Ricky Pearsall shocks by sliding into the first round to SF

[Silverback Gator]

To me the only relevance of this list is to show teams that should be expected to make large strides the next season because they were probably better than their record, but were taking their lumps because of the lack of experience in the roster. But the difference between us and others on the list is we have seen with our own eyes the incompetence of the retard returning as head coach/OC and his coaching staff so we expect the same results as the first two seasons.

I admit I do not like the guy. Is he a nice guy? Sure. But who cares. I think he makes an adequate Assistant Coach. He's slow, plodding, and his staff can never be great if they aren't held to a high standard by the HC. Here's a video of a guy that knows how to express ideas clearly, motivate, and create a comprehensive program. I've used Deboer as an example before. Really good coaches shore things up within two seasons. I also do not buy into the roster excuse completely. Some of the guys that have been with Belly for three seasons could have been developed better, possibly made a roster. If he goes another season with only one or two guys drafted, it's going to tell a story that will cost him some recruits.



For the love of the team, I hope Billy can get some better results this season.

 

[Swamp Donkey]

I thought it was Des.

Ok so maybe Dez's daddy banged URG's mama, because Des damn sured aint a midget.

 

[Gator By Marriage]

Ok so maybe Dez's daddy banged URG's mama, because Des damn sured aint a midget.

That guy’s taller than he looks. He’s so wide that he just looks short.

 

[lagator]

That guy’s taller than he looks. He’s so wide that he just looks short.

Whatchu talking about Willis?

 

[Durty South Swamp]

To me the only relevance of this list is to show teams that should be expected to make large strides the next season because they were probably better than their record, but were taking their lumps because of the lack of experience in the roster. But the difference between us and others on the list is we have seen with our own eyes the incompetence of the retard returning as head coach/OC and his coaching staff so we expect the same results as the first two seasons.

Well the narrative all off-season has been we had the youngest roster and played more freshman minutes than any other team. That graphic disproves the most snaps by freshman thing, then completely destroys the underlying implication that you are gonna lose a lot if you play a lot of freshman snaps. Georgia had way more freshman snaps and they didn't exactly lose much. Then you have aTm who had more freshman snaps, lost less and still fired their HC...

 

[TLB]

Mehbeh those teams got more freshman minutes than us by including bowl game minutes

 

[AuggieDosta]

The snaps list is very misleading because it doesn't distinguish teams that got up on their opponents and then played freshmen (UGAy) or teams that didn't make a Championship game and then a Bowl game (UF).

 

[Durty South Swamp]

The snaps list is very misleading because it doesn't distinguish teams that got up on their opponents and then played freshmen (UGAy) or teams that didn't make a Championship game and then a Bowl game (UF).

You mean they are misleading bc some teams are actually coached well enough to score and win?

It's brilliant insight like this that sets this board apart.

 

[AuggieDosta]

You mean they are misleading bc some teams are actually coached well enough to score and win?

It's brilliant insight like this that sets this board apart.

That's one way to look at it.
Regardless, the metric originally posited tells a story that several here are using to "prove" a negative about UF.
I, along with two other posters (@TLB and @Gator By Marriage) that have also pointed out my same points, are merely providing levity.
Take it or leave it but the snaps count is misleading without understanding HOW each team got to those snap counts.

 

[Gator By Marriage]

That's one way to look at it.
Regardless, the metric originally posited tells a story that several here are using to "prove" a negative about UF.
I, along with two other posters (@TLB and @Gator By Marriage) that have also pointed out my same points, are merely providing levity.
Take it or leave it but the snaps count is misleading without understanding HOW each team got to those snap counts.

You're wasting your time. He doesn't want to hear anything that goes against the narrative. If you point out something that's incorrect or misleading - and things aren't as bad as he says - he repositions his original point and you become the idiot (and he's not alone). I get it I suppose; the immediate future is bleak and in a few months we'll either be looking for a new HC - again - or doomed to another year of sucktitude. Oh well, June 5th is only a month or so away and we'll have to find a new spot to argue and talk past each other.

