Burnt Orange Nation: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
New Blog: World Soccer Digest for Soccer Fans!

Blogger Big 12 Preseason Predictions

Big 12 media week has been in full force this week, including the conference's media members voting on various preseason predictions. Wells asked in this thread when us bloggers would be donning our own prognosticatory caps, to which I replied: soon.

And here we are. I sent out an email to all of the Big 12's most active bloggers, asking them to participate in our own version of a community projection for the Big 12 this season.

Almost everyone who I got in touch with got their ballot back, and what follows is the results of our cumulative voting. Special thanks to each of the 16 bloggers who responded: Clone Chronicles, Crimson and Cream Machine, The 12th Manchild, K-State Cat Zone, Double Extra Point, Double T Nation, Off Tackle, 40 Acre Sports, TAMU & Baseball, Big Red Network, Aggie Sports, OU Sooners Blog, Corn Nation, Bevo Sports, Husker Mike, and Rock Chalk Jayhawk.

The Bloggers' Preseason Big 12 Predictions are after the jump. Please note that as the organizer of this vote, BON abstained from voting in this. Our own selections will come in this space in the coming weeks.

See the votes...

Star-divide

Big 12 North Standings

The media goes with Missouri, but the bloggers aren't buying it. My best guess? The bloggers don't trust Gary Pinkel. Hard to blame them, but this is a tough division to call.

Big 12 South Standings

Bloggers basically split between Texas and Oklahoma, with the Sooners receiving one more point of support in the balloting. Again: no shock here. The winner of the Red River Shootout will be heavy favorites to capture the division crown.

All Big 12 Units - Offense

Quarterback: The majority of voters went with McCoy, which isn't a huge risk. McCoy should have beat out Zac Taylor for the conference Offensive POY award last year, and likely would have had he not been injured in Week 11. The strong support for Chase Daniel isn't surprising, either. He's a talented quarterback entering a year when many in his position hit their stride.

Running backs: Texas A&M is the overwhelming consensus here, and for good reason. They had the conference's best 1-2 punch last year, and both return. Token votes for Oklahoma, Texas, and Oklahoma State, who will all field talent in the backrfield, but at least in late July of the year, no one can claim to know they have what A&M does.

Wide Receivers: A smart bunch, these bloggers. The Longhorns' pass catchers receive the most support, followed by Oklahoma. No real controversy here. Both of the South Division's top teams have outstanding receiving talent.

Offensive Line: The Sooners get the bloggers' nod, with A&M not far behind. Tough to argue with this. Both schools return a lot of experience from units which achieved considerable success in 2006.

All Big 12 - Defense

Defensive Line: I was pleasantly surprised to see my blogging brothers vote Texas to this top spot near-unanimously. I clearly agree and look forward to seeing Okam, Lokey, Miller, Lewis, and Orakpo wreak havoc this year. I'm not sure running on Texas is gonna be much easier in 2007 than it was in '06.

Linebackers: Nebraska has your blogger consensus best LB unit, which seems fair. Bo Ruud's a terrific player and should help Nebraska field one of their stronger run-stopping units since Callahan arrived. Surprisingly, Texas got a lot of support at #2. I happen to think our linebacking situation is much better than advertised, but I thought that might be the minority view. My colleagues apparently agree, though.

Defensive Backs: The Sooners swept the first place votes in this category, and it's tough to argue otherwise. Too many question marks in the secondaries across the rest of the conference.

All Big 12 - POY, Offense, Defense, Games

Offensive Player of the Year: Colt McCoy gets the greatest support, and it's easy to see why. Not only was he probably most-deserving of the award last year, but he returns his top six pass catchers from the 2006 season. Colt will have to be outstanding, though, as there's a lot of elite offensive talent in the conference this year. Daniel, Bowman, McGee, Reid, Sweed, and Harrell make for a dynamic bunch of competitors.

Defensive Player of the Year: Reggie Smith and Aqib Talib garner the most blogger support, with Bo Ruud not far behind. I personally think Talib's a truly special player on a subpar team, which makes him both a worthy candidate for this award as well as an unlikely one. Keep an eye on our own Derek Lokey, too - before he broke his leg in 2006, he was wrecking this conference like no one else.

