Talent improvement on Defense

[CaneAlmighty]

Here's how last year's depth chart would've looked like had Golden decided to sit all of the seniors.

Players in bold were all in their first or second year at Miami.


DE AQM - McCord - Hoilett

DT Pierre - Hamilton

DT Moore - King

DE Chickillo - Kamalu

LB Armbrister - Figueroa

LB Kirby - Blue

LB Perryman - Grace

CB Gunter - Burns - Dortch - Hope

CB Howard - Crawford - Elder - Lewis

SS Bush - Fentress

FS Jenkins - Carter

I'm going to take a step back and address it this way. This is the only factual response you can truly come up with and not be negative towards what you feel about the team. If you guys stated something like, "those younger guys were not good enough yet to overtake the scrub upperclassmen we had last year, but I Hope and believe they have gained enough experience to be better than what we had last year and my personal expectations are high," I could have lived with that.

Instead, this is what I saw. "Our depth chart this year is looking so much better, because all of these younger guys, who were not good enough yet to surpass the scrubs not fit to start for WF or Duke and belong at FIU or even Bethune Cookman, are now our starters." This was a statement of fact (summarized from the different posts) when in all reality, we don't know how much they have truly improved. How do we know that a bunch of those guys didn't hit their ceiling or are just not getting it? How do we know that they will look any better as starters under Golden's scheme? We can hope and believe, but we have yet to show signs that we are truly improving defensively yet.

Then when this question gets raised that if they were truly better players, why couldn't they surpass these scrubs, my response is lets meet and handle this like men. Seriously? At this point we are going in circles. The question I initially asked cannot be answered without 1. stating that they were not actually better players and that we hope they have grown this year to be better than those guys, or 2. The coaches are stupid and should have been playing those younger guys.

Personally, I'm somewhere in the middle of 1 and 2, a little bit of both. I do believe those guys will be better than what we had on the field (but this is opinion, not fact). Ultimately, my concern will be have they truly been developed between this year and last year (I mean significant growth in playing ability, not just got bigger), and will they be able to succeed under Golden's gameplan. Personally, I believe we should have been running more 4-3 and slide chick inside while letting Mccord or AQM start at one end spot. Let those guys get their bumps during the season. They will learn faster and can recover from some mistakes due to athleticism. Instead they will still be learning on the field this year when they should have been in a position to be that guy this year while learning on the field last year.

With all that bull**** you just said it still doesn't mean that some of these young guys don't take the next steps. I coach baseball at the Varsity level and for some guys it just clicks. That is what I gather from Rok. All you're trying to do is be a **** instead of understanding what he's saying you're listening to respond.

This board is turning into scout.com by the minute. Instead of debate we have people pushing agendas.

OMFG you guys are dense or just ignore what is said. The agenda being pushed is defense of weaknesses shown currently by the coaching staff. You guys have every excuse in the book without actual facts. I never said anything about these guys cannot or will not take the next step and yes it does "just click" for some guys. My agenda is people pushing statements of facts that are not actually facts to support their statement, which is what I gathered from Roks statement that we will be good this year and all will be well, because "potentially" (without factual evidence), these guys who it apparently had not "just clicked" for yet all at once "just clicked" going into this season. The agenda is stating that we will be better without actual facts to support your stance on Golden. That is the point. It is an opinion. We can disagree on opinions and debate and have no problems, but don't tell everyone its a fact when it is not and then follow it up with "let's meet and handle this like men" when you don't like what I thought was a reasonable question asked in a non disrespectful manner.

Actually what Oldman and Rok said are factual. This years defense will be more talented (going by stars ratings) and the players replacing the departing SR are better ATHLETES. Which is true. And given these 2 facts folks have every reason to infer that as a result the defense will improve.
The problem with you is that in your quest to be antagonistic and contentious you misconstrue statements which you then proceed to argue against your own misinterpretations.
There are more facts that support wholesale defense improvement than not. The points that Oldman, Rok and I have brought up support that.. Not sure what your argument is that supports no improvement which you are on record for saying will happen.

Here the list of facts that support improvement on defense.
1. More talented
2. Better Depth
3. Better athletes
4. More experience
5. More continuity amongst more players in the same system
6. History has shown that Al Golden's defense by year make major leaps (See temple and UVA)

 

[Miami82]

Here's how last year's depth chart would've looked like had Golden decided to sit all of the seniors.

