With the new NCAA rule changes, many teams, including UVA and Richmond started practice yesterday, a full 10 days before we're scheduled to start on Aug. 7th. Will be interesting to see if the earlier start pays off, or results in more preseason injuries/burnout.
2007: Predicted last in the division, finished 5th in the division
2008: Predicted 5th in the division, finished 4th in the division
2009: Predicted 5th in the division, finished 2nd in the division
2010: Predicted 2nd in the CAA, finished 1st
2011: Predicted 1st in the CAA, finished 7th
2012: Predicted 7th, finished 9th
2013: Predicted 9th, finished 6th
2014: Predicted 4th, finished 5th
2015: Predicted 4th, finished 3rd
2016: Predicted 2nd, finished 8th
The good news is that 6 out of 10 seasons they exceeded their poll prediction. The bad news is that other than 2009 (and maybe 2013, though W&M wasn't particularly good that year) their performance was a slight over-performance. The "W&M does well when the polls are against them" meme is probably overstated.
Also interesting that 3 times in the last 10 years W&M's been picked to finish 1st or 2nd in the CAA. They lived up to the billing in 2010. 2011 was undone by Dr. Nick Riviera's surgery on Paulus after the 2010 season, and 2016 was wrecked by a lot of things. It appears that if the other coaches think W&M has a functional QB, they like W&M.
Are these composite rankings or Sporting News rankings or AP/Coaches Polls? I'm not disputing the results, but I wonder if any of them have been more accurate than others with regard to W&M.
Rocco - How hard is it to go back further? Say, back to 1980 - Laycock's first year? (Impressions die hard; perhaps the impression is still accurate if the sample size is larger).
(07-30-2017 05:13 PM)Rocco Wrote: 2007: Predicted last in the division, finished 5th in the division
2008: Predicted 5th in the division, finished 4th in the division
2009: Predicted 5th in the division, finished 2nd in the division
2010: Predicted 2nd in the CAA, finished 1st
2011: Predicted 1st in the CAA, finished 7th
2012: Predicted 7th, finished 9th
2013: Predicted 9th, finished 6th
2014: Predicted 4th, finished 5th
2015: Predicted 4th, finished 3rd
2016: Predicted 2nd, finished 8th
The good news is that 6 out of 10 seasons they exceeded their poll prediction. The bad news is that other than 2009 (and maybe 2013, though W&M wasn't particularly good that year) their performance was a slight over-performance. The "W&M does well when the polls are against them" meme is probably overstated.
Also interesting that 3 times in the last 10 years W&M's been picked to finish 1st or 2nd in the CAA. They lived up to the billing in 2010. 2011 was undone by Dr. Nick Riviera's surgery on Paulus after the 2010 season, and 2016 was wrecked by a lot of things. It appears that if the other coaches think W&M has a functional QB, they like W&M.
It is challenging to think of a year where we had a functional (read: good) QB that we didn't have a great year. I've only been around a little over a decade so my sample size is smaller, but as our QB goes, so goes our team.
(07-30-2017 11:26 PM)Zorch Wrote: Rocco - How hard is it to go back further? Say, back to 1980 - Laycock's first year? (Impressions die hard; perhaps the impression is still accurate if the sample size is larger).
It's way more work than I care to do when it's just going to be ignored anyway.
I would say that every team in America depends on their QB to have success.
Youth doesn't always equal struggle. If I remember correctly when Lee went down for JMU, Schorr stepped in as a freshman with no experience and JMU didn't skip a beat offensively.
Conversely, when Lauretta went down last year, there was a huge drop off in offensive performance.
The QB role is a very important role on any team. The Ravens won a SB with a very average QB. The defense allowed the offense to stay in their comfort zone and this limited mistakes. They didn't score a lot of points, but they didn't have too.
The pressure is not and should not fall on one person/one position.
If we have success this year it will be because each position group performs well. Everyone does their job better the the guy across from them. If we struggle it will be because we don't. It's a team.
If our QB is struggling our RBs and WRs need to make plays, our line needs to give him another second or open up holes. The defense needs to create 3 and outs.
It's a team sport. Let's give who ever gets the nod some time to adjust and grow into the role. Maybe he'll need 3 games, 3 quarters or maybe it might be 3 series.
If our QBs struggle we are in big trouble. We can't just run it into the line 40 times a game and win much. College football is all about chunk plays. Our defense won't be able to handle a lot of four and outs by the offense.
(07-30-2017 11:26 PM)Zorch Wrote: Rocco - How hard is it to go back further? Say, back to 1980 - Laycock's first year? (Impressions die hard; perhaps the impression is still accurate if the sample size is larger).
It's way more work than I care to do when it's just going to be ignored anyway.
Aww, don't be like that. Zorch and NJ A responded. That's at least two who didn't ignore you.
(07-31-2017 09:19 AM)tribefbfan Wrote: Let's give who ever gets the nod some time to adjust and grow into the role. Maybe he'll need 3 games, 3 quarters or maybe it might be 3 series.
How about 3 plays? Or is that asking too much?
Rocco -- No problem, I don't blame you for not taking the effort. I'm just too lazy and ignorant of where to go to do it myself. If it was easy any of us could have done it. :o)
(07-31-2017 06:35 AM)nj alum Wrote: The impression is correct. Rocco's numbers verify it.
2007-2009, 2012, 2013.
Four out of five years Tribe picked for second division finish (not top half), and did much better than expected, three times ending up in top half.
(07-30-2017 05:13 PM)Rocco Wrote: 2007: Predicted last in the division, finished 5th in the division
2008: Predicted 5th in the division, finished 4th in the division
2009: Predicted 5th in the division, finished 2nd in the division
2012: Predicted 7th, finished 9th
2013: Predicted 9th, finished 6th
Better than expected for 07-09, but 2008 was basically as predicted and 2007 still wasn't good. I don't know why you're referencing 2012 or 2013.
(07-30-2017 11:26 PM)Zorch Wrote: Rocco - How hard is it to go back further? Say, back to 1980 - Laycock's first year? (Impressions die hard; perhaps the impression is still accurate if the sample size is larger).
It's way more work than I care to do when it's just going to be ignored anyway.
I appreciate the effort. Your stat posts are some of the best non-billymac posts on here.
(07-30-2017 11:26 PM)Zorch Wrote: Rocco - How hard is it to go back further? Say, back to 1980 - Laycock's first year? (Impressions die hard; perhaps the impression is still accurate if the sample size is larger).
It's way more work than I care to do when it's just going to be ignored anyway.
I appreciate the effort. Your stat posts are some of the best non-billymac posts on here.
My point was that people's minds are made up on this one, which is fine. Blind faith is a good thing sometimes.
Our minds aren't the ones that need to be made up. Besides, we all know that 2-3 guys need to be ready to run our offense as the starter on day one may not be our #1 guy week 5 or 10.
Richmond tickets through us, as well as, on their site are $40. Ouch!!
Just a reminder for folks who don't have season tics, if you need JMU/homecoming tics, better act fast, since individual tics went on sale today, and expect JMU buying at a fast rate.