Conference Game of the Year: Voters weren't allowed to choose a game in which their affiliated team was participating, but we get a nice snapshot of the conference's most intriguing matchups. All the nominees (except A&M-Baylor) are must-see games, and a sign of how strong and challenging this conference should be in 2007.

Non-Conference Big 12 Game of the Year: Bloggers couldn't decide between Nebraska-USC, Oklahoma State-Georgia, and Miamia-Oklahoma. (Note: There were three votes for Texas A&M-Miami which was cut off from the posted table.) And it is a tough choice. I'm personally partial to OSU-UGA, if only because it's in the season's first week. Whatever your preference, it's critical that the Big 12 win at least one of those three games. Going 0-3 would really ding this conference's strength in the court of public opinion.

And that's it, kids. I can't even begin to tell you how much work this was to put this together. Without some sort of automated vote counter, it was an exercise in tedium.

Worth it, I think.

And now it's your turn, readers. Commentary? Criticisms? Personal thoughts on the various categories?

Thanks to all who participated.

--PB--

0 recs  |  Comment 43 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Nebraska @ Texas

I can't believe this game didn't get more love. While some might call it a preview of the BigXII championship in December, I'd refer to it as more of a litmus test for the authenticity of a "resurgent North".

Gig'em

by the12thManchild on Jul 26, 2007 6:31 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

I didn't see a newcomer of the year

but I'm guessing everyone thinks it will be Demarco Murray or Sam Keller.

Reggie Smith and the entire OU secondary has been the most overhyped group of the Stoops era. Maybe they'll live up to some of it this season, but all I've seen so far is a bunch of raw athletes getting burned and out of position.
Then again if you had to pick a group from the BIG 12 if not them, then who? Not much to choose from.

BTW, did anyone see the notes from the AAS that Chiles could be moving to WR or returner?

Cats and dogs sleeping together.

by EYESofBEVO on Jul 26, 2007 8:39 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

chiles to WR!?

uhh..so who do yall see as the backup?

After last season, you would think Mack and Davis would have a solid backup in place.

Gig'em

by the12thManchild on Jul 26, 2007 9:04 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Harris

He's solid. Reminds me of James Brown, which as the founding member of the James Brown fan club, I would say is a good thing.

On another note, did any of the bloggers in the BIG 12 pick up on the BIG 10 going after another school next year? Their commish has basically put it out their he's going to pursue a 12th school.
Mizzou would be only choice, with maybe Colorado or Iowa State. I just can't see them taking Mizzou's HS style stadium seriously.

Cats and dogs sleeping together.

by EYESofBEVO on Jul 26, 2007 9:16 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

conference name

what would the big 10's name be if they expanded to 12?

Hook 'em

by TarHorn on Jul 26, 2007 9:35 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Probably the same thing

They didn't change when they added Penn State, so why change with 12?

Cats and dogs sleeping together.

by EYESofBEVO on Jul 26, 2007 9:52 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

logo

they'd have to change their logo because the current one has that 11 in it

by meega on Jul 26, 2007 2:59 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

They could

Try and get ND to drop their independent status, or go with a mid-major.  Toledo has a decent program, or the could go with Miami-Ohio.

I just don't see any of the other BCS teams jumping ship to join tOSU & Michigan.

by orangeblood1 on Jul 26, 2007 9:22 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

ND would never join the Big10

If they ever joined a conference, it'd be the Big Eas(y)t

by DogTown on Jul 26, 2007 12:32 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Sherrod Harris

Would likely be the guy if Chiles switches to WR.

by orangeblood1 on Jul 26, 2007 9:16 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I saw those notes

and I love the comment Lokey made about being the FB in the "Jumbo Package" (goal line offense). He said that he loves being the "battering ram" which I personally think is an awesome (read: anti-Melton) mentality to have.

...til Gabriel blows his horn

by BigTexBD on Jul 26, 2007 1:43 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Texas @ TAMU?