 

[Durty South Swamp]

You're wasting your time. He doesn't want to hear anything that goes against the narrative. If you point out something that's incorrect or misleading - and things aren't as bad as he says - he repositions his original point and you become the idiot (and he's not alone). I get it I suppose; the immediate future is bleak and in a few months we'll either be looking for a new HC - again - or doomed to another year of sucktitude. Oh well, June 5th is only a month or so away and we'll have to find a new spot to argue and talk past each other.

what point have i "repositioned"? the stats clearly indicate that one of the prevailing offseason positive narratives - we lost alot due to heavy freshman snaps (and that we had the most in the country) is at best dubious. The stats show we didnt play the most, and that there were other teams with far fewer losses who played more. Thats the only thing ive said, theres been no repositioning. The only person playing the "yea, but..." card is Auggie.

The stats show good teams also get to play plenty of freshmen. So I'm not buying the we lost because of freshmen. We lost because of bad coaching, bad playcalling, poor development, and poor recruiting. The good teams got to play plenty of freshmen snaps and win b/c of good coaching, good playcalling, good development and good recruiting.

It comes back to coaching and leadership.

 

[Swamp Donkey]

You're wasting your time. He doesn't want to hear anything that goes against the narrative.

The fake news narrative is the "youngest team ever".

We posted it a few times during the season too (before bowl season) when it still showed not only were we not the youngest team ever, we were like the 3rd youngest in the SEC.

What ever rationalization makes you feel better, I suppose. Youth is why Chucklehead thought we shouldnt try to score in 2nd and 3rd quarter, doesnt understand the word time out, and cant make halftime adjustments to save his life (or career). These were the same issues he had at ULL, winning and losing so many games by 1 score.

I do appreciate that his pregame prep is decent and we usually score a little coming out of the gate, just so it is clear Im not completely unfair to Cajun Taggart.

 

[Gator By Marriage]

The fake news narrative is the "youngest team ever".

We posted it a few times during the season too (before bowl season) when it still showed not only were we not the youngest team ever, we were like the 3rd youngest in the SEC.

What ever rationalization makes you feel better, I suppose. Youth is why Chucklehead thought we shouldnt try to score in 2nd and 3rd quarter, doesnt understand the word time out, and cant make halftime adjustments to save his life (or career). These were the same issues he had at ULL, winning and losing so many games by 1 score.

Thanks for twisting my words, but I never said any of that. I make no excuses for CBN and am realistic about where we are and how this season will go.

 

[Swamp Donkey]

Thanks for twisting my words

Youre welcome.

 

[Gator By Marriage]

what point have i "repositioned"? the stats clearly indicate that one of the prevailing offseason positive narratives - we lost alot due to heavy freshman snaps (and that we had the most in the country) is at best dubious. The stats show we didnt play the most, and that there were other teams with far fewer losses who played more. Thats the only thing ive said, theres been no repositioning. The only person playing the "yea, but..." card is Auggie.

The stats show good teams also get to play plenty of freshmen. So I'm not buying the we lost because of freshmen. We lost because of bad coaching, bad playcalling, poor development, and poor recruiting. The good teams got to play plenty of freshmen snaps and win b/c of good coaching, good playcalling, good development and good recruiting.

It comes back to coaching and leadership.

This conversation started with a list the top ten teams who had the most freshman snaps (courtesy of Swonk). In addition to some mostly average to bad teams, also in the top ten were Ugly and Bama. Swonk's comment to the post was, "Not the "youngest ever" as many people try to spin. And, of course, except for Junior Beamer, all those teams were far better than Billyball." That last statement is only partially true. One team, Clemson, had "far fewer" losses with 4; the other teams had either one fewer (aTm, & scUM), the same (USCe, as he noted), or more, UVA, Stanford, and Baylor.

You added, "Not to mention the fact that Georgia is on that list who was probably the best team in the country but tripped up against bama." I'd argue (and did) Ugly and Bama being on that list is for a totally different reason than the other eight, but whatever. Then you later posted. "That graphic disproves the most snaps by freshman thing, then completely destroys the underlying implication that you are gonna lose a lot if you play a lot of freshman snaps. Georgia had way more freshman snaps and they didn't exactly lose much. Then you have aTm who had more freshman snaps, lost less and still fired their HC..."

Of the top eight teams listed, Clemson was 9-4. The rest were anywhere from 7-6 to 3-9 and pretty much all sucked. (On a separate note, Dabo deserves some props. He played the most by far and was a missed field goal from another 10 win season.) And I have no idea what you meant by "Georgia had way more freshman snaps...." Than who? Certainly not us.

