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

[CCTAU]

Right. Because Kodi was so much more talented he was going to be a vast improvement over that shitty Cox guy.

This is a big mass of wishful thinking.

I'm no fan of Todd, but if more talented guys were unable to take his spot it's sort of ridiculous to think some raw kid fresh off the boat can waltz into SEC play and elevate the game. We are, sadly, not in a positon like Alabama is where you can put a chimpanzee under center and win by hammering the ball on the ground.

These "we will be better because we are replacing two, three and four year starters with kids who have never played" arguments are laughable.  

Optimism is one thing. Delusion is another.

^^^^^THIS^^^^^

I love how folks bash Todd and call him a system QB. Well he beat out all that we had in TWO different systems. The kid had talent and grit. You don;t JUST replace that and all is well. I really do want someone to step in and do a better job, but being QB encompasses so many things these days that it's hard to find that one guy. Look around and you'll see that many of the other FBS schools are in the same boat. There are only a handful of super good QBs each season. Hopefully we'll get one soon. As for RBs, Tate was not as suited for this offense as some of the others we have coming in. I think we might find that one of the quicker backs will make a difference. In this offense, it's not the pounding that gets you the breakouts, it's the quick back up the middle. I think we may see some exciting RBs next season.
I do know that it will at least be fun to watch.

[Kaos]

There's no way to predict who is going to be bad ass, but there is no way to say that it is a going to be a step backwards either.

There are real reasons for some optimism this upcoming season.  However, NOBODY is claiming guaranteed success.  Being called "delusional" doesn't fit the bill here at all.

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.

[AuburnChopper 3.0]

^^^^^THIS^^^^^

I love how folks bash Todd and call him a system QB. Well he beat out all that we had in TWO different systems. The kid had talent and grit. You don;t JUST replace that and all is well. I really do want someone to step in and do a better job, but being QB encompasses so many things these days that it's hard to find that one guy. Look around and you'll see that many of the other FBS schools are in the same boat. There are only a handful of super good QBs each season. Hopefully we'll get one soon. As for RBs, Tate was not as suited for this offense as some of the others we have coming in. I think we might find that one of the quicker backs will make a difference. In this offense, it's not the pounding that gets you the breakouts, it's the quick back up the middle. I think we may see some exciting RBs next season.
I do know that it will at least be fun to watch.

I definitely didn't say that Todd didn't deserve to be where he was this year.  In fact, I got in more of my share of "debates" on why I agreed with Todd being the starter this last year.

Also, calling him a system QB, doesn't necessarily mean we're insulting him, or bashing him.  He flurished in this system, whenit was clear that while he was hurt, Tony Franklin fucked him and his mind up last year.  I'm not sure anyone has bashed him or said he sucks.

[Mr. Sensible]

I asked an Auburn beat writer before last season started how he thought Onterio McCalleb fit into the offense. I was hoping for some insight into how he'd work in the scheme. What I got was straight up smart-ass.

The Auburn beat writers responded with: "He's fast as hell. That's how he fits in." He went to write about McCalleb (after only a couple games) using such unique kinds of praise like, "he changes geometry" and the like. Then, he hurt an ankle. Tough for a fast, undersized, cutting back to heal in a season.

Fast as hell is fun until the wheels break.

Give me a cloud of dust anyday.

Oh, and that beat writer is still a smart-ass.

[RWS]

RB - Does Mario Fannin's experience not count?  He's been around now since Caesar was a road guard.  I think he'd be a great back if his shoulder holds up.  

I think if he were going to be a great back, we would know it by now. Fannin has accomplished dick at AU, really. He's just kind of a gadget guy that doesn't really fit in anywhere. I know alot of fans fell in love with him after his freshman year, but since then, he really hasn't defined himself.

[AUChizad]

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'm going to hold on to this.

[AuburnChopper 3.0]

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.

This is silly, Kaos.  Serioulsy.  Nobody is guaranteeing anything.  Rather, some are simply being optomistic.  There is ZERO wrong with that.  If they were, you're "historical precedent" thing MIGHT make sense.  

Historical precedent does NOT guarantee the future.  One way or the other.  Trends, you're right.  Doesn't necessarily fit every situation though.  