How can Texas @ OK State score higher than Texas @ Texas A&M for intra-conf. game?  It's not even a 'rivalry' game.

by HookeminOKC on Jul 26, 2007 10:52 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

it's not about

whether it's a rivalry game.

Texas versus Oklahoma State may be a game that determines the winner of the Big 12 South. That's why it's important.

OSU is getting better. You guys have many question marks. To be blunt, I think most of the people who are ranking Texas in their top five are doing so because it's an easy ranking. I don't believe you'll finish that high, in fact, I believe the Horns will struggle this season.

Go Big Red Nebraska!
Corn Nation - Graduating more of our players than you are!

by cornnation on Jul 26, 2007 12:35 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Not to mention

the spectacular games between UT and OSU over the past 2-3 years.

by cliffaudit on Jul 26, 2007 1:04 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Cannot wait to hear from the voters!

I'm excited about hearing why Texas Tech will go from:

  1. Best offense in the Big 12 by 86 yards a game
  1. Best offense in the Big 12 by 142 yards a game
  1. Best offense in the Big 12 by 36 yards a game
  1. 2nd Best offense in the Big 12 behind UT by .6 yards a game
  1. Best offense in the Big 12 by 20 yards a game

to 4th best offense in the Big 12 behind OSU and Texas A&M. But this year will be different, since we're shackled by a returning quarterback for the first time since 2002, and that clearly was a disaster.

What do I know, I'm just a partisan.

by Red Blooded on Jul 26, 2007 11:07 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Is yards per game

the only measure of best offense?

by Wells on Jul 26, 2007 11:57 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

No.

by Red Blooded on Jul 26, 2007 12:05 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

We could use scoring, for example

and in that same time period we've never finished below A&M, below OSU just once, and beaten Texas 3 times since 2002.

None of which guarantees anything in 2007, but I'm still interested in hearing an explanation for why 2007 will differ dramatically from recent history.

by Red Blooded on Jul 26, 2007 12:08 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Tech's bar is higher than everyone else

It's very simple. Every one of those seasons, Tech failed to win the Big 12 South. Everyone knows that Tech's offense is going to put up tons of yardage, tons of points.

It hasn't mattered in the overall scheme of things. If Tech scores 95 points a game, and their opponents score 96, who the heck cares how many points and yards Tech generates, it hasn't made a difference in the win column.

If it were all about offense, Harrell would have been chosen the Big 12 Offensive Player of the year. I explain why he's not a little further here.

Go Big Red Nebraska!
Corn Nation - Graduating more of our players than you are!

by cornnation on Jul 26, 2007 12:38 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Re:
Everyone knows that Tech's offense is going to put up tons of yardage, tons of points.
Apparently not, because OSU, Texas, and A&M are all listed as Better Offenses above.
It hasn't mattered in the overall scheme of things. If Tech scores 95 points a game, and their opponents score 96, who the heck cares how many points and yards Tech generates, it hasn't made a difference in the win column.
It's made a huge difference in the win column. With inferior talent, Texas Tech has remained a consistent winner under Mike Leach because of the offensive production. 32-25 and 42-22 are the respective records since 2002 of Nebraska and Texas Tech. I would argue that the South is a stronger conference as well. Tech has been a consistently competitive team in the Big 12, and your insistence that our offense "hasn't mattered" is hyperbole.

To answer your question, I care how many points Texas Tech scores.

I'm not saying Graham Harrell deserves an automatic Big 12 offensive player nod. My specific question here relates to why Texas Tech is picked as the fourth best offense in the Big 12. That seems to run contrary to recent history and reason, in my opinion.

Out of curiosity, where did you place Texas Tech as an offense?

by Red Blooded on Jul 26, 2007 1:15 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

probably around fourth

You're missing my point about where I picked these teams. In terms of sheer offensive output, Tech is at the top. However that has not translated to winning the Big 12 South, nor will it this season.

Why? Because Tech's defense isn't that good. Therefore they are forced into scoring a lot of points just to win games. Compare them with Oklahoma, who's defense is damned good. OU won't need near as much offensive output to win games and therefore win the Big 12 South.  

That's why I would probably rank OU's offense ahead of Tech, because even though they may put up less numbers and less points, their offensive output is much more important for them to win games. If they can score 21-24 points in every game this coming season, they'll probably win them all.