The bottom line (I think) is playing a lot a of freshmen can be a determining factor in success (or lack there of), but there are a ton of other variables at play - many of you which you hit above (coaching, playcalling, etc.), but the biggest (which you also mentioned) is recruiting. It's one thing if you have freshman like Percy Harvin or more recently Harold Perkins @LSU who are on the field because they are absolute studs and would be on any team, versus, a freshman who is just OK or potentially good, but not really ready for big-time CFB, but is still the best you have available. As we just saw with the NFL draft, there weren't very many upperclassmen on our team who were very good. Here's that same list of teams, but ranked by players drafted:

Alabama - 10
Georgia - 8
Clemson - 6
scUM - 4
USCe - 4
aTm -4
UF - 1
Stanford - 1
UVA - 1
Baylor - 0

The bottom four on that list were four of the worst five (by record) on that list. And while those rankings might be better if UFDA's are included, it ain't like we had a bunch of those either. (Did we have anyone other than Eguakan who has signed thus far?)

Totally beside the original graphic, but it would be informative to have that list divided into true freshmen versus red-shirts. Also, how balanced out are the inexperienced player snaps by experienced player snaps? It may not matter if the staff is unable to prove they "coached up" the returning players, but we may have more returning two-deep players than almost anybody we play this season - a stat that will work heavily against those arguing for keeping Billy should he not have a good season

 

[Silverback Gator]

The fake news narrative is the "youngest team ever".

We posted it a few times during the season too (before bowl season) when it still showed not only were we not the youngest team ever, we were like the 3rd youngest in the SEC.

Serious question: At what point is it no longer acceptable to say "we are young"?

Napier's on his third class and fairly, the likely reason we are not as talented, if that's true, is because he has not recruited really well. Pretty good? Yes. However, some of his recruiting losses have been because of his poor record and on-field debacles. At some point, it has to be squarely on him. If he has another boner pecker of a season, he's not going to be able to bring in enough talent to overcome his staff's deficiencies. But of course we are all hoping that he actually pulls it together this season and one way or another wins at least eight games.

The other thing worth mentioning is that other teams have had to recruit as well. If he still has a "young team" he and his staff have to move the players along. It's not a lengthy process, ask Deboer.

 

[Silverback Gator]

The bottom line (I think) is playing a lot a of freshmen can be a determining factor in success (or lack there of), but there are a ton of other variables at play - many of you which you hit above (coaching, playcalling, etc.), but the biggest (which you also mentioned) is recruiting. It's one thing if you have freshman like Percy Harvin or more recently Harold Perkins @LSU who are on the field because they are absolute studs and would be on any team, versus, a freshman who is just OK or potentially good, but not really ready for big-time CFB, but is still the best you have available. As we just saw with the NFL draft, there weren't very many upperclassmen on our team who were very good. Here's that same list of teams, but ranked by players drafted:

Alabama - 10
Georgia - 8
Clemson - 6
scUM - 4
USCe - 4
aTm -4
UF - 1
Stanford - 1
UVA - 1
Baylor - 0

I believe by virtue of success, some of the teams above have been able to land guys that have the innate talent and potential to play at the next level. But a lot of it as well is clear and excellent player development, whereby those players do the things on the field that cause NFL scouts to believe that/those players would be good at the next level. Staffs have to develop players and have systems which allow their players to actually look good playing the game. Gifted athletes aren't just born, they are coached to be good. I believe a lot of us, in the backs of our minds, wonder if Napier and Co can actually coach, well. I believe sMullen and his staff were poor recruiters and coaches so that's probably part of the reason we have lacked draftees. But some of what's missing is also development. If not, then only recruit gifted players and the draft numbers will go up. But coaching has to have a lot to do with it. If Belly boy fails again to put players in the league there's going to be concern from recruits that it's a bad idea to play for a staff with a poor record at development. It's not all about NIL, no way.

 

[AlexDaGator]

I remember speaking to one of our coaches during the Meyer era. We talked about freshmen snaps. The coach said that the biggest difference between a freshman and a more experienced player is being able to do it snap after snap after snap. A freshman was fine coming in for a play on 3rd and long or goal line or something and perform well, but a freshman wasn't able to repeat that performance down after down for a whole half or game. He said you put them in for a play or two then pull them out because their performance falls off quickly.