There is NO guarantee that Auburn WILL for a FACT step backwards next year.  Is there a case for it based on historical precedent?  Sure.  Is there a case that it could get better because of getting better talent based on historical precedent?  Sure is.  It happened over the last two years in Tuscaloosa.  You don't even have to look far.

It's NOT delusional.

[Kaos]

This is silly, Kaos.  Serioulsy.  Nobody is guaranteeing anything.  Rather, some are simply being optomistic.  There is ZERO wrong with that.  If they were, you're "historical precedent" thing MIGHT make sense.  

Historical precedent does NOT guarantee the future.  One way or the other.  Trends, you're right.  Doesn't necessarily fit every situation though.  

There is NO guarantee that Auburn WILL for a FACT step backwards next year.  Is there a case for it based on historical precedent?  Sure.  Is there a case that it could get better because of getting better talent based on historical precedent?  Sure is.  It happened over the last two years in Tuscaloosa.  You don't even have to look far.

It's NOT delusional.

Somebody is going to win the lottery.  It's a fact. 

Expecting a successful outcome based on that one winner while ignoring the hundreds of thousands of losers is the very definition of delusion. 

Trends are not created by the exceptions (Alabama), they are created by the rule (Georgia, Tennessee, virtually every other program in the country that had to replace 90% of its offense).  And even at Alabama, the exception, you can't really use it as a benchmark, because the QB was essentially non-functional. A ferret could have performed that role. 

No, trends don't fit every situation.  That's why they are trends and not absolutes.  But trends to define the most likely outcome. Historical precedent gives you a pattern of what to expect.  Your argument that there is a "trend" in regard to a situation improving is false.  An exception is not a trend.

[Kaos]

I'm going to hold on to this.

You'll lose it when I turn out to be right (yet again) and make up something that you think you remember me saying instead. 

That's another trend.   

[GH2001]

This is silly, Kaos.  Serioulsy.  Nobody is guaranteeing anything.  Rather, some are simply being optomistic.  There is ZERO wrong with that.  If they were, you're "historical precedent" thing MIGHT make sense.  

Historical precedent does NOT guarantee the future.  One way or the other.  Trends, you're right.  Doesn't necessarily fit every situation though.  

There is NO guarantee that Auburn WILL for a FACT step backwards next year.  Is there a case for it based on historical precedent?  Sure.  Is there a case that it could get better because of getting better talent based on historical precedent?  Sure is.  It happened over the last two years in Tuscaloosa.  You don't even have to look far.

It's NOT delusional.

Keep in mind some WANT Auburn to do bad.

[AuburnChopper 3.0]

Somebody is going to win the lottery.  It's a fact. 

Expecting a successful outcome based on that one winner while ignoring the hundreds of thousands of losers is the very definition of delusion.

I guess, by this, you'll bring in to debate what people here quantify as "success".  I don't have time for that debate.  If you still think I'm guaranteeing success, or that I expect championships, then you haven't been paying attention, or you've decided to make that my position, facts be damned.

This whole debate started with me simply pointing out that I disagreed with Cynical's position that we'd be worse off next year due to the specific losses he pointed out.  I did what you like to do, provide the other argument.  Nothing more.  I'm not guaranteeing anything.  I just didn't call him delusional, nor am I calling YOU that, because I disagree with your view on it.  

No, trends don't fit every situation.  That's why they are trends and not absolutes.  But trends to define the most likely outcome. Historical precedent gives you a pattern of what to expect.  Your argument that there is a "trend" in regard to a situation improving is false.  An exception is not a trend.

I said nothing of the sort.  I never mentioned that there is a trend as it relates to Auburn's specific situation.  Simply didn't happen.

I base my opinion on the specific people and specific situation. 

Never said you have to agree with it.  Lord knows you don't.

[Kaos]

I didn't call YOU anything.  

Stuck strictly to the argument itself.  How you define that is up to you.  

You said there was "no way to say it was going to be a step backward."   I merely pointed out that, yes, there was a way to say that based on historical precedent.  In fact, it's the only rational argument that fits until and unless additional evidence is presented.  

You said nothing of the sort?