If it were all about sheer numbers, yardage, TD's, etc, then Tech's offense would be up there. But for me, it's not. It's about winning the Big 12 South (or North) for that matter.

Tech's offense only matters in the frame that it's there to product. When Tech gets a defense that can shut down the rest of the Big 12, they will destroy everyone in college football. Hence, their offense doesn't matter that much.

Go Big Red Nebraska!
Corn Nation - Graduating more of our players than you are!

by cornnation on Jul 26, 2007 2:19 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

You and I have a philosophical disagreement, then

When someone asks me "Is offense X better than offense Y" I don't immediately imagine the two team's defenses. I just wonder, were I to be a defense, would I rather play X or Y. Whichever one isn't chosen is better.

It's strange that Nebraska's offense, which didn't crack the top 6 above, didn't penalize its defense in the same manner you seem to think Tech's defense penalizes its offense.

I'm not afraid to say I think, based off what you've said here, that you simply answered the question incorrectly. Your definition of offense includes defense. How is that different from ranking teams overall? If you admit that Tech is the most productive offense, that you predict them to be the best offense in the league, then you should've voted that way.

Why include a "Best Defense Category" at all if you were going to use the "Best Offense Category" to rate the Red Raiders defense?

by Red Blooded on Jul 26, 2007 2:25 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I have to agree...

with the resident tortilla thrower. Tech's offense should be considered the top, or atleast at the top.

The only knock could be the inconsistancy or the bad situations it puts the defense in through turnovers or quick 3-and-outs. But looking purely at offensive output, its hard to beat TT.

PB, publish the votes. Expose the quacks.

by WacArnolds on Jul 26, 2007 3:40 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think

He is arguing for offensive efficiency. Since Tech's style on offense and on defense tend to create a faster paced game and Tech has more possessions per game they should have more yards and points.

by billb on Jul 26, 2007 4:16 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Is it true, though?

The difference in plays between Texas Tech and Texas in overall plays, over the course of a 13 game 2006 season, was ~20 offensive plays (in Tech's favor).

Speaking only to the OSU and A&M issue, Tech had 875 offensive plays in 2006, and managed 5874 yards. That's ~6.7 yards a play. A&M had 870 plays for 5166 yards for ~5.9 yard a play. Regardless of possessions -- which I don't have the data for -- or plays -- which were comparable -- Tech was more efficient per play.

For OSU that's 843 plays for 5327 yards, or ~6.3 yards a play.

I think we're still one of the best offenses in the nation even if you go by play per play efficiency. Certainly in the conversation for top three in the conference, IMO.

by Red Blooded on Jul 26, 2007 4:41 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

BTW

Texas in 2006:

854 plays for 5089 yards or ~5.95 yards per play.

by Red Blooded on Jul 26, 2007 4:42 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

you are correct

It is a philosophical difference. I'm not going to look at an offense as a stand alone - I'm going to look at an offense as a compliment to a defense and probably just the reverse for a defense.  

I was surprised to see that Nebraska's offense didn't rank very high because this year we should have a good offense. Possibly not as good as Missouri's, but we'll have a better defense and therefore Nebraska should win  the Big 12 North.

I was asked to participate and I did. I was asked to give reasons as to how I voted and I did. The reasons for how I did things are probably much different from how some of the other bloggers see them, but don't you think that's what happens when the regular media votes on this stuff?

I might point out that nothing keeps anyone on this board from posting their votes. Try it and see what you come up with. Then post it and explain why.

In the end, it's about having fun with it and predicting the next season, while at the same time making it something interesting enough that people will read it. Why else do you think the mass media would choose Missouri to win the Big 12 North given their history of choking?

p.s. This has been a decent break today from trying to get a MF'ing firewall and web content engine working properly for an organization. I probably could have been explaining things a little better but my head is a little fried from trying to hold too many variables in it for too long a time.

