(07-23-2015 01:21 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(07-23-2015 12:09 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(07-23-2015 11:44 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(07-23-2015 09:03 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(07-23-2015 08:55 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  If our defense takes a step back like many are predicting Lynch will need to make plays and not just be a game manager. With 2 years of experience he should be able to make complex reads and keep the chains moving.

Not just a game manager? Keep the chains moving? Seriously? We scored 36 points per game last year, and were held under 24 points only twice. We were without our top running backs and had a good but not great receiving corps.

Not sure of your point. So you are saying he was more than just a game manager and will continue to need to do so like I just said. That he should not have to be careful of not making mistakes and make plays because we will need to score. Nowhere did I say he was a GAME MANGER last year.

You love to argue...Go Away.

And your statement about us missing our top RBs is misplaced as we still led the league in rushing and ran the ball 594 times to passing 418...If you watched the games you would understand that we were a run first team. But keep on keep on...And again GO AWAY

Lynch is much more than a game manager and makes a ton of plays every game, so that statement makes no sense whatsoever. Why would you even bring it up?; it is irrelevant.

Quote:your statement about us missing our top RBs is misplaced

Well, no it isn't at all. First of all, we were missing our two best options, so it is the truth. Second, we would have had more rushing yards if either were available. Hayes was great in relief, but Dorceus was obviously quite a bit better, and Craft was also better than Hayes.

I'm not arguing at all; I am stating facts. Sorry to keep dismantling everything you post.

A game manager is asked not to make mistakes hence my response to a poster saying Lynch cant make mistakes...But again you don't get to see much football so I could see why you would think it is irrelevant.

As far as the running stats, lets break it down for someone who doesn't understand football...

We are a running team...We ran the ball 180 times more than we threw the ball...If you watched the games you would know that. Add to that the 100+ more times we throw screens which is essentially a running play counted as a pass and we are running 380 times more than we pass (running ~70%). Missing our top running backs did not change our strategy and did not put more pressure on lynch to throw the ball. We still were a running team. So why would Lynch be the one you attribute scoring on a team that essentially runs the ball almost 70% of the time.

Lynch was second on the team in rushing attempts, with the bulk of them in short yardage, especially near the goal line. This skewed the statistics dramatically. If you had the capacity to understand anything, that would make sense to you. We didn't have a wide open offense, but Lynch certainly wasn't coddled and he didn't dump the ball off all the time as you suggest.

Quarterbacks who had little or no running ability like Wimprine and Hankins would be throwing on a lot of the downs that Lynch ran for first downs or touchdowns. When he did throw, he averaged about a yard less than Wimprine did his senior year, even though Wimprine had one of the best receiver corps in the program's history.

Quote:Add to that the 100+ more times we throw screens

Apparently, all Lynch did was run, hand the ball off or throw 5 yard passes. Another one of our posters, dumping on our quarterback. Sad.

(07-22-2015 10:45 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  I think 10-2 is likely. Anything worse than 8-4 means team under performed, 11-1 or better means we kept moving forward. Cincinnati, Houston, Temple could hinge on turnovers, Ole Miss an obvious upset if we win. And Navy, don't overlook them, because we don't face that option offense could also be a challenge where we just have to outscore them. We won several games last year not because we had better talent but because we had the better team and because Fuente knows how to play it close to the vest yet pull out wins. Hope we keep moving forward this year.

It's hard to say. Maybe we overachieved last year. Maybe the new players will take a bit of time to gel. Our defense was very good last year, but I still thought that our defensive backs were susceptible to getting beaten deep. It wouldn't surprise me if we take our lumps in the secondary unless Fuente finds a way to get a good pass rush out of the new wave of players.

On the other hand, the players improved so much under Fuente, that it wouldn't surprise me if he develops the young guys just as well as he did with last year's team.

Simply making a bowl is a good thing - we need to remember that. We aren't too far removed from some sorry football...

(07-23-2015 02:11 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(07-23-2015 01:21 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(07-23-2015 12:09 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(07-23-2015 11:44 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(07-23-2015 09:03 AM)Stammers Wrote:  Not just a game manager? Keep the chains moving? Seriously? We scored 36 points per game last year, and were held under 24 points only twice. We were without our top running backs and had a good but not great receiving corps.