Players in bold were all in their first or second year at Miami.


DE AQM - McCord - Hoilett

DT Pierre - Hamilton

DT Moore - King

DE Chickillo - Kamalu

LB Armbrister - Figueroa

LB Kirby - Blue

LB Perryman - Grace

CB Gunter - Burns - Dortch - Hope

CB Howard - Crawford - Elder - Lewis

SS Bush - Fentress

FS Jenkins - Carter

I'm going to take a step back and address it this way. This is the only factual response you can truly come up with and not be negative towards what you feel about the team. If you guys stated something like, "those younger guys were not good enough yet to overtake the scrub upperclassmen we had last year, but I Hope and believe they have gained enough experience to be better than what we had last year and my personal expectations are high," I could have lived with that.

Instead, this is what I saw. "Our depth chart this year is looking so much better, because all of these younger guys, who were not good enough yet to surpass the scrubs not fit to start for WF or Duke and belong at FIU or even Bethune Cookman, are now our starters." This was a statement of fact (summarized from the different posts) when in all reality, we don't know how much they have truly improved. How do we know that a bunch of those guys didn't hit their ceiling or are just not getting it? How do we know that they will look any better as starters under Golden's scheme? We can hope and believe, but we have yet to show signs that we are truly improving defensively yet.

Then when this question gets raised that if they were truly better players, why couldn't they surpass these scrubs, my response is lets meet and handle this like men. Seriously? At this point we are going in circles. The question I initially asked cannot be answered without 1. stating that they were not actually better players and that we hope they have grown this year to be better than those guys, or 2. The coaches are stupid and should have been playing those younger guys.

Personally, I'm somewhere in the middle of 1 and 2, a little bit of both. I do believe those guys will be better than what we had on the field (but this is opinion, not fact). Ultimately, my concern will be have they truly been developed between this year and last year (I mean significant growth in playing ability, not just got bigger), and will they be able to succeed under Golden's gameplan. Personally, I believe we should have been running more 4-3 and slide chick inside while letting Mccord or AQM start at one end spot. Let those guys get their bumps during the season. They will learn faster and can recover from some mistakes due to athleticism. Instead they will still be learning on the field this year when they should have been in a position to be that guy this year while learning on the field last year.

With all that bull**** you just said it still doesn't mean that some of these young guys don't take the next steps. I coach baseball at the Varsity level and for some guys it just clicks. That is what I gather from Rok. All you're trying to do is be a **** instead of understanding what he's saying you're listening to respond.

This board is turning into scout.com by the minute. Instead of debate we have people pushing agendas.

OMFG you guys are dense or just ignore what is said. The agenda being pushed is defense of weaknesses shown currently by the coaching staff. You guys have every excuse in the book without actual facts. I never said anything about these guys cannot or will not take the next step and yes it does "just click" for some guys. My agenda is people pushing statements of facts that are not actually facts to support their statement, which is what I gathered from Roks statement that we will be good this year and all will be well, because "potentially" (without factual evidence), these guys who it apparently had not "just clicked" for yet all at once "just clicked" going into this season. The agenda is stating that we will be better without actual facts to support your stance on Golden. That is the point. It is an opinion. We can disagree on opinions and debate and have no problems, but don't tell everyone its a fact when it is not and then follow it up with "let's meet and handle this like men" when you don't like what I thought was a reasonable question asked in a non disrespectful manner.

Actually what Oldman and Rok said are factual. This years defense will be more talented (going by stars ratings) and the players replacing the departing SR are better ATHLETES. Which is true. And given these 2 facts folks have every reason to infer that as a result the defense will improve.
The problem with you is that in your quest to be antagonistic and contentious you misconstrue statements which you then proceed to argue against your own misinterpretations.
There are more facts that support wholesale defense improvement than not. The points that Oldman, Rok and I have brought up support that.. Not sure what your argument is that supports no improvement which you are on record for saying will happen.

Here the list of facts that support improvement on defense.
1. More talented
2. Better Depth
3. Better athletes
4. More experience
5. More continuity amongst more players in the same system
6. History has shown that Al Golden's defense by year make major leaps (See temple and UVA)

LOL, you are 1 dense ****.