Go Big Red Nebraska!
Corn Nation - Graduating more of our players than you are!

by cornnation on Jul 26, 2007 4:23 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I appreciate the dialogue

and applaud you for providing your vote, and justification. I disagree with it, but that's life.

by Red Blooded on Jul 26, 2007 4:43 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

It might be helpful

If someone involved in the "tech's a better offense than God is" arguement would post how often Tech has beaten the teams ranked ahead of it in say the past 3-5 years.  One could take this farther and look at the points scored in those games by each offense (meaning subtract out kicks, returns for TDs, INTs for TDs).  Yards are great, but they only show up on your stat line, not the scoreboard.

by cliffaudit on Jul 26, 2007 3:56 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

as a follow up

I already know that A&M is ranked too high since tech is their kryptonite.

Also, the above suggestion will really only do head to head arguments, it isn't applied across the board very well.

by cliffaudit on Jul 26, 2007 3:58 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well...
If someone involved in the "tech's a better offense than God is"
I'm involved in the Texas Tech's offense is better than Oklahoma State or Texas A&M's offense argument. Who mentioned God besides you?

I don't know what a W/L alone tells us about Tech's offense, since they have to share the field with the team's defense.

I don't know if it's fair to subtract field goals because those are set up by offense, but I'll happily take out return and INT touchdowns and look at some head to head stuff for you.

Against UT in 2006, for instance, our 24 offensive points were more than anyone but Baylor and Kansas State managed against UT. Our 518 total yards eclipsed what anyone else managed.

Though we got slaughtered in 2005, our 468 total yards against UT were more than anyone besides USC could manage. And we did it without Reggie Bush and Matt Leinart.

The 40 points we hung on UT in 2003 was more than anyone else scored against Texas that season. And won won the 2002 game. That our "off" year offensively against UT in 2004 includes 386 yards of total offense is kind of where I'm coming from when I say that we have an ok offense, certainly won that deserves to be considered in the top 3 in the Big 12.

While you're absolutely right that "yards are great" though they don't show up ont he scoreboard, yards towards endzones are the principle goal of any offense. Uncontroversially, offenses are traditionally ranked based both on how many yards they gain and how many points they score, two areas where Texas Tech has, in recent history, finished very well.

I'd even be so bold ot say, given that since 2002 Texas has outgained Texas Tech in yards just once, that Texas Tech has had a better offense than this great football program over that same time period. Our defenses don't compare at all, hence why you've beaten the snot out of us.

I'm not trying to be unreasonable, or overly partisan here, but I really don't think a 4th place prediction for Texas Tech is founded. I'd like to hear from the voters why they felt that both A&M and Oklahoma State, and even Texas, are all better offenses heading into the 2007 season. I'd love to hear the metrics voters are using as well.

by Red Blooded on Jul 26, 2007 4:31 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yards towards endzone

is not the only goal of an offense though.  

I think that time of possession, ball control, turnovers and average starting position of the opponents offense need to be taken into account.

If you asked me to pick an offense, including players, scheme and coaches, regardless of the team's defense, I would take Texas.  Next might be Tech, but I don't think it is as black and white a choice as you are making it out to be.  OkSt has a lot of talent and A&M can control the tempo of a game with their running back tandem.  

by Wells on Jul 26, 2007 4:45 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Re:

TOP has a lot to do with the defense, and I'd be weary of ranking an offense too much based on that for fear of interpreting a good offense as a bad one because of a really miserable defense (that can't keep opponents off the field). Fundamentally, an offense's job is to score points which it does through moving the football down the field.

Texas Tech gave up 24 turnovers. UT gave up 23.

I'm not sure why, if measuring a team's offense, you'd take into account the average starting position of their opponent's offense. I've misunderstood what you're saying, right?

I appreciate you picking Texas Tech 2nd. That's a prediction I'd be more willing to accept.

by Red Blooded on Jul 26, 2007 4:52 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Let me add...

that what you're saying makes sense to me. There's a lot more to an offense than merely yards and points, though I think that's a large part of it. What I'm asking is what it was about OSU or A&M's offense that appealed to voters. Recent history tells us it wasn't yards or scoring.

by Red Blooded on Jul 26, 2007 4:54 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think

A&M and OkSt appeal is the players rather than the scheme.

