(09-29-2014 10:39 PM)Hotrod829 Wrote:  

(09-29-2014 10:17 PM)JMUETC Wrote:  Stop the presses. BDK didn't feel like looking things up.

Here are the preseason all conference totals from the last 3 years (2012-2013-2014) first team only.

Towson -15
Maine - 10
Villanova - 8
New Hampshire - 8
W&M - 9
JMU - 6

2013 postseason all conference (CAA website sucks couldn't find 2012) first team only.

Towson - 8
Maine - 6
Villanova - 1
NH - 1
W&M - 6
JMU - 3

I guess I'll take your expert opinion over all the CAA coaches. Stick to correcting people's grammar. And thanks for calling BS!

Yea those teams can be misleading sometimes. Esp if you make it the year before and your team is in the top three of the league . The top teams always have seemed to get the most players on there.

HotRod gets it.

(09-30-2014 11:47 AM)BDKJMU Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 08:49 AM)ShadyP Wrote:  

(09-29-2014 06:48 PM)BDKJMU Wrote:  

(09-29-2014 12:41 PM)ShadyP Wrote:  

(09-29-2014 12:35 PM)Potomac Wrote:  This this this. Harping on and on about "inherited talent" and "experienced" players doesn't really mean jack **** when they went 6-6 last season.
What is returning is mediocre players.

Not just that, this 'inherited talent' has not made the playoffs in what 5 previous seasons --- so that gives you an entire team- all classes, where the accumulated 'inherited talent' has basically a .500 overall record.

So for anyone not to expect a learning curve when taking that 'talent', adding some transfer & freshmen and immediately expecting a top 10, top 25 team from the word go has some rather lofty, unrealistice expectations.

Also these guys that are transfers, had they been 'killin' it at there previous school would not be at JMU.

-They aren't returning mediocre players. Last yr's 6-6 wasn't because of lack I talent. There was only 2 teams that had more talent than JMU last season- TU and Akron. I think you could say VU and maybe UD were on par, and split with those 2, one home and one away. The 2010 class had 34 Rivals stars. The 2012 class was rated the best in the nation by the Sports Network.

JMU hasn't made the playoffs in 5 previous seasons? It was better than .500 (33-25) but still not nearly good enough.

MM was fired because the last 5 regular seasons JMU was getting 6-7 wins in the regular season with enough talent to be getting 8-9 wins. Had enough talent & experience to be in the playoffs 4 of the last 5 seasons and were in it 1 of the last 5 (the only 1 I could excuse is 09' because lost a large # of seniors from 08' + a slew in the offseason to various reasons (academic, medical, personal, legal- was around 1/2 the starters and about 40% of 2 deep).

There's only 2 teams that JMU will face with more talent- MD and maybe VU. I absolutely believe there's 10-2 talent on this team and anything less than 8-4 with playoffs is unacceptable.

Not sure why everyone wants to think this team is 'LOADED' with talent and it has been not basically a .500 team but exactly a .500 CAA, very mediocre/average team over the last 5 years.

BDK quit massaging the numbers for your own purpose you know exactly what the numbers say so why do you refuse too comprehend them.

Yeah the overall record was 33-25, but lets take out the out of conference cream puffs that were gimme wins each year and the one OOC that is with rare exception a guranteed loss. Take a look at the CAA record against our Peer Institutions it is EXACTLY .500 (20-20) from 2009-2013 --- that is the previous 5 seasons.

To me the talent level is exactly what this group of players has done on the field and the RECORD clearly states they have very average talent across the board for the past 5 seasons. Also over that 5 year run there are not 1/2 loss or win seasons within CAA play they actually hover right at .500 (3-5/5-3/5-3/3-5/4-4) --- never more than a 1 game swing of being exactly .500 in CAA play --- this is the defintion of average. So to claim that the talent level is anything other that average/mediocre I don't get.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree here. You don't think JMU has under performed the last 5 years vis a vis the talent level on the field. I do.