Not sure of your point. So you are saying he was more than just a game manager and will continue to need to do so like I just said. That he should not have to be careful of not making mistakes and make plays because we will need to score. Nowhere did I say he was a GAME MANGER last year.

You love to argue...Go Away.

And your statement about us missing our top RBs is misplaced as we still led the league in rushing and ran the ball 594 times to passing 418...If you watched the games you would understand that we were a run first team. But keep on keep on...And again GO AWAY

Lynch is much more than a game manager and makes a ton of plays every game, so that statement makes no sense whatsoever. Why would you even bring it up?; it is irrelevant.

Quote:your statement about us missing our top RBs is misplaced

Well, no it isn't at all. First of all, we were missing our two best options, so it is the truth. Second, we would have had more rushing yards if either were available. Hayes was great in relief, but Dorceus was obviously quite a bit better, and Craft was also better than Hayes.

I'm not arguing at all; I am stating facts. Sorry to keep dismantling everything you post.

A game manager is asked not to make mistakes hence my response to a poster saying Lynch cant make mistakes...But again you don't get to see much football so I could see why you would think it is irrelevant.

As far as the running stats, lets break it down for someone who doesn't understand football...

We are a running team...We ran the ball 180 times more than we threw the ball...If you watched the games you would know that. Add to that the 100+ more times we throw screens which is essentially a running play counted as a pass and we are running 380 times more than we pass (running ~70%). Missing our top running backs did not change our strategy and did not put more pressure on lynch to throw the ball. We still were a running team. So why would Lynch be the one you attribute scoring on a team that essentially runs the ball almost 70% of the time.

Lynch was second on the team in rushing attempts, with the bulk of them in short yardage, especially near the goal line. This skewed the statistics dramatically. If you had the capacity to understand anything, that would make sense to you. We didn't have a wide open offense, but Lynch certainly wasn't coddled and he didn't dump the ball off all the time as you suggest.

Quarterbacks who had little or no running ability like Wimprine and Hankins would be throwing on a lot of the downs that Lynch ran for first downs or touchdowns. When he did throw, he averaged about a yard less than Wimprine did his senior year, even though Wimprine had one of the best receiver corps in the program's history.

Quote:Add to that the 100+ more times we throw screens

Apparently, all Lynch did was run, hand the ball off or throw 5 yard passes. Another one of our posters, dumping on our quarterback. Sad.

Silly arguments and I don't know why I bother...DUMPING...Find one negative thing I have said about Lynch in this post. I posted factual statements stating we were a run first team. You tried to turn it into a negative.

Secondly if you understood football and how stats are collected you would know why Lynch's yards per carry are low and it is not because he mainly ran near the goal line or in short yardage...LOL...But as usual if something doesn't fit your narrative you make something up.

GO AWAY.

it's fun how every fan of every team all thinks his/her team will go 10-2 in the preseason...and even gives good reasons in a game by game breakdown.

then reality sets in...we can't all go 10-2.

I see 8 wins for you guys.

7 wins is a let down
9+ is a surprise

(07-25-2015 08:48 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  it's fun how every fan of every team all thinks his/her team will go 10-2 in the preseason...and even gives good reasons in a game by game breakdown.

then reality sets in...we can't all go 10-2.

I see 8 wins for you guys.

7 wins is a let down
9+ is a surprise

7 wins = a let down for ridiculous Tiger fans.

This program has not reached the point where 7 wins is a let down, no matter how lofty our expectations are...

Here is a cool website with a breakdown of all the Memphis teams throughout time.

http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/memphis/

(07-22-2015 02:25 AM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  Any where between 6-10 wins depending on which Lynch shows up. If he stays with in the game plan and does not try to do too much we can win 10 again. If we have too many of the Houston type games where he tries to do things he cannot do and turns it over 4 times. Then we could end up at 500.

That's not really fair is it. He had one bad game all season. The rest of the year he was pretty good. Plus I'm sure he will improve over last year as well. So I really don't think you can question his play.

(07-25-2015 10:47 AM)HometownTiger Wrote:  

(07-25-2015 08:48 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  it's fun how every fan of every team all thinks his/her team will go 10-2 in the preseason...and even gives good reasons in a game by game breakdown.

then reality sets in...we can't all go 10-2.

I see 8 wins for you guys.

7 wins is a let down
9+ is a surprise

7 wins = a let down for ridiculous Tiger fans.

