Auburn will end up 4th in recruiting on Rivals.com

[Saniflush]

But we should definitely be aware of the pitfalls so that we are rationally prepared to accept a slightly different outcome. 

I got mad skillz and know how to beat that game.

[Kaos]

95% of this "argument" is in your head.  You are arguing with yourself, contradicting yourself and flailing away at points that were never made.  Windmills as it were.

Carry on.

I haven't seen anyone doing a "humpty dance".  It seems that if you have optimism, you automatically place people in this crazy state of mind. 

Really?

Let me throw this at you. 

1.  Historical Precedent simply means it's happened before.   It has.  Even though the Alabama example WAS an exception, it HAS happened, and therefore, there is "historical precedent".  I'm sure there are other examples where an unknown, or unproven player on the field has come in and been greater than expected. 

2.  You are absolutely correct with trends.  NOBODY here disagrees, says you're wrong, or would claim that "based on trends", Auburn should set the world on fire next year.

Trying to act as if I've guaranteed success, or that I'm ignoring trends or historical precedent, is something you're simply adding that I'm not. 

I'm not sure why you're trying to act as if I have.  The only explaination is that you're simply just trying to get into an arguement for the fun of it.  If that's the case, I'll just walk away from it myself. 

[GH2001]

Shall I list every school that had to replace its top two offensive threats (regardless of who they might be) and production declined as a result?  

Do you have six or seven weeks?  

True true - but could it be that what we are replacing it with is better than what was there? Look at Leak at UF. Not that I am comparing Todd to Leak. Bu you get what I'm saying. Bama replaced a Sr with McElroy and I know they had a much better OL than us allowing them to pound it. I just don't think we miss much of a beat at RB. And are even at the QB position at worse. Newton is coming in, Rollison has a year in the offense and Trotter will be back healthy. Things change. I'm not saying we will be better or worse, I just think its inconclusive at this point until we see some practices and A Day at the least.

[Saniflush]

True true - but could it be that what we are replacing it with is better than what was there? Look at Leak at UF. Not that I am comparing Todd to Leak. Bu you get what I'm saying. Bama replaced a Sr with McElroy and I know they had a much better OL than us allowing them to pound it. I just don't think we miss much of a beat at RB. And are even at the QB position at worse. Newton is coming in, Rollison has a year in the offense and Trotter will be back healthy. Things change. I'm not saying we will be better or worse, I just think its inconclusive at this point until we see some practices and A Day at the least.

mark my words.....


We WILL win A-Day.

[Kaos]

Not miss a beat at RB??  Are you shitting me? 

Tate will be harder to replace than Todd. 

To quote Cinderella: " Don't know what you got till it's gaw-aw-awuuhawwwn"

[GH2001]

Not miss a beat at RB??  Are you poopting me? 

Tate will be harder to replace than Todd. 

To quote Cinderella: " Don't know what you got till it's gaw-aw-awuuhawwwn"

Yeah, Cinderella sucks....and yep, he does say 'gone' like that. Sad.

I think the RB committee will do a good job, serviceable at worse. I imagine they will do the flanker thing with Mario again, but still Dyer, Aycock and McCallebb is a formidable trio, and thats assuming Lattimore doesnt commit to AU.

The D should be better. Wr's should be better.  Notice I said 'should'. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree here but I see your point.

[AuburnChopper 3.0]

95% of this "argument" is in your head.  You are arguing with yourself, contradicting yourself and flailing away at points that were never made.  Windmills as it were.

Carry on.

Whatever blows your skirt up.  Anyone can read what was said, and see you arguing with every bit of it.  

 

[Jumbo]

mark my words.....


We WILL win A-Day.

I'll be at that Championship gala.

[Saniflush]

Of the (more) skilled positions RB is the easiest one for someone to come in and be successful at but that is usually based on a team that goes run all the time.  The hardest thing that a RB has to do in this offense is make the right blocks when he isn't getting the ball or it's a pass play.  This is where incoming newbies will have weaknesses for sure.

[weagle251]

I'm hopeful that the experience on the offensive line will help offset the inexperience at running back.