He also said you couldn't stack multiple freshmen next to each other in a position group because they wouldn't know what to do. You could put a freshman at WR or DE or CB, but you couldn't pair a freshman corner with a freshman safety and a freshman nickel because nobody would know what to do.


Alex.

 

[Durty South Swamp]

This conversation started with a list the top ten teams who had the most freshman snaps (courtesy of Swonk). In addition to some mostly average to bad teams, also in the top ten were Ugly and Bama. Swonk's comment to the post was, "Not the "youngest ever" as many people try to spin. And, of course, except for Junior Beamer, all those teams were far better than Billyball." That last statement is only partially true. One team, Clemson, had "far fewer" losses with 4; the other teams had either one fewer (aTm, & scUM), the same (USCe, as he noted), or more, UVA, Stanford, and Baylor.

You added, "Not to mention the fact that Georgia is on that list who was probably the best team in the country but tripped up against bama." I'd argue (and did) Ugly and Bama being on that list is for a totally different reason than the other eight, but whatever. Then you later posted. "That graphic disproves the most snaps by freshman thing, then completely destroys the underlying implication that you are gonna lose a lot if you play a lot of freshman snaps. Georgia had way more freshman snaps and they didn't exactly lose much. Then you have aTm who had more freshman snaps, lost less and still fired their HC..."

Of the top eight teams listed, Clemson was 9-4. The rest were anywhere from 7-6 to 3-9 and pretty much all sucked. (On a separate note, Dabo deserves some props. He played the most by far and was a missed field goal from another 10 win season.) And I have no idea what you meant by "Georgia had way more freshman snaps...." Than who? Certainly not us.

The bottom line (I think) is playing a lot a of freshmen can be a determining factor in success (or lack there of), but there are a ton of other variables at play - many of you which you hit above (coaching, playcalling, etc.), but the biggest (which you also mentioned) is recruiting. It's one thing if you have freshman like Percy Harvin or more recently Harold Perkins @LSU who are on the field because they are absolute studs and would be on any team, versus, a freshman who is just OK or potentially good, but not really ready for big-time CFB, but is still the best you have available. As we just saw with the NFL draft, there weren't very many upperclassmen on our team who were very good. Here's that same list of teams, but ranked by players drafted:

Alabama - 10
Georgia - 8
Clemson - 6
scUM - 4
USCe - 4
aTm -4
UF - 1
Stanford - 1
UVA - 1
Baylor - 0

The bottom four on that list were four of the worst five (by record) on that list. And while those rankings might be better if UFDA's are included, it ain't like we had a bunch of those either. (Did we have anyone other than Eguakan who has signed thus far?)

Totally beside the original graphic, but it would be informative to have that list divided into true freshmen versus red-shirts. Also, how balanced out are the inexperienced player snaps by experienced player snaps? It may not matter if the staff is unable to prove they "coached up" the returning players, but we may have more returning two-deep players than almost anybody we play this season - a stat that will work heavily against those arguing for keeping Billy should he not have a good season

thats a lot of analysis to essentially come to the conclusion that snaps by freshmen isnt very meaningful as a measuring tool to success - other things like coaching and leadership are far more indicative and predictive of how successful a season will be. As for the georgia comment, good point, i went back and looked at my comment and can see how its misleading. I simply meant they were a top 5 team and played more freshmen than most other teams in the D1 but was unclear. my apologies on that. that said, i still see nothing above that indicates how ive been moving the goal posts or repositioning my statements.

 

[Bernardo de la Paz]

I simply meant they were a top 5 team and played more freshmen than most other teams in the D1 but was unclear.

Did they though? I think Auggie's point was that total snaps might not be the best metric. Something like percentage of snaps might be better. Not too many teams played 14 games.

For example, we had 2,660 freshman snaps in 12 games which is 222 freshman snaps a game.

Ugly had 2,010 freshman snaps in 14 games which is 144 freshman snaps a game. That's a pretty big difference.

Of course Clemson managed 9 wins with 307 freshman snaps a game albeit in an awful ACC.

These numbers of course don't account for the total number of snaps per game based on pace. Florida and Georgia both ran about 70 plays a game while Clemson ran about 78. I don't know how many plays their defenses averaged.

And don't forget the extra freshman snaps we might have had if we always put 11 guys on the field.