Perhaps, but at some point when faced with a mounting stack of evidence I have to concede that the talent level is just not what I thought it to be. I am not gonna tout the level of talent at JMU when for 5 consecutive years JMU has been by definition and results on the field a very average football team. It is not a one year abberation that has skewed the numbers they are exactly that - a mediocre team. We can point to MM or EW as the issue or the various coaching changes under MM over that same span, but there is one constant and that is the players, the talent. Over 5+ years now including this season, nothing has really resonated with them. Which leads me back too the players. Football is not wrestling, golf, or tennis where you win/lose both individually and as a team. Perhaps there is talent there I am just not going to continue to vouche for the talent level when we are getting middling results. What I am beginning to this is while they 'may be' talented over the last 4-5 recruiting classes we have brought in the wrong kids.

(09-30-2014 11:50 AM)BDKJMU Wrote:  

(09-29-2014 10:39 PM)Hotrod829 Wrote:  

(09-29-2014 10:17 PM)JMUETC Wrote:  Stop the presses. BDK didn't feel like looking things up.

Here are the preseason all conference totals from the last 3 years (2012-2013-2014) first team only.

Towson -15
Maine - 10
Villanova - 8
New Hampshire - 8
W&M - 9
JMU - 6

2013 postseason all conference (CAA website sucks couldn't find 2012) first team only.

Towson - 8
Maine - 6
Villanova - 1
NH - 1
W&M - 6
JMU - 3

I guess I'll take your expert opinion over all the CAA coaches. Stick to correcting people's grammar. And thanks for calling BS!

Yea those teams can be misleading sometimes. Esp if you make it the year before and your team is in the top three of the league . The top teams always have seemed to get the most players on there.

HotRod gets it.

And deservedly so....they are the players from the best teams. That is a very logical approach. Why would anyone expect to load the 1st team with players from the 5th place team....if they had that many 1st team quality players they would not have been the 5th place team.

I don't see the ACC loading up their first team with players from Syracuse and Wake Forest OR the All Pro NFL teams being loaded up with players from Oakland. Sure those teams have players with 'talent' but not as much as teams that beat them.

Players make plays and our guys have not been making as many plays as guys on other teams. I bet Poppy Livers/Barnett at Richmond/the UNH guy does not drop a sure TD pass over the top. JMU simply does not have 'a lot' of players that consistently steup and make plays in crucial times of the game and have not for several years now. Sure they might do it against STFU or CCSU but with the game on the line against VU/UD/Towson/W&M it has not been happening.

(09-30-2014 11:43 AM)BDKJMU Wrote:  

(09-29-2014 10:17 PM)JMUETC Wrote:  Stop the presses. BDK didn't feel like looking things up.

Here are the preseason all conference totals from the last 3 years (2012-2013-2014) first team only.

Towson -15
Maine - 10
Villanova - 8
New Hampshire - 8
W&M - 9
JMU - 6

2013 postseason all conference (CAA website sucks couldn't find 2012) first team only.

Towson - 8
Maine - 6
Villanova - 1
NH - 1
W&M - 6
JMU - 3

I guess I'll take your expert opinion over all the CAA coaches. Stick to correcting people's grammar. And thanks for calling BS!

Way to change the arguement, cherry pick, move the goal posts.
You said each of those 5 schools had more picks than JMU on the pre and postseason teams for each of the last 3 years. I showed that wasn't true by simply looking up one of those 3 years, 2013.

And you said CAA post season teams for the last 3 years. Now you want to move the goal post by saying 1st team only, along with admitting you didn't even look up 2012 and 2011, saying you can't find them because the CAA's website sucks. Nothing wrong with the website- easy to find under archives- they're all there going back to 2007, the CAA's inaugural year for football.
http://caasports.com/archives.aspx?path=football

2012 postseason All CAA:
VU: 12
TU: 12
UNH: 11
JMU: 10
W&M: 8
Maine: 5
http://caasports.com/news/2012/11/19/CAA...h=football

2011 postseason All CAA:
JMU: 12
Maine 11
UNH: 8
W&M: 8
TU: 5
VU: 4
http://caasports.com/news/2011/11/21/201...h=football

Next time you make a claim you might want bother and check to see if its true or not.
I'll say it again- the # of CAA honors a team receives has more to do with its wins and losses than its actual talent on the field, 2 things that don't always correspond. But keep believing if you want that JMU doesn't have the talent now, and in the last few years, to do much better than it has been doing.

