This is exactly why I hate the internet. This bullshit tit-for-tat that masquerades as discussion. I wish I had real people to talk to. Do you really care what I think about your post? I doubt it. But here you go, if you do. (This is giving me leviathan shivers. Creepy.)
What I find interesting is your willingness to bury your head in the sand, figuratively speaking.
I don't know what this means.
You claim this statistic as an indicator we're a good offense despite all the evidence to the contrary and, when it's exposed that you're wrong, you make posts like the above.
I think we played great in several games this year. Granted, it was mainly in games we won, which I realize means nobody cares. But I enjoyed those games, and I think we played well. And I think our offense has been pretty good this year. I'm less bothered by the fact that we lost today (I think we all expected that, in our hearts) and more bothered by how we lost.
We didn't get outmanned on every play. We missed reads, missed blocks, and lollygagged around the bases for much of they day.
For everyone saying the guys didn't give up... I think once we got behind significantly – really, when they were scoring so very easily – the wind went out of our sails. We lost energy and focus. That's totally on the coach, IMHO, and has nothing to do with scheme at all.
You're wrong. We didn't play poorly.
No, you're wrong. We did play poorly. (The internet is awesome.)
We played exactly to our capabilities.
I don't know what this means. Apparently you use the word "capabilities" differently than I do.
Playing poorly would be fumbling the ball.
Playing poorly would also be missing reads, missing blocks, not shedding tackles, etc. What a strange thing to be arguing about.
We are a poor offense which relies too heavily on executing 3 to 4 plays perfectly to get first downs against average or better defenses.
I don't believe you know enough about CPJ's schemes to know what you're looking at. I certainly don't.
Over the course of a full series, the margin of error is too small to expect consistent success especially against better teams.
It is always impossible to expect consistent success against better teams. That's what makes them better teams. (Unless you're Nick Saban, obvs. There are no better teams when compared to any Nick Saban team.)
The result is our statistics are inflated against the poor teams on our schedule and our deviation when facing good teams is more exaggerated than the oversimplified statistics would suggest.
Of course all statistics omit something. There's no number which perfectly captures all there is to know about a team. But 'oversimplified' stats are things like total yards and points scored, which do not account for strength of opponent, number of possessions, etc. The whole point of footballoutsiders is that they try to come up with stats that take such things into consideration, to give you more useful numbers. I don't know if their methodology is proprietary, but I certainly don't have the energy to figure it out. But I do know one of their stats specifically takes into account strength of opponent defense, to minimize the variability you lament. If you don't like their stat, that's fine. Come up with some others and explain why they're better. Or just keep relying on the ol' eye test, if you want.
At the end of the day, the same statistics you've used to argue that we're a good offense will still say that we are after today. Maybe not as good, but still top 25 in those categories. So, do you still believe we're a top 25 offense?
Sure, why not? You think a top 25 offense *just wouldn't* have a game like today? I can show you plenty that do.