The directed question which I still haven't seen answered adequately, if those players were so much better, why didn't they overtake the players in front of them? You can't have it both ways you dumbass tard.

But then again you are the dumbass claiming we will be ranked 30 or better on defense this coming year.

Just an FYI, it isn't just star rating that makes these kids better, the **** staff has to coach them up and use their natural gifts in the best scheme for their style of play.

We will know soon enough. The UL game will show a lot.

 

[OldManCane]

I'm going to take a step back and address it this way. This is the only factual response you can truly come up with and not be negative towards what you feel about the team. If you guys stated something like, "those younger guys were not good enough yet to overtake the scrub upperclassmen we had last year, but I Hope and believe they have gained enough experience to be better than what we had last year and my personal expectations are high," I could have lived with that.

Instead, this is what I saw. "Our depth chart this year is looking so much better, because all of these younger guys, who were not good enough yet to surpass the scrubs not fit to start for WF or Duke and belong at FIU or even Bethune Cookman, are now our starters." This was a statement of fact (summarized from the different posts) when in all reality, we don't know how much they have truly improved. How do we know that a bunch of those guys didn't hit their ceiling or are just not getting it? How do we know that they will look any better as starters under Golden's scheme? We can hope and believe, but we have yet to show signs that we are truly improving defensively yet.

Then when this question gets raised that if they were truly better players, why couldn't they surpass these scrubs, my response is lets meet and handle this like men. Seriously? At this point we are going in circles. The question I initially asked cannot be answered without 1. stating that they were not actually better players and that we hope they have grown this year to be better than those guys, or 2. The coaches are stupid and should have been playing those younger guys.

Personally, I'm somewhere in the middle of 1 and 2, a little bit of both. I do believe those guys will be better than what we had on the field (but this is opinion, not fact). Ultimately, my concern will be have they truly been developed between this year and last year (I mean significant growth in playing ability, not just got bigger), and will they be able to succeed under Golden's gameplan. Personally, I believe we should have been running more 4-3 and slide chick inside while letting Mccord or AQM start at one end spot. Let those guys get their bumps during the season. They will learn faster and can recover from some mistakes due to athleticism. Instead they will still be learning on the field this year when they should have been in a position to be that guy this year while learning on the field last year.

With all that bull**** you just said it still doesn't mean that some of these young guys don't take the next steps. I coach baseball at the Varsity level and for some guys it just clicks. That is what I gather from Rok. All you're trying to do is be a **** instead of understanding what he's saying you're listening to respond.

This board is turning into scout.com by the minute. Instead of debate we have people pushing agendas.

OMFG you guys are dense or just ignore what is said. The agenda being pushed is defense of weaknesses shown currently by the coaching staff. You guys have every excuse in the book without actual facts. I never said anything about these guys cannot or will not take the next step and yes it does "just click" for some guys. My agenda is people pushing statements of facts that are not actually facts to support their statement, which is what I gathered from Roks statement that we will be good this year and all will be well, because "potentially" (without factual evidence), these guys who it apparently had not "just clicked" for yet all at once "just clicked" going into this season. The agenda is stating that we will be better without actual facts to support your stance on Golden. That is the point. It is an opinion. We can disagree on opinions and debate and have no problems, but don't tell everyone its a fact when it is not and then follow it up with "let's meet and handle this like men" when you don't like what I thought was a reasonable question asked in a non disrespectful manner.

Actually what Oldman and Rok said are factual. This years defense will be more talented (going by stars ratings) and the players replacing the departing SR are better ATHLETES. Which is true. And given these 2 facts folks have every reason to infer that as a result the defense will improve.
The problem with you is that in your quest to be antagonistic and contentious you misconstrue statements which you then proceed to argue against your own misinterpretations.
There are more facts that support wholesale defense improvement than not. The points that Oldman, Rok and I have brought up support that.. Not sure what your argument is that supports no improvement which you are on record for saying will happen.

Here the list of facts that support improvement on defense.
1. More talented
2. Better Depth
3. Better athletes
4. More experience
5. More continuity amongst more players in the same system
6. History has shown that Al Golden's defense by year make major leaps (See temple and UVA)

LOL, you are 1 dense ****.

The directed question which I still haven't seen answered adequately, if those players were so much better, why didn't they overtake the players in front of them? You can't have it both ways you dumbass tard.