[jmar]

While we do have some good returning talent on both sides of the ball, I think it unrealistic to think that more than a couple of true freshmen along with the JC guys (4-6 possibly) can have an immediate impact. If we recall the past Spring practice, several players commented on Burn's strong arm as if they knew he was the guy. Didn't happen.

And while Spring practice is a good way for the staff to evaluate those ready to contribute in some form, the Spring game is a controlled pageant that proves very little what a team can or can't do at game speed against SEC caliber teams.

So while I figured that Todd would eventually take the reins upon returning, this time around I will be looking for a QB that demonstrates the ability to consistently move the offense, not a guy who makes his own broken plays as we have seen. We have a good O-line returning. And if our QB is running as much as Tebow, we have serious problems ahead because we don't know if we have an inside running threat yet at RB. McCalleb is an outside threat. Fannin doesn't seem an every-down back. I waited on Tristan Davis to become one. Again, some  just don't possess the speed while size handicaps the others.

My opinion is that the defense can overcome some shortcomings and grow into a force quicker than the offense can adjust to replacing the major skill players. But if we are expecting a QB to come in and duplicate Todd's numbers AND an unproven back to out-do Ben Tate in his first season, that is improbable. If we get the back we want to share time with another, that is more likely.

 I'm not downplaying our chances because I think we can improve in consistency, special teams, tackling, not getting embarrassed deep, penalties, 2 minute offense and better quality depth while finding a TRUE DEEP THREAT. I think we win 9 and that to me seems very hopeful but here again, this staff looks like it can pull it off. Still third in the west but improving is a positive sign. I think there are just too many unknowns to be too negative or positive. Hey, we might duplicate last season's record or go plowing into Amen Corner with a single loss. 

[eagleair89]

just to bring up a historical reference that applies to RB's and AU:

In 1985 AU had BO, the Heisman and a 8-4 record and a loss to uat.

The following year AU replaced the QB and BO (a Heisman Trophy winner) and went 10-2 with a win over uat.  And were within a couple of water hoses and a Gimpy Bell of playing for the whole enchilada. (and fuck McGinity too....little sumbitch)

AU also had some new faces on D in '86, I just do not want to go look them up

WAR EAGLE
 

[GH2001]

just to bring up a historical reference that applies to RB's and AU:

In 1985 AU had BO, the Heisman and a 8-4 record and a loss to uat.

The following year AU replaced the QB and BO (a Heisman Trophy winner) and went 10-2 with a win over uat.  And were within a couple of water hoses and a Gimpy Bell of playing for the whole enchilada. (and phuk McGinity too....little sumbitch)

AU also had some new faces on D in '86, I just do not want to go look them up

WAR EAGLE
 

very good work there ea.

[Buzz Killington]

I'll be at that Championship gala.

It's a funny game.  Sometimes you win.  Sometimes you lose.  Sometimes it rains.

[jmar]

It's a funny game.  Sometimes you win.  Sometimes you lose.  Sometimes it rains.

    That's right!

[jadennis]

Kaos,

I think your theory of historical precedent has a very key divider to it.  It matters 100% what you're replacing.  There is no way to know to an exact degree, but you have a good idea when a player is "adequate" , a "liability", or is a "difference maker".

For example.  When Texas replaced Chris Simms, everyone everywhere knew Texas wouldn't drop off, because Simms had been merely "adequate" at best.  It was very reasonable to assume Texas could be at least "adequate" again the next season, even before seeing what the Chance Mock/Vince Young combo was capable of.

To me, Alabama 2009 actually goes with the "rule", and is not an exception to the rule.  The fact is, John Parker Wilson wasn't a special talent.  He was more "adequate" than a "difference maker", so replacing him with "adequate" was not going to create a huge drop off at the position.  

2008 Wilson - 121 passer rating, 57.9 completion %, 2243 yds.
2009 McElroy - 140 passer rating, 60.9 completeion %, 2508 yds.

The truth is, if you go back through history, when top programs are dealing with an "adequate" QB (often), replacing him with another "adequate" QB is pretty common.  It's actually more of an exception to the rule when they go from "adequate" to "liability".  

To me, Todd was adequate, and for someone (me) to expect that Malzahn can come up with at least "adequate" from what we have on the roster seems to me to fall directly under "reasonable", as far as expectations go.  Look at what he just did at Tulsa.  