This program has not reached the point where 7 wins is a let down, no matter how lofty our expectations are...

7 wins will be kind of a let down. Should win 8 or 9. 10 won't be a surprise. A one loss or better team certainly would be. 10 or more wins and we're almost definitely looking for a new coach.

(07-21-2015 04:48 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  10-2.

After we win the conference championship and bowl game, 12-2.

Book it.

Same as last year, coaching makes the difference.

UNDEFEATED until bowl championship series 13-1

I'll guess 8-4.

3 of the first 5 are on the road and with an inexperienced defense that will have to learn quickly.

Then the bye week leading into Ole Miss.

That's a tough early schedule given the inexperience level on one side of the ball.

Will have to win a few shootouts early IMO.

(07-26-2015 04:46 PM)Briskbas Wrote:  

(07-25-2015 10:47 AM)HometownTiger Wrote:  

(07-25-2015 08:48 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  it's fun how every fan of every team all thinks his/her team will go 10-2 in the preseason...and even gives good reasons in a game by game breakdown.

then reality sets in...we can't all go 10-2.

I see 8 wins for you guys.

7 wins is a let down
9+ is a surprise

7 wins = a let down for ridiculous Tiger fans.

This program has not reached the point where 7 wins is a let down, no matter how lofty our expectations are...

7 wins will be kind of a let down. Should win 8 or 9. 10 won't be a surprise. A one loss or better team certainly would be. 10 or more wins and we're almost definitely looking for a new coach.

I just think any season that ends with bowl eligibility (in this case 1 game over) should be considered a success, instead of a let down.

7 regular season wins = a winning season regardless of bowl results. That's not a let down, IMO.

(07-28-2015 09:57 AM)HometownTiger Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 04:46 PM)Briskbas Wrote:  

(07-25-2015 10:47 AM)HometownTiger Wrote:  

(07-25-2015 08:48 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  it's fun how every fan of every team all thinks his/her team will go 10-2 in the preseason...and even gives good reasons in a game by game breakdown.

then reality sets in...we can't all go 10-2.

I see 8 wins for you guys.

7 wins is a let down
9+ is a surprise

7 wins = a let down for ridiculous Tiger fans.

This program has not reached the point where 7 wins is a let down, no matter how lofty our expectations are...

7 wins will be kind of a let down. Should win 8 or 9. 10 won't be a surprise. A one loss or better team certainly would be. 10 or more wins and we're almost definitely looking for a new coach.

I just think any season that ends with bowl eligibility (in this case 1 game over) should be considered a success, instead of a let down.

7 regular season wins = a winning season regardless of bowl results. That's not a let down, IMO.

Yep.

Especially if they are in every game (no blowouts) and they win the bowl game...I don't see how anyone could see like 7-6 or 8-5 being a letdown.

It sets the table for a pretty good team the following season as well.

(07-28-2015 09:57 AM)HometownTiger Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 04:46 PM)Briskbas Wrote:  

(07-25-2015 10:47 AM)HometownTiger Wrote:  

(07-25-2015 08:48 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  it's fun how every fan of every team all thinks his/her team will go 10-2 in the preseason...and even gives good reasons in a game by game breakdown.

then reality sets in...we can't all go 10-2.

I see 8 wins for you guys.

7 wins is a let down
9+ is a surprise

7 wins = a let down for ridiculous Tiger fans.

This program has not reached the point where 7 wins is a let down, no matter how lofty our expectations are...

7 wins will be kind of a let down. Should win 8 or 9. 10 won't be a surprise. A one loss or better team certainly would be. 10 or more wins and we're almost definitely looking for a new coach.

I just think any season that ends with bowl eligibility (in this case 1 game over) should be considered a success, instead of a let down.

7 regular season wins = a winning season regardless of bowl results. That's not a let down, IMO.

Agree.

My heart says 11-1. My brain, though, says 8-4..
I see losses at Bowling Green, home against Ole Miss, home against Cincy, and.....I think Houston gets us once again..

(07-23-2015 01:21 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(07-23-2015 12:09 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(07-23-2015 11:44 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(07-23-2015 09:03 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(07-23-2015 08:55 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  If our defense takes a step back like many are predicting Lynch will need to make plays and not just be a game manager. With 2 years of experience he should be able to make complex reads and keep the chains moving.

