Author
Topic: How to assess teams preseason ...
(Read 5654 times)

bayareabadger · « **Reply #14 on:** May 23, 2019, 03:51:14 PM »

I steal from Bill Connelly. A blend of recent success, recruiting rankings and returning production. I think he’s delved more into the finer points of that last one.

Oh, and it’s all kinda a dumb crapshoot. Having good players mostly helps.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #15 on:** May 23, 2019, 03:57:37 PM »

I think "we" can reliably choose 7-8 of the top ten teams each year. That's better than shooting craps. These days you might just take last year's final top ten and use that and be in pretty good shape, say picking 5-6 of the final TT. Does anyone think either Bama or Clemson is likely to finish out of the TT?

Anonymous Coward · « **Reply #16 on:** May 23, 2019, 04:07:10 PM »

There's a good chance Bill Connelly has the best track record in town.

bayareabadger · « **Reply #17 on:** May 23, 2019, 04:37:26 PM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on May 23, 2019, 03:57:37 PM

I think "we" can reliably choose 7-8 of the top ten teams each year. That's better than shooting craps. These days you might just take last year's final top ten and use that and be in pretty good shape, say picking 5-6 of the final TT. Does anyone think either Bama or Clemson is likely to finish out of the TT?

I should phrase it like this, the overall outcome is not a crapshoot, but the finer points are.

Like if I say, this team should be good because it returns a solid seasoned QB, a lot of linemen, six really good defensive players and a schedule that seems favorable, I’m likely gonna get a weird blend of them. Some will be important, some less so.

Like if I went into a lot of years saying Wisconsin will win 9ish game, I’m right. But of I said how, chances are it would be sort of mix of right, sort of right and wrong.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #18 on:** May 23, 2019, 04:53:08 PM »

Quite a few critical games each season are decided by "flukes", unusual or unexpected plays the bounce one way or the other. At times, a good team will have say four "real games" and win three of them, when they almost lost three of them.

mcwterps1 · « **Reply #19 on:** May 23, 2019, 05:39:37 PM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on May 23, 2019, 01:11:41 PM

If what is the case?

"What do you think about when looking at the top 15-20 teams out there?"

I refuse to follow your silly rules.

I'm using your guidelines for how good ANY TEAM can be.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #20 on:** May 23, 2019, 08:48:05 PM »

My "silly rules" were laid out in my initial premise. They are not meant to be applied to teams ranked 60th or wherever for a good reason.

If you want to alter the premise and explain yourself, by all means have at it.

You have a chance to clarify your rather enigmatic post.

bayareabadger · « **Reply #21 on:** May 24, 2019, 12:28:12 AM »

So this is interesting, I looked at No. 1, the solid retiring QB with experiance.

Of the final top-10, the experiance factor was low. Georgia had the best with a true sophomore. Beyond him, Texas had a true sophomore who was a halftime starter and posted a 124.1 rating the year prior. The top six all had new starters with scant experiance. Florida has a guy who was bad. Washington State has a grad transfer with a 3-14 record in the AAC.

I looked at Athlon’s list of top QBs coming in, and you had a mix. A lot of top guys led teams between 10-20. Tua was an outlier. Tate, Lock, Herbert, Stidham, Fitzgerald and Lewerke made top-12.

I wonder if QB feels like a stronger indicator than it is. Like it’s pretty good, maybe not great.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #22 on:** May 24, 2019, 07:22:48 AM »

Yeah, it could be, I noted quite a few QBs fresh out of HS seem able to do quite well these days, probably because they are so much better prepared than 20 years ago.

It's not a negative of course to have a guy back who is good and has experience, but perhaps it's somewhat over rated? A FNG means a "crap shoot", but he could turn out to be very good or every remarkably good.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #23 on:** May 24, 2019, 08:55:51 AM »

My modified criteria, in order of importance:

1. Returning OLmen who were good last year. This can compensate for an inexperienced QB to an extent and make a decent RB look really good. If 3-4 return and 1-2 were all conference, really good sign.*

3. Consistency. If the team has recruited well and has finished top ten over the past 5 year period or so, it's obvious they likely will finish there again. This also applies to coaching.

3. Solid returning QB with experience. A highly regarded FNG can be given some "points", and we fairly often today see an FNG QB do really well, but it's harder to predict.

4. Defensive starters returning, especially experience in the secondary.

5. Schedule. Each team typically has 4-5 "loseable games" each season, if they are top ten material. Some of these games can be decided by a late fumble or penalty or whatever and end up as a loss even by the better team. This doesn't relate to how good a team is but does relate to how it gets ranked.

*I also think a good OL lessens the chance of an inferior team coming up with an upset. The great OL should be able to control the clock and open lanes etc. to enable the good team to just wear out the motivated but lesser talented teams.

mcwterps1 · « **Reply #24 on:** May 24, 2019, 10:14:47 AM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on May 23, 2019, 08:48:05 PM

My "silly rules" were laid out in my initial premise. They are not meant to be applied to teams ranked 60th or wherever for a good reason.

If you want to alter the premise and explain yourself, by all means have at it.

You have a chance to clarify your rather enigmatic post.

LOL

This isn't the political board.

I just took your rules and applied them to our team.

Good OL, not great that I'm aware, because we lost 2 to the NFL, but great highly sought after OL replace them, with experience.

Our RB situation is awesome. Sorry. I guess they're sleeping on them again.

Looks like Josh Jackson, (ex-Hokie and considered the best QB on paper compared since Scott McBrien), will be the QB.

So, that's the offense.

Defense is the wild card, but they're beefier.

Hung with Ohio State, like I said they would before the year started, and was laughed at.

So yeah, with the distractions gone, plenty of NFL talent that DJ Durkin recruited, enthusiasm for Locksley and his Alabama/Saban like teachings, it's quite possible that we could be a contender.

Personally though, I like the underdog role.

Don't get so whiny about your "rules". It was TIC.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #25 on:** May 24, 2019, 10:29:45 AM »

I don't see many boxes I outlined being checked at all for Maryland.

mcwterps1 · « **Reply #26 on:** May 24, 2019, 10:39:14 AM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on May 24, 2019, 10:29:45 AM

I don't see many boxes I outlined being checked at all for Maryland.

Literally checks off most of your "boxes".

Locks as a HC is the only factor.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #27 on:** May 24, 2019, 11:34:57 AM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on May 24, 2019, 08:55:51 AM

For Maryland, according to your post:

1. Returning OLmen who were good last year. Lost two to the NFL, remainder good but not great.

3. Consistency. Not much.

3. Solid returning QB with experience. Zero.

4. Defensive starters returning, especially experience in the secondary. Beefier defense, a wild card. Nothing on secondary.

5. Schedule. Not mentioned, but they would play OSU/PSU/UM/MSU at minimum.

Which boxes did you think were checked?

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.

Topic: How to assess teams preseason ...

bayareabadger

Re: How to assess teams preseason ...

Cincydawg

Re: How to assess teams preseason ...

Anonymous Coward

Re: How to assess teams preseason ...

bayareabadger

Re: How to assess teams preseason ...

Cincydawg

Re: How to assess teams preseason ...

mcwterps1

Re: How to assess teams preseason ...

Cincydawg

Re: How to assess teams preseason ...

bayareabadger

Re: How to assess teams preseason ...

Cincydawg

Re: How to assess teams preseason ...

Cincydawg

Re: How to assess teams preseason ...

mcwterps1

Re: How to assess teams preseason ...

Cincydawg

Re: How to assess teams preseason ...

mcwterps1

Re: How to assess teams preseason ...

Cincydawg

Re: How to assess teams preseason ...