While TOP does have to do with both sides of your team, a offense like A&M who grinds out yardage would have much less yards and scores, but they would have better TOP.

Opponent's offense starting position is affected partially by your offense.  Teams that have less turnovers and three and outs are able to control starting fiend position better.

by Wells on Jul 26, 2007 5:20 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I appreciate the point you're trying to make

I just wonder if it's applicable here. Question: Is there any amount of additional offensive production you'd sacrifice to have an offense that was a little more mistake prone, and a little worse at keeping posession? I would argue that Tech is so much more dominant offensively than A&M -- in 2006 from above, had fewer yards per play than Texas, which had fewer yards per play than OSU, which had fewer yards per play than Texas Tech -- that Tech gets the nod in spite of A&M's appeal as a grind it out offense, which I agree some people might favor, all things equal.

I'm interested to know if that's what drove the reasoning of other Big 12 voters here, or if they just though A&M was going to be more productive.

by Red Blooded on Jul 26, 2007 5:27 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Red Blooded

Would you be happier if people said that they picked A&M and OSU over Tech b/c they feel Tech lost too many players from last season? Would you feel better if they said that Tech lost a great group of receivers who underachieved in 2006, and they wonder if the 2007 bunch can improve on the numbers of those veterans? Would you feel better if people said Tech returns too few players on the line for bloggers to think they won't have some issues offensively?
I think what you're really arguing is not who has the best offense, but who has the best offensive scheme, and you're not going to get an objective answer on that one.
Personally, I think if you want to know why people chose A&M over Tech as a better offense, you should go look at the 3rd down conversion rates. Instead of looking at the yds per play as a measure of efficiency, why don't you look at how teams convert plays into first downs?
If Tech has the best offense in the Big 12, as you claim, why is it that the worst team in the conference the last two seasons (Colorado '06, Oklahoma State '05) was able to outscore 'the best offense in the conference'?

by Beergut on Jul 27, 2007 9:14 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Re:
Would you be happier if people said that they picked A&M and OSU over Tech b/c they feel Tech lost too many players from last season?
Of course I would. When you ask people to explain their votes, it's always a good thing when they actually do so. Why do you think I asked in the first place?

Obviously I don't buy that rationale, as Tech has remained consistently better on offense than, say, A&M despite turnover in the past. But at least a dialogue would be taking place if people explained their vote.

I think what you're really arguing is not who has the best offense, but who has the best offensive scheme, and you're not going to get an objective answer on that one.
How are these two things different? Yes, Texas Tech has a great offensive scheme. I didn't divine that fact from a magic crystal ball, rather I looked at prior results; Texas Tech has consistently managed to finish, per traditional metrics, at the top of the nation offensively.
Instead of looking at the yds per play as a measure of efficiency, why don't you look at how teams convert plays into first downs?
Texas Tech led the Big 12 in first downs. We also had the fewest 3rd down attempts. What that should tell you is that Texas Tech was getting a whole lot more first downs on 1st and 2nd down than, say, Texas A&M. Having looked at how teams convert plays into first downs, it's pretty clear that Texas Tech > A&M.
If Tech has the best offense in the Big 12, as you claim, why is it that the worst team in the conference the last two seasons (Colorado '06, Oklahoma State '05) was able to outscore 'the best offense in the conference'?
The plural of anectode isn't data. But, to answer your question, your offense doesn't also play defense. One reason that Texas Tech lost ot Okey State and Colorado is because in College Football, sometimes better teams lose to worse ones. For instance, Texas lost to Kansas State and A&M. I don't think anyone has reasonably argued that those teams are better.

But if we're going to use anectodes to argue, and you are really saying that you think Texas A&M is the greatest offense in the Big 12 (or at least better than Texas Tech), then you get to explain the most recent College Football game played by Texas A&M. I'm reading 10 points against a stout California defense that was giving up ~370 yards a game. That's the best offense in the Big 12?

by Red Blooded on Jul 28, 2007 9:55 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

ha!