In 2007 Paul Smith had a rating of 159 and threw for 5,000 yds.  In 2008, Smith is gone and a new guy steps in....David Johnson.  In his first year, Johnson has a 178 passer rating and throws over 4,000 yds (they ran the ball 1500 more yards, so the 4000 was still very impressive).

Your "historical" reference applies to situations when a team goes from a David Greene to a DJ Shockley.  
Or from an Andre Woodson to a Mike Hartline.  
Or from a Sam Bradford to a Landry Jones.  
Or from a Vince Young to a Colt McCoy (there's your exception).  
Or from a Matt Stafford to a Joe Cox.  
Or from an Eli Manning to an Ethan Flatt.  
Or from Troy Smith to a Todd Boeckman.

What's more normal is going from a Matt Mauk to a Marcus Randall.  
Or from a Joe Ganz to a Zac Lee.  
Or an Erik Ainge to a Rick Clausen (and back to an Erik Ainge).  
Or from Sean Glennon to a Tyrod Taylor.  
Or a Will Proctor to a Cullen Harper.  
Or an Andrew Hatch to a Jarrett Lee to a Jordan Jefferson, mixed with some more Jarrett Lee.

We just had Joe Ganz/Will Proctor/Sean Glennon, not Eli Manning/Sam Bradford/Vince Young.

Todd was "fine".  To expect to replace him with "fine" seems very reasonable to me.  

[jadennis]

Also, as good as Tate was, I don't know that he was necessarily "special".  I think he was very good.  He ran hard, he was big, etc.  Knowsohn Moreno ran behind a screwed up, 4th string offensive line in 2008, and he still ran 1,400 yards, simply because he was special.  

I fully expect Eric Smith, Dontae Aycock, Fannin, and Dyer to fill the void adequately.  

We've seen Smith run...and he's good.  We know it.   He's tough, he runs hard, and he's a load.  

To me, Fannin hasn't been used right since his freshman year.  He's spent almost no time in the last couple years just lined up in the backfield like a running back with a chance to just run the ball.  If he gets time back there, he'll be good as well....we've seen it when he's gotten the chance (5.3 yd/carry in 2007, the last time he was used as an actual running back, and a year in which Lester and Tate averaged 4.2 and 4.5).

We don't know what Dyer and/or Lattimore (should we be so lucky) will turn out to be.  But I did the stats in another thread.  Based on the last twenty 5-star running backs, getting two gives us a 92% chance that one of them will turn out to be among league leaders (like a Marlon Lucky, Jerious Norwood, Joe McNight, etc) and a 39% chance one of them turns out to be among the nations best (like a Beanie Wells, Jonathan Stewart, Reggie Bush, or Adrian Peterson....all over 900 yards their first full year).

Again, to me, we have plenty of reason to have some expectation that we won't have a big drop off in the rushing department either.

[Townhallsavoy]

Actually, yes there is.  It's called "historical precedent." 

Based on what most programs experience, you can make a rational, logical argument supported by facts, statistics and trends to show that a step backward is the most likely result by far. 

Failure to recognize that reality and adjust expectations to meet it qualifies as delusional. 

I said Chizik would win seven or eight games last year based on what he had to work with.  You can look it up.  About January of last year I told you that. 

I'm telling you now (and you can write it down) that if he sustains that level -- seven or eight games -- next season, you should consider that a successful effort on his part.  Of course there are qualifiers depending on which games he loses and how dreadful AU looks in those losses, but just maintaining the position would be a win.

I disagree.  C

hizik has to win more than seven or eight games.  I think the team must show a significant improvement. 

That's why we got rid of Tuberville, right?  Tuberville was done fielding championship caliber teams, so we went out and searched for a coaching staff that will lead us to championships. 

Chizik doesn't get a year two of building.   

[The Prowler]

Whatever........Championship!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Kaos]

JAD:  Compelling argument. I could buy it if we were replacing one or the other.  Not both. If Burns, Caudle, Rollison, Smith, Fannin, McCalebb, Trotter or Aycock were better than the "adequate" they would have played this year. Well except Trotter.

How many of those teams were replacing both the leading rusher and leading passer regardless of how adequate or inadequate -- or record setting -- they were? 

That's the basis of my positon. Both. Not one.