But then again you are the dumbass claiming we will be ranked 30 or better on defense this coming year.

Just an FYI, it isn't just star rating that makes these kids better, the **** staff has to coach them up and use their natural gifts in the best scheme for their style of play.

We will know soon enough. The UL game will show a lot.

Why didn't Willis McGahee overtake James Jackson in 2000? Surely he was a more talented football player.

Why didn't Andre Johnson break in to the starting rotation in 2000?

Answer: because this is college football and players cycle in and out. Sometimes the backup is more talented than the starter, but for various reasons, doesn't take the starting role as a freshman or sophomore.

That's the way college football is my friend.

 

[RickDerris]

With all that bull**** you just said it still doesn't mean that some of these young guys don't take the next steps. I coach baseball at the Varsity level and for some guys it just clicks. That is what I gather from Rok. All you're trying to do is be a **** instead of understanding what he's saying you're listening to respond.

This board is turning into scout.com by the minute. Instead of debate we have people pushing agendas.

OMFG you guys are dense or just ignore what is said. The agenda being pushed is defense of weaknesses shown currently by the coaching staff. You guys have every excuse in the book without actual facts. I never said anything about these guys cannot or will not take the next step and yes it does "just click" for some guys. My agenda is people pushing statements of facts that are not actually facts to support their statement, which is what I gathered from Roks statement that we will be good this year and all will be well, because "potentially" (without factual evidence), these guys who it apparently had not "just clicked" for yet all at once "just clicked" going into this season. The agenda is stating that we will be better without actual facts to support your stance on Golden. That is the point. It is an opinion. We can disagree on opinions and debate and have no problems, but don't tell everyone its a fact when it is not and then follow it up with "let's meet and handle this like men" when you don't like what I thought was a reasonable question asked in a non disrespectful manner.

Actually what Oldman and Rok said are factual. This years defense will be more talented (going by stars ratings) and the players replacing the departing SR are better ATHLETES. Which is true. And given these 2 facts folks have every reason to infer that as a result the defense will improve.
The problem with you is that in your quest to be antagonistic and contentious you misconstrue statements which you then proceed to argue against your own misinterpretations.
There are more facts that support wholesale defense improvement than not. The points that Oldman, Rok and I have brought up support that.. Not sure what your argument is that supports no improvement which you are on record for saying will happen.

Here the list of facts that support improvement on defense.
1. More talented
2. Better Depth
3. Better athletes
4. More experience
5. More continuity amongst more players in the same system
6. History has shown that Al Golden's defense by year make major leaps (See temple and UVA)

LOL, you are 1 dense ****.

The directed question which I still haven't seen answered adequately, if those players were so much better, why didn't they overtake the players in front of them? You can't have it both ways you dumbass tard.

But then again you are the dumbass claiming we will be ranked 30 or better on defense this coming year.

Just an FYI, it isn't just star rating that makes these kids better, the **** staff has to coach them up and use their natural gifts in the best scheme for their style of play.

We will know soon enough. The UL game will show a lot.

Why didn't Willis McGahee overtake James Jackson in 2000? Surely he was a more talented football player.

Why didn't Andre Johnson break in to the starting rotation in 2000?

Answer: because this is college football and players cycle in and out. Sometimes the backup is more talented than the starter, but for various reasons, doesn't take the starting role as a freshman or sophomore.

That's the way college football is my friend.

Because JJ was using UMbrynn's girlfriend for extra cardio in the offseason .

 

[CaneAlmighty]

Reasons to the dumbass questioned posed by the mopers have already been given.

Young players weren't either one or a combination of one these reasons.
Not physically ready to contribute as a full time starter (See McCord and AQM, Kirby).
Not mentally mature enough to grasp defense (See Carter)
Leadership. There is a intangible value of having veteran leadership on the field that the younger players wouldn't have provided.
Experience. Similar to leadership. There is no substitute for experience.

All in all, either way the defense would have still sucked no matter who played. Golden decided to go with the Seniors and work the young players in gradually.

Headed into this season, those players no have more experience, have a better grasp of the defense, are physically stronger and bigger and some are stepping up as leaders.

Given all this If you all want to continue to mope nothing more I can do for you guys.