"The plural of [anecdote] isn't data."

phenomenal.  i wish i was that clever in my takedowns.

by billyzane on Jul 29, 2007 10:22 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

re:
"How are these two things different? "

 Your scheme is how you intend to move the ball down the field to score points, the Xs and Os of your offense; your total offense is how well you actually executed your scheme, i.e. what you actually did on the field.

 "Texas Tech led the Big 12 in first downs. We also had the fewest 3rd down attempts. What that should tell you is that Texas Tech was getting a whole lot more first downs on 1st and 2nd down than, say, Texas A&M. Having looked at how teams convert plays into first downs, it's pretty clear that Texas Tech > A&M. "

 That is a valid point. However, it depends on what you are asking your offense to do on the field that makes the stats meaningful. Mike Leach wants to score as many points as possible, and to score as many times as possible. He has been pretty consistent in that offensive goal in his time at Texas Tech (it doesn't hurt that he has bonuses in his contract for achieving certain statistical rankings on offense). This dovetails nicely with that fact that Tech, on average, produces mediocre to poor defensive teams, so the offense has to pick up the slack. Leach's answer to winning games is to make teams try to outscore his offense. It has been a successful enough strategy to ensure Tech has an over .500 record every season Leach has been there.
 Fran's strategy last season to protect a young defense was to simply hog the ball, and control the clock. It wasn't about scoring fast (he actually complained that we scored too fast at times in 2005 ::rolleyes::), but about making a first down in 3 plays, and keeping the clock moving. I don't necessarily agree with that stategy, but it won them 9 games, and it is what Fran's goal was. By that perspective, A&M had a good offense in 2006.
 Does that make them the best offense in the Big 12? No. I'd actually give that honor to Oklahoma. My reasoning is simple: Anytime you have a QB who is more of a leader than an athlete at the controls, you use 3 different tailbacks over the course of the season b/c of injuries, and you still manage to not miss a beat on offense, reduce turnovers, and score just enough to win the conference, you have a great offense.

"The plural of anectode isn't data. But, to answer your question, your offense doesn't also play defense. "

 In two of your losses last season (Colorado, TCU), your offense scored 6 and 3 points respectively. I think a realstic expectation for a sold defense is to hold the opposition to 20 points or less for a game. That means your offense only has to score 21 points to win. Tech's "best offense in the Big 12" managed 3 and 6 points in these two games. Please explain to me how that is the fault of the defense.

 "'But if we're going to use anectodes to argue, and you are really saying that you think Texas A&M is the greatest offense in the Big 12 (or at least better than Texas Tech), then you get to explain the most recent College Football game played by Texas A&M. I'm reading 10 points against a stout California defense that was giving up ~370 yards a game. That's the best offense in the Big 12?"''

 I didn't say A&M has the best offense in the
Big 12, A&M didn't average 400 yds per game on offense throughout the whole season, which is a prerequisite to be considered a good offense by me.
 As for A&M-California, if you couldn't look at the coaching matchups of Jeff Tedford vs. Dennis Franchione or Jeff Tedford vs. Gary Darnell, and not see a blowout coming, you don't know college football. One coach obviously had his team prepared to play and ready to kick some ass; the other coach(es) didn't.

by Beergut on Jul 29, 2007 5:24 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Re:
Your scheme is how you intend to move the ball down the field to score points, the Xs and Os of your offense; your total offense is how well you actually executed your scheme, i.e. what you actually did on the field.
And we execute our scheme about as well as any team in the nation, yes?
I don't necessarily agree with that stategy, but it won them 9 games, and it is what Fran's goal was. By that perspective, A&M had a good offense in 2006.
The purpose of my raving isn't to denigrate A&M. Rather I am interested in hearing legitimate reasons why A&M should be considered more dangerous offensively heading into 2007 than Texas Tech. That A&M had a "good" offense last year isn't really strong evidence towards that conclusion. Afterall, Texas Tech had a "good" (great, actually) offense last year.
Does that make them the best offense in the Big 12? No. I'd actually give that honor to Oklahoma. My reasoning is simple: Anytime you have a QB who is more of a leader than an athlete at the controls, you use 3 different tailbacks over the course of the season b/c of injuries, and you still manage to not miss a beat on offense, reduce turnovers, and score just enough to win the conference, you have a great offense.
You don't think the number 1 defense in the Big 12 played a role in that? Holding opponents to 15 points per game?

