their coming-out party. If they win that game, I think they challenge for the division title. They will have to overcome a tough road schedule though, which includes games in Baton Rouge, Athens, Fayetteville, and Knoxville (and in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, but I'm not counting that one).
The good thing is that game is sandwiched between games against Middle Tennessee State and Tulane. We won't be beaten up, and we won't be looking ahead. We should be up and ready for this game.
Andre Woodson makes Kentucky dangerous. Finding a running game would make Kentucky REALLY dangerous. I don't know if they can do it, but that Kentucky game sits between games against Auburn and Florida. If there is any game in which we will be either beaten up or looking ahead, it will be the Kentucky game. Put that game on the road against a dangerous QB, and there is the potential of trouble. I think we're a lot better than Kentucky, but if we aren't ready for them, they can beat us.
The good news is that Kentucky had a poor running game, a poor defense, and poor pass protection last year. That's pretty much every phase of the game other than passing and special teams. (Special teams weren't that great either). The weakness showed as LSU beat Kentucky 49-0 at home, but Woodson alone was good enough to lead Kentucky to a bowl game, and a bowl win. I don't think you can ever say a team with a QB that good doesn't have a chance, particularly given where Kentucky falls on the schedule.
So, definitely look forward to the big matchups, but don't forget about these two.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Some of the McKnight fallout
For those of you who don't follow recruiting, Louisiana produced an incredibly good crop of college football recruits last year. It was good at the top, and it was deep. LSU's recruiting class as a result was one of the best in the nation.
There was a downside though. The very best prospect in the state, and according to one publication the very best in the country, chose to sign with USC rather than LSU. He announced his decision on National Signing Day. His name is Joe McKnight.
Among the many (many) things this caused, it caused bad feelings between LSU supporters and the head coach of his high school football team. He has been accused of deliberately pushing the kid away from LSU. One variation on this story is that while he did not deliberately push the kid away from LSU, he didn't deliberately push him towards LSU either.
Personally, I don't think it's right for a high school football coach to "push" a kid anywhere, whether it's to the state school or away from the state school. It just isn't the right thing to do. It isn't right for a high school coach to pressure a kid to make such a big decision based on how it helps or hurts the coach.
Am I suggesting that a kid's high school coach should stay out of this process? No, I am not. The coach can feel free to give the kid the benefit of his years of experience in the business. He can give the kid the benefit of his knowledge of the coaches in question and the feedback of other kids who may have gone to the same institution. He can be a guide. He shouldn't be a svengali. If I may use yet another metaphor, he should not be a puppetmaster pulling the kid's strings.
Having a high school football coach run a kid's life into adulthood is even worse than when a parent does it, and parents shouldn't do it either.
There was a downside though. The very best prospect in the state, and according to one publication the very best in the country, chose to sign with USC rather than LSU. He announced his decision on National Signing Day. His name is Joe McKnight.
Among the many (many) things this caused, it caused bad feelings between LSU supporters and the head coach of his high school football team. He has been accused of deliberately pushing the kid away from LSU. One variation on this story is that while he did not deliberately push the kid away from LSU, he didn't deliberately push him towards LSU either.
Personally, I don't think it's right for a high school football coach to "push" a kid anywhere, whether it's to the state school or away from the state school. It just isn't the right thing to do. It isn't right for a high school coach to pressure a kid to make such a big decision based on how it helps or hurts the coach.
Am I suggesting that a kid's high school coach should stay out of this process? No, I am not. The coach can feel free to give the kid the benefit of his years of experience in the business. He can give the kid the benefit of his knowledge of the coaches in question and the feedback of other kids who may have gone to the same institution. He can be a guide. He shouldn't be a svengali. If I may use yet another metaphor, he should not be a puppetmaster pulling the kid's strings.
Having a high school football coach run a kid's life into adulthood is even worse than when a parent does it, and parents shouldn't do it either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