 

[Miami82]

With all that bull**** you just said it still doesn't mean that some of these young guys don't take the next steps. I coach baseball at the Varsity level and for some guys it just clicks. That is what I gather from Rok. All you're trying to do is be a **** instead of understanding what he's saying you're listening to respond.

This board is turning into scout.com by the minute. Instead of debate we have people pushing agendas.

OMFG you guys are dense or just ignore what is said. The agenda being pushed is defense of weaknesses shown currently by the coaching staff. You guys have every excuse in the book without actual facts. I never said anything about these guys cannot or will not take the next step and yes it does "just click" for some guys. My agenda is people pushing statements of facts that are not actually facts to support their statement, which is what I gathered from Roks statement that we will be good this year and all will be well, because "potentially" (without factual evidence), these guys who it apparently had not "just clicked" for yet all at once "just clicked" going into this season. The agenda is stating that we will be better without actual facts to support your stance on Golden. That is the point. It is an opinion. We can disagree on opinions and debate and have no problems, but don't tell everyone its a fact when it is not and then follow it up with "let's meet and handle this like men" when you don't like what I thought was a reasonable question asked in a non disrespectful manner.

Actually what Oldman and Rok said are factual. This years defense will be more talented (going by stars ratings) and the players replacing the departing SR are better ATHLETES. Which is true. And given these 2 facts folks have every reason to infer that as a result the defense will improve.
The problem with you is that in your quest to be antagonistic and contentious you misconstrue statements which you then proceed to argue against your own misinterpretations.
There are more facts that support wholesale defense improvement than not. The points that Oldman, Rok and I have brought up support that.. Not sure what your argument is that supports no improvement which you are on record for saying will happen.

Here the list of facts that support improvement on defense.
1. More talented
2. Better Depth
3. Better athletes
4. More experience
5. More continuity amongst more players in the same system
6. History has shown that Al Golden's defense by year make major leaps (See temple and UVA)

LOL, you are 1 dense ****.

The directed question which I still haven't seen answered adequately, if those players were so much better, why didn't they overtake the players in front of them? You can't have it both ways you dumbass tard.

But then again you are the dumbass claiming we will be ranked 30 or better on defense this coming year.

Just an FYI, it isn't just star rating that makes these kids better, the **** staff has to coach them up and use their natural gifts in the best scheme for their style of play.

We will know soon enough. The UL game will show a lot.

Why didn't Willis McGahee overtake James Jackson in 2000? Surely he was a more talented football player.

Why didn't Andre Johnson break in to the starting rotation in 2000?

Answer: because this is college football and players cycle in and out. Sometimes the backup is more talented than the starter, but for various reasons, doesn't take the starting role as a freshman or sophomore.

That's the way college football is my friend.

LOL, nice generalization and using one of the most stacked teams in our generation as your example.

I expected better out of you OMC.

 

[Miami82]

Reasons to the dumbass questioned posed by the mopers have already been given.

Young players weren't either one or a combination of one these reasons.
Not physically ready to contribute as a full time starter (See McCord and AQM, Kirby).
Not mentally mature enough to grasp defense (See Carter)
Leadership. There is a intangible value of having veteran leadership on the field that the younger players wouldn't have provided.
Experience. Similar to leadership. There is no substitute for experience.

All in all, either way the defense would have still sucked no matter who played. Golden decided to go with the Seniors and work the young players in gradually.

Headed into this season, those players no have more experience, have a better grasp of the defense, are physically stronger and bigger and some are stepping up as leaders.

Given all this If you all want to continue to mope nothing more I can do for you guys.

Seriously dude you should just bow out of this thread. You are looking more stupid by the post.

 

[OldManCane]

OMFG you guys are dense or just ignore what is said. The agenda being pushed is defense of weaknesses shown currently by the coaching staff. You guys have every excuse in the book without actual facts. I never said anything about these guys cannot or will not take the next step and yes it does "just click" for some guys. My agenda is people pushing statements of facts that are not actually facts to support their statement, which is what I gathered from Roks statement that we will be good this year and all will be well, because "potentially" (without factual evidence), these guys who it apparently had not "just clicked" for yet all at once "just clicked" going into this season. The agenda is stating that we will be better without actual facts to support your stance on Golden. That is the point. It is an opinion. We can disagree on opinions and debate and have no problems, but don't tell everyone its a fact when it is not and then follow it up with "let's meet and handle this like men" when you don't like what I thought was a reasonable question asked in a non disrespectful manner.

