Replies: 14
| visibility 1
|
Orange Blooded [∞]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11553
Joined: 11/30/95
|
Front Page Story: Mid-season Grades
Oct 15, 2012, 11:01 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [872]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 2360
Joined: 8/17/11
|
Re: Front Page Story: Mid-season Grades
Oct 15, 2012, 11:21 AM
|
|
I think that each individual will challenge themselves for the rest of the season to not be the weak link. I'm eager to see the team after the bye week in the Valley!
|
|
|
|
|
Trainer [41]
TigerPulse: 87%
Posts: 60
Joined: 9/17/02
|
Spot on
Oct 15, 2012, 11:38 AM
|
|
After reading this article I agree with every last detail. David's knowledge and assessment of the team is excellent. It would be easy at 5-1 to write the homer article but our defense is average, not great. Can't wait to see the Tigers this weekend!
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3520]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4053
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Grade Inflation
Oct 15, 2012, 11:44 AM
|
|
Sorry but no way the DE should get a "C". This is a group that has a TOTAL of 42 tackles on the season. A C implies they have been average; there is no way that 42 total tackles can be seen as average. At best this should be a D.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7913]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13703
Joined: 1/8/02
|
agreed...that is being way too nice to that group***
Oct 15, 2012, 11:49 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7913]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13703
Joined: 1/8/02
|
I'd go with a C+....offense has been a B...defense D***
Oct 15, 2012, 11:49 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [837]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 1348
Joined: 1/9/12
|
Re: I'd go with a C+....offense has been a B...defense D***
Oct 15, 2012, 12:12 PM
|
|
Only because of 3rd down and 4th down conversion defense and red zone defense would I give this group a C+. They do get stops, or 3rd downs, 4th downs and in the red-zone. Last year we could not get the opposing O off the field, we seem to be doing it this year... now if we could just stop them form scoring so much... thus the C!
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3743]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 4200
Joined: 10/11/12
|
I'd give Boyd an A-
Oct 15, 2012, 11:56 AM
|
|
The guy has a lot of pressure to be perfect every week with the defense being so shaky. Nuk has been great, but the fact is that Boyd carries us every week.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7913]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13703
Joined: 1/8/02
|
especially with Sammy out 1/2 of the season so far
Oct 15, 2012, 11:58 AM
|
|
he's played well...he's had to...the defense is a just awful.
|
|
|
|
|
Rookie [11]
TigerPulse: 71%
Posts: 19
Joined: 9/30/08
|
Re: I'd give Boyd an A-
Oct 15, 2012, 12:00 PM
[ in reply to I'd give Boyd an A- ] |
|
I wouldn't disagree with that too much - a couple of bad INTs but he has played well in general. I'd bump Nuk up and might add in D's for the LB's and DE's. True at times we showed promise last week so lets hope we improve every week, but overall we have not stopped anyone all year.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17631]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11054
Joined: 10/13/08
|
I'm curious how you'd grade the coaching staff, David.
Oct 15, 2012, 12:27 PM
|
|
Also, admittedly picking a nit, if you're going give the receivers a B for early season dropped passes, you can't give Catman an A with a missed PAT. Personally, I think the Catman and receiving corps are all playing at a very high level.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1744]
TigerPulse: 66%
Posts: 3437
Joined: 2/7/07
|
Only allowed to critique the kids, not the high-paid coaches
Oct 15, 2012, 2:45 PM
|
|
A fair critique of the coaches would cost T-Net readership. Heck, T-Net even dropped the "Coaching" category from the weekly football prediction-analysis-- I assume because on the rare occasions that they dared to opine that that the opponent had a coaching advantage (which was comically rare), they received tons of irate comments.
The TigerNet readership is overwhelmingly pumper-oriented and blindly coach-loving (whether it was Bowden, Spence, Napier, Steele, et al) right up until the day that the coaches are fired for poor performance, at which point the readership immediately starts lauding the replacement. Even the slightest critique of the coaching staff (no matter how realistic) is usually met by outrage, name-calling, and insults. But I don't blame T-Net for playing to their readership. It's a smart business decision.
Sadly, (as can be seen in this article) it seems to be acceptable to critique college kids who are mostly busting their butts for love of the game, love of the school, pride, and a future career, but it's unacceptable to critique highly paid coaches & administrators. I would expect the opposite.
In all the years that I've been reading T-Net, the only rare times that I can remember T-Net pointing out anything negative about the coaches or administrators was, coincidentally (ahem), right before they were fired (Bowden, Spence, Napier, & Steele). T-Net has some great coverage, and I like it, but I don't expect to find realistic analyses of the coaching staff.
|
|
|
|
|
1st Rounder [621]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1728
Joined: 1/22/04
|
Feel free to give us your coaching critique, would like to
Oct 15, 2012, 7:24 PM
|
|
hear what you have to say(especially about the defensive coaches and who is or is not pulling their wt. Offense, I have no gripes.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1744]
TigerPulse: 66%
Posts: 3437
Joined: 2/7/07
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15549]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 21427
Joined: 9/24/07
|
Re: Front Page Story: Mid-season Grades
Oct 16, 2012, 8:27 AM
|
|
This analysis is just about perfect. I said this team would get better as the year goes on, and I still believe that is what we will see. I think this will be A very solid team in 2013.
|
|
|
|
Replies: 14
| visibility 1
|
|
|