Is there a case that it could get better because of getting better talent based on historical precedent?  Sure is.  It happened over the last two years in Tuscaloosa.

Unless there's another Chopper using your access, yes, yes you did say exactly something of that sort.  You cited an exception to disprove a rule.  That is a fallacy.

[GH2001]

I didn't call YOU anything.  

Stuck strictly to the argument itself.  How you define that is up to you.  

You said there was "no way to say it was going to be a step backward."   I merely pointed out that, yes, there was a way to say that based on historical precedent.  In fact, it's the only rational argument that fits until and unless additional evidence is presented.  

You said nothing of the sort?
 

Unless there's another Chopper using your access, yes, yes you did say exactly something of that sort.  You cited an exception to disprove a rule.  That is a fallacy.

Just for arguments sake, what is the historical precedent that points to us failing this year?

[AuburnChopper 3.0]

 

You said there was "no way to say it was going to be a step backward."   I merely pointed out that, yes, there was a way to say that based on historical precedent.  In fact, it's the only rational argument that fits until and unless additional evidence is presented.  

You said nothing of the sort?

I don't disagree with your historical precedent argument, Kaos.  Never did.  I disagree with how you feel it should define my position.  There, you're simply incorrect.

Here's the entire quote:

There's no way to predict who is going to be bad ass, but there is no way to say that it is a going to be a step backwards either.

If you want to base EVERYTHING regardless of facts as it's based on specific situations on simply "historical precedent", then fine.  That's your business.   I simply don't believe in it defining every situation.  Doesn't mean that I ignore them in all situations.  However, I can, and DO judge the individual situations and circumstances on their own merits, and yes, historical precedent where and if it applies.  
 

there's another Chopper using your access, yes, yes you did say exactly something of that sort.  You cited an exception to disprove a rule.  That is a fallacy.

Wasn't an example of a trend.  It WAS as YOU called it, an "exception", and proof that even YOU recognize it CAN happen.

Thanks for proving my point.

[Kaos]

Wasn't an example of a trend.  It WAS as YOU called it, an "exception", and proof that even YOU recognize it CAN happen.

Thanks for proving my point.

Oh dear god....

If your point was that you were wrong, then I proved it.  Otherwise...  <shakes head and walks away>

[AUChizad]

This argument has been molded into the myopic one about whether the QB, RB, and DE replacements will be better or worse than last year's.

While I believe the answer to all three is "at least as good", this is not even taking into consideration the fact that we have plugged major depth holes with this recruiting class.

[Kaos]

Just for arguments sake, what is the historical precedent that points to us failing this year?

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?  

[Kaos]

This argument has been molded into the myopic one about whether the QB, RB, and DE replacements will be better or worse than last year's.

While I believe the answer to all three is "at least as good", this is not even taking into consideration the fact that we have plugged major depth holes with this recruiting class.

You're welcome to believe that, even though most credible evidence trends otherwise. 

To hope for improvement is to have the soul of a fan. To recognize that it will be a difficult transition and anticipate bumps along the way, bumps that could (and historically do) lead to diminished production is to possess reason.
 
Either, without the other, is extreme.   Reasoned optimism should be course.  We hope it will turn out well and there are some reasons to imagine that it might. But we should definitely be aware of the pitfalls so that we are rationally prepared to accept a slightly different outcome. 

I hope that things will progress.  But based on the history of first-year quarterbacks and freshman running backs in the SEC, I'm not doing the humpty dance or making rash statements like "we will be better."  History says we won't and that's the cold hard reality.

[RWS]

This argument has been molded into the myopic one about whether the QB, RB, and DE replacements will be better or worse than last year's.

While I believe the answer to all three is "at least as good", this is not even taking into consideration the fact that we have plugged major depth holes with this recruiting class.

You're not really plugging the hole until you see if what you're plugging it with actually works or not. The kids in the 2010 class haven't even signed LOIs yet, so its a little soon to assume they are all going to be viable.

[AuburnChopper 3.0]

I'm not doing the humpty dance or making rash statements like "we will be better."

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. 

Oh dear god....

If your point was that you were wrong, then I proved it.  Otherwise...  <shakes head and walks away>

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.