Actually what Oldman and Rok said are factual. This years defense will be more talented (going by stars ratings) and the players replacing the departing SR are better ATHLETES. Which is true. And given these 2 facts folks have every reason to infer that as a result the defense will improve.
The problem with you is that in your quest to be antagonistic and contentious you misconstrue statements which you then proceed to argue against your own misinterpretations.
There are more facts that support wholesale defense improvement than not. The points that Oldman, Rok and I have brought up support that.. Not sure what your argument is that supports no improvement which you are on record for saying will happen.

Here the list of facts that support improvement on defense.
1. More talented
2. Better Depth
3. Better athletes
4. More experience
5. More continuity amongst more players in the same system
6. History has shown that Al Golden's defense by year make major leaps (See temple and UVA)

LOL, you are 1 dense ****.

The directed question which I still haven't seen answered adequately, if those players were so much better, why didn't they overtake the players in front of them? You can't have it both ways you dumbass tard.

But then again you are the dumbass claiming we will be ranked 30 or better on defense this coming year.

Just an FYI, it isn't just star rating that makes these kids better, the **** staff has to coach them up and use their natural gifts in the best scheme for their style of play.

We will know soon enough. The UL game will show a lot.

Why didn't Willis McGahee overtake James Jackson in 2000? Surely he was a more talented football player.

Why didn't Andre Johnson break in to the starting rotation in 2000?

Answer: because this is college football and players cycle in and out. Sometimes the backup is more talented than the starter, but for various reasons, doesn't take the starting role as a freshman or sophomore.

That's the way college football is my friend.

LOL, nice generalization and using one of the most stacked teams in our generation as your example.

I expected better out of you OMC.

Stacked, but there's no doubt McGahee was more talented than Jackson. So why didn't he start?

 

[CaneAlmighty]

Reasons to the dumbass questioned posed by the mopers have already been given.

Young players weren't either one or a combination of one these reasons.
Not physically ready to contribute as a full time starter (See McCord and AQM, Kirby).
Not mentally mature enough to grasp defense (See Carter)
Leadership. There is a intangible value of having veteran leadership on the field that the younger players wouldn't have provided.
Experience. Similar to leadership. There is no substitute for experience.

All in all, either way the defense would have still sucked no matter who played. Golden decided to go with the Seniors and work the young players in gradually.

Headed into this season, those players no have more experience, have a better grasp of the defense, are physically stronger and bigger and some are stepping up as leaders.

Given all this If you all want to continue to mope nothing more I can do for you guys.

Seriously dude you should just bow out of this thread. You are looking more stupid by the post.

Translation: I can't refute what Almighty stated so I'm going to try to evade the argument by attacking him.

Miami82, you're being severely outclassed here by myself and Oldman.. He asked you to answer a simple question but you couldn't.. Where's Poncho??
He'd at least spin his way to an answer however flawed it may be.. But at least he'd try..

 

[Miami82]

Actually what Oldman and Rok said are factual. This years defense will be more talented (going by stars ratings) and the players replacing the departing SR are better ATHLETES. Which is true. And given these 2 facts folks have every reason to infer that as a result the defense will improve.
The problem with you is that in your quest to be antagonistic and contentious you misconstrue statements which you then proceed to argue against your own misinterpretations.
There are more facts that support wholesale defense improvement than not. The points that Oldman, Rok and I have brought up support that.. Not sure what your argument is that supports no improvement which you are on record for saying will happen.

Here the list of facts that support improvement on defense.
1. More talented
2. Better Depth
3. Better athletes
4. More experience
5. More continuity amongst more players in the same system
6. History has shown that Al Golden's defense by year make major leaps (See temple and UVA)

LOL, you are 1 dense ****.

The directed question which I still haven't seen answered adequately, if those players were so much better, why didn't they overtake the players in front of them? You can't have it both ways you dumbass tard.

But then again you are the dumbass claiming we will be ranked 30 or better on defense this coming year.

Just an FYI, it isn't just star rating that makes these kids better, the **** staff has to coach them up and use their natural gifts in the best scheme for their style of play.

We will know soon enough. The UL game will show a lot.

Why didn't Willis McGahee overtake James Jackson in 2000? Surely he was a more talented football player.