Not just a game manager? Keep the chains moving? Seriously? We scored 36 points per game last year, and were held under 24 points only twice. We were without our top running backs and had a good but not great receiving corps.

Not sure of your point. So you are saying he was more than just a game manager and will continue to need to do so like I just said. That he should not have to be careful of not making mistakes and make plays because we will need to score. Nowhere did I say he was a GAME MANGER last year.

You love to argue...Go Away.

And your statement about us missing our top RBs is misplaced as we still led the league in rushing and ran the ball 594 times to passing 418...If you watched the games you would understand that we were a run first team. But keep on keep on...And again GO AWAY

Lynch is much more than a game manager and makes a ton of plays every game, so that statement makes no sense whatsoever. Why would you even bring it up?; it is irrelevant.

Quote:your statement about us missing our top RBs is misplaced

Well, no it isn't at all. First of all, we were missing our two best options, so it is the truth. Second, we would have had more rushing yards if either were available. Hayes was great in relief, but Dorceus was obviously quite a bit better, and Craft was also better than Hayes.

I'm not arguing at all; I am stating facts. Sorry to keep dismantling everything you post.

A game manager is asked not to make mistakes hence my response to a poster saying Lynch cant make mistakes...But again you don't get to see much football so I could see why you would think it is irrelevant.

As far as the running stats, lets break it down for someone who doesn't understand football...

We are a running team...We ran the ball 180 times more than we threw the ball...If you watched the games you would know that. Add to that the 100+ more times we throw screens which is essentially a running play counted as a pass and we are running 380 times more than we pass (running ~70%). Missing our top running backs did not change our strategy and did not put more pressure on lynch to throw the ball. We still were a running team. So why would Lynch be the one you attribute scoring on a team that essentially runs the ball almost 70% of the time.

And yet-you still miss Stammers' point. WE WOULD HAVE BEEN EVEN BETTER.

Focus, man. You're arguing to argue. There's really nothing to argue about.

(07-28-2015 10:31 AM)Pastnerized Wrote:  

(07-23-2015 01:21 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(07-23-2015 12:09 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(07-23-2015 11:44 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(07-23-2015 09:03 AM)Stammers Wrote:  Not just a game manager? Keep the chains moving? Seriously? We scored 36 points per game last year, and were held under 24 points only twice. We were without our top running backs and had a good but not great receiving corps.

Not sure of your point. So you are saying he was more than just a game manager and will continue to need to do so like I just said. That he should not have to be careful of not making mistakes and make plays because we will need to score. Nowhere did I say he was a GAME MANGER last year.

You love to argue...Go Away.

And your statement about us missing our top RBs is misplaced as we still led the league in rushing and ran the ball 594 times to passing 418...If you watched the games you would understand that we were a run first team. But keep on keep on...And again GO AWAY

Lynch is much more than a game manager and makes a ton of plays every game, so that statement makes no sense whatsoever. Why would you even bring it up?; it is irrelevant.

Quote:your statement about us missing our top RBs is misplaced

Well, no it isn't at all. First of all, we were missing our two best options, so it is the truth. Second, we would have had more rushing yards if either were available. Hayes was great in relief, but Dorceus was obviously quite a bit better, and Craft was also better than Hayes.

I'm not arguing at all; I am stating facts. Sorry to keep dismantling everything you post.

A game manager is asked not to make mistakes hence my response to a poster saying Lynch cant make mistakes...But again you don't get to see much football so I could see why you would think it is irrelevant.

As far as the running stats, lets break it down for someone who doesn't understand football...

We are a running team...We ran the ball 180 times more than we threw the ball...If you watched the games you would know that. Add to that the 100+ more times we throw screens which is essentially a running play counted as a pass and we are running 380 times more than we pass (running ~70%). Missing our top running backs did not change our strategy and did not put more pressure on lynch to throw the ball. We still were a running team. So why would Lynch be the one you attribute scoring on a team that essentially runs the ball almost 70% of the time.

And yet-you still miss Stammers' point. WE WOULD HAVE BEEN EVEN BETTER.

Focus, man. You're arguing to argue. There's really nothing to argue about.

LOL...The point of talking about rushing is saying Lynch was not the "Lynchpen" of the offense. We are a RUN FIRST team.

Holy cow. Run first or pass first. You still miss a simple (to comprehend) point.
How much cement do you eat daily?