What does the year have to do with it? There isn't a hard line as to when adjustments should or can be made. Golden can assess after year 3 that there's a problem. Whether or not we are capable of knowing when to make changes, we are certainly capable of discussing it on a message board. If you don't like that concept, I'm not sure what I can tell you. As for the rest of your post, I think pretty much everyone already knows that. Your platitudes may be "simple," but contradict the purpose of a message board. If you are here to discourage discussion, you've come to the wrong place. If you wish, I'll gladly point you toward sites that may be better suited to your disposition. That's as simply as I can put it.
Who said I didn't like the concept of discussion? I like discussion just fine. What I don't like is people who make assumptions based on watching on TV and playing video games and then come in here with stupid nicknames for coaches and players, profane avatars, saying they're stupid, saying they'll never win, comparing results from other teams that are irrelevant to what we do and are doing...blah blah blah. Discuss the scheme. Discuss coaching deficiencies. Discuss the talent level. Be a fan. But don't be an idiot.
I'm not sure who you're referring to, but there is plenty of discussion that doesn't fall into any of those categories. Personally, from what you "don't like," I can only own comparing results from other teams. I don't find that to be irrelevant. I'm not entirely sure how you find it to be wholly irrelevant to what we are doing or how we are performing. Outliers, I can understand. General trends and patterns, I do not.
You mentioned somewhere in this thread that you saw schematic changes from last year to this year. What were they? That's at least something substantive that can be discussed.
We're running more man coverage, the DBs are closer to the receivers in some cases, there's more movement pre and post snap on the DL, and fewer 4 DL sets...I'm not saying that those things have been effective, just that they are occurring with more frequency than we've seen in the last few seasons. It's my opinion that AG moved ahead with some of these changes thinking that the offense would be better than it has been.
As mentioned in the other thread, there are far too many variables that affect games day-to-day to claim that what NC Central did against Duke is relevant to what we did against Duke. For one, it was Duke's first game of the year. For another, Duke was up 28-0 at halftime and 42-0 after 3 Q's. I think it's safe to say that they called off the dogs at some point, which certainly would impact the game stats. That's just one example, but similar arguments could be made for every other team/opponent/stats comparison. The only thing we can say with certainty is that Duke whipped us on that day.
Yes, there is 'some' discussion that doesn't fall into those categories. But there's a lot more that does.
Sure, there may be too many variables that affect games day-to-day when looked at as "what did
one team do against that team."
Then you have to look at what EVERY team did against Duke. Then you'll say "Ok, but that was only one game for us." Except, it's not:
We underperformed the week before relative to what virtually everyone else had done against
VTech, too. VTech came into our game as a disaster of an offense. They didn't only get yards. They scored at will. Maybe you'll say they improved? The very next week I watched a decimated Maryland team confuse Logan Thomas and render him useless on 3rd downs, as opposed to his field day against us.
We underperformed against
Wake, as well, relative to virtually every team on the entire schedule. You can say, "hey, they improved as the season went on." Except the very next week they put up 198 yards and 0 points on a Syracuse team that has allowed nearly 27 points a game.
We underperformed against
UNC relative to literally every team on their entire schedule except Middle Tennessee State (who allowed 11 more yards than us).
Those are 4 teams, as examples, who basically had their best day of the year against our defense. Do we just bring out the best in other teams? Maybe you'll say "yards don't matter." Sure, they're not the end-all (almost nothing, standing alone, is the end-all), but they're a good enough indicator from which we can compare performances - especially when it spans across multiple teams.
We can say for certainty that we underperformed and were taken advantage of relative to other teams in multiple games. It's not an outlier. It's a pattern. Maybe they don't mean
everything, but there's enough there to take away some legitimate concern. Instead, you've called people clowns for noting this data and called the discussion of the comparisons "dumb."