Interesting fact: Against common opponents Texas Tech outscored Oklahoma 216-174.

But in so far as you think OU is the best offense in the Big 12, we are in agreement over at least one thing: we disagree with the results of this poll. Join me in requesting transparency, our powers combined will form Captain Planet.

In two of your losses last season (Colorado, TCU), your offense scored 6 and 3 points respectively. I think a realstic expectation for a sold defense is to hold the opposition to 20 points or less for a game. That means your offense only has to score 21 points to win. Tech's "best offense in the Big 12" managed 3 and 6 points in these two games. Please explain to me how that is the fault of the defense.
Let's give TCU a lot of credit for being, I believe, the best or 2nd best defense in the world last year. As a matter of fact, they held opponents to 234 yards a game -- 8 less than Texas Tech gained. I'm hardly proud of that fact, though perspective helps. I was at the game and don't want to think about it. Given that it was a uniquely poor effort, I think it's easy to attribute it as mere anomaly. Or else maybe the fact that our quarterback was 21 years old at the time... Sometimes young QBs have bad games.

What do you want me to say about Colorado? Your qb throws 3 interceptions and theirs throws zero, and it's difficult to win a football game.

It's important to remember that Texas Tech's offense is no more defined by the Colorado game than A&M's defense is by the California game, or OU's offense is by the Texas game. Chances are that whomever ends up being hailed as "The Best Offense In the Big 12" this time next year will have suffered at least one uncharacteristically lackluster performance. That's football, mang.

As for A&M-California, if you couldn't look at the coaching matchups of Jeff Tedford vs. Dennis Franchione or Jeff Tedford vs. Gary Darnell, and not see a blowout coming, you don't know college football. One coach obviously had his team prepared to play and ready to kick some ass; the other coach(es) didn't.
For me, what I see here is an admission that coaching matters as it pertains to the question at hand which is: Who has the best offense in the Big 12? And acknowledging that coaching matters, I reaffirm that Texas Tech has a credible claim to that honor heading into 2007. Even failing in that, the team certainly deserves to be mentioned in the top 3, given recent history.

Speaking to that history, I'm quoting SMQ in a recent publication familiar to BON readers that I found especially prescient when he said that there is "no precedent of diminished returns within Leach's system." Because of that, I'd say Texas Tech has at least as good a chance as any other team in the Big 12 of finishing 2007 with the most productive, and best (if we're separating those two concepts), offense in the conference, if not the nation.

by Red Blooded on Jul 29, 2007 6:47 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to Burnt Orange Nation, a blog dedicated to University of Texas athletics. Get BON updates via Twitter.
Start posting about the Longhorns »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

T1_1018_coltheisman_small
Texas vs UC Irvine Gameflow (+/- stats included)
Horns_small
Thanks to our Men & Women in the Armed Forces
Small
The Aggies are doing just enough this year to give us a good upset.

Recent FanPosts

Small
Ohio State and Oklahoma Uni's
Small
BCS Formula Question
2401104_1__small
The Perfect Storm of College Football
T1_1018_coltheisman_small
Texas vs Western Carolina Gameflow
Lemon_small
Pat Murphy resigns
Small
Orakpo says TCU can't hang
Clock_tower_small
The Weekly BON Hit Award Baylor
11-09_small
2009 Horns VS 2005 Horns....are we better? Equal? Worse?
Small
Vote for McCoy Saturday at Gate 25!
1994_brown_james_small
I am glad to say I've seen the greatest team of my lifetime...

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

SPONSORS


Site Editors

Pb6_small Peter Bean

Dark_pumpkin_small awiggo

Menbooger_small GhostofBigRoy

Contributing Authors

Jersey_front_small 54b

Zombie_profilepic_small Horn Brain

Gse_multipart20834_small 40AS

Pigeons_small billyzane

Small whills

Brandedbevo1024x768_small dimecoverage

Rosebowl_small txtwstr7

Small TheElusiveShadow

Me_small burnt in ny

Official Partner of CBS Sports