Why didn't Andre Johnson break in to the starting rotation in 2000?

Answer: because this is college football and players cycle in and out. Sometimes the backup is more talented than the starter, but for various reasons, doesn't take the starting role as a freshman or sophomore.

That's the way college football is my friend.

LOL, nice generalization and using one of the most stacked teams in our generation as your example.

I expected better out of you OMC.

Stacked, but there's no doubt McGahee was more talented than Jackson. So why didn't he start?

Because he was redshirted in 2000. As I stated, that team was stacked. We also had Portis then as well.

 

[Miami82]

Reasons to the dumbass questioned posed by the mopers have already been given.

Young players weren't either one or a combination of one these reasons.
Not physically ready to contribute as a full time starter (See McCord and AQM, Kirby).
Not mentally mature enough to grasp defense (See Carter)
Leadership. There is a intangible value of having veteran leadership on the field that the younger players wouldn't have provided.
Experience. Similar to leadership. There is no substitute for experience.

All in all, either way the defense would have still sucked no matter who played. Golden decided to go with the Seniors and work the young players in gradually.

Headed into this season, those players no have more experience, have a better grasp of the defense, are physically stronger and bigger and some are stepping up as leaders.

Given all this If you all want to continue to mope nothing more I can do for you guys.

Seriously dude you should just bow out of this thread. You are looking more stupid by the post.

Translation: I can't refute what Almighty stated so I'm going to try to evade the argument by attacking him.

Miami82, you're being severely outclassed here by myself and Oldman.. He asked you to answer a simple question but you couldn't.. Where's Poncho??
He'd at least spin his way to an answer however flawed it may be.. But at least he'd try..

LOL, seriously just stop. Round and round you go. What you have sated is already been debated and you lost.

You are having a circle jerk with yourself.

 

[GhostofVenice01]

niner: fyi you cant neg someone who is higher rep than you

 

[niner]

:ibisroflmao:

you kids take this internet rep thing way too seriously

 

[poncho0091]

Reasons to the dumbass questioned posed by the mopers have already been given.

Young players weren't either one or a combination of one these reasons.
Not physically ready to contribute as a full time starter (See McCord and AQM, Kirby).
Not mentally mature enough to grasp defense (See Carter)
Leadership. There is a intangible value of having veteran leadership on the field that the younger players wouldn't have provided.
Experience. Similar to leadership. There is no substitute for experience.

All in all, either way the defense would have still sucked no matter who played. Golden decided to go with the Seniors and work the young players in gradually.

Headed into this season, those players no have more experience, have a better grasp of the defense, are physically stronger and bigger and some are stepping up as leaders.

Given all this If you all want to continue to mope nothing more I can do for you guys.

So in the most indirect and roundabout answer you could possibly give, the players were not as good as the guys starting at that time (which was one of the 2 options I gave you for answer from the very first question) even though our starters were not good enough to start for FIU or even Bethune Cookman (didn't we beat them which would put that theory down?) according to you guys.

Thanks for finally answering the question and proving my point that we are taking opinions that these guys have taken the next step (because they would have to take that step to be better than the guys who couldn't start for FIU or Bethune Cookman) as a fact when in actually we don't have evidence that it is a fact. Remember when you guys told me opinions don't count?

Well now that I've finally got an answer I'm out of this thread. Thanks for playing.

 

[rok]

Thats it. Lets do this. Meet me somewhere this weekend. Or you can get your opportunity tonight.

LOL, that's what you took from his response...

meet me somewhere

 

[Cane Dynasty]

This thread is awesome!

 

[Classic]

You all can scream at each other until September, if you want.

One thing, though, is clear: We must be better on offense.

 

[westcoastcanes]

This thread is awesome!

It really is top notch. no matter what side you are on of whatever argument you think is taking place, this thread has been entertaining.

 

[Miami82]

Thats it. Lets do this. Meet me somewhere this weekend. Or you can get your opportunity tonight.

LOL, that's what you took from his response...

meet me somewhere

N 70° 51' 43.8228 W 156° 39' 13.6008

Let me know when you get there.

 

[poncho0091]

Thats it. Lets do this. Meet me somewhere this weekend. Or you can get your opportunity tonight.

LOL, that's what you took from his response...

meet me somewhere

lol @ this again