Nice reading comprehension. Never said each in my post. Also said scanned which implies just a rough estimate. I guess even my BDK disclaimer didn't work.

We can debate all day about 1st and 2nd team. Perhaps you could create a formula that compares whether 3 first teamers means you have more or less talent then 1 first teamer and 4 second teamers. I couldn't care less. In my opinion, fewer first teamers means less talent as judged by the folks who coach against and who game plan for the players.

You do a great job gathering data. I'll leave it to others to analyze and interpret.

Again, never said JMU didn't have the talent to do better than they have done. Those are your words. I have said it is system AND players.

(09-30-2014 11:54 AM)ShadyP Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 11:47 AM)BDKJMU Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 08:49 AM)ShadyP Wrote:  

(09-29-2014 06:48 PM)BDKJMU Wrote:  

(09-29-2014 12:41 PM)ShadyP Wrote:  Not just that, this 'inherited talent' has not made the playoffs in what 5 previous seasons --- so that gives you an entire team- all classes, where the accumulated 'inherited talent' has basically a .500 overall record.

So for anyone not to expect a learning curve when taking that 'talent', adding some transfer & freshmen and immediately expecting a top 10, top 25 team from the word go has some rather lofty, unrealistice expectations.

Also these guys that are transfers, had they been 'killin' it at there previous school would not be at JMU.

-They aren't returning mediocre players. Last yr's 6-6 wasn't because of lack I talent. There was only 2 teams that had more talent than JMU last season- TU and Akron. I think you could say VU and maybe UD were on par, and split with those 2, one home and one away. The 2010 class had 34 Rivals stars. The 2012 class was rated the best in the nation by the Sports Network.

JMU hasn't made the playoffs in 5 previous seasons? It was better than .500 (33-25) but still not nearly good enough.

MM was fired because the last 5 regular seasons JMU was getting 6-7 wins in the regular season with enough talent to be getting 8-9 wins. Had enough talent & experience to be in the playoffs 4 of the last 5 seasons and were in it 1 of the last 5 (the only 1 I could excuse is 09' because lost a large # of seniors from 08' + a slew in the offseason to various reasons (academic, medical, personal, legal- was around 1/2 the starters and about 40% of 2 deep).

There's only 2 teams that JMU will face with more talent- MD and maybe VU. I absolutely believe there's 10-2 talent on this team and anything less than 8-4 with playoffs is unacceptable.

Not sure why everyone wants to think this team is 'LOADED' with talent and it has been not basically a .500 team but exactly a .500 CAA, very mediocre/average team over the last 5 years.

BDK quit massaging the numbers for your own purpose you know exactly what the numbers say so why do you refuse too comprehend them.

Yeah the overall record was 33-25, but lets take out the out of conference cream puffs that were gimme wins each year and the one OOC that is with rare exception a guranteed loss. Take a look at the CAA record against our Peer Institutions it is EXACTLY .500 (20-20) from 2009-2013 --- that is the previous 5 seasons.

To me the talent level is exactly what this group of players has done on the field and the RECORD clearly states they have very average talent across the board for the past 5 seasons. Also over that 5 year run there are not 1/2 loss or win seasons within CAA play they actually hover right at .500 (3-5/5-3/5-3/3-5/4-4) --- never more than a 1 game swing of being exactly .500 in CAA play --- this is the defintion of average. So to claim that the talent level is anything other that average/mediocre I don't get.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree here. You don't think JMU has under performed the last 5 years vis a vis the talent level on the field. I do.

Perhaps, but at some point when faced with a mounting stack of evidence I have to concede that the talent level is just not what I thought it to be. I am not gonna tout the level of talent at JMU when for 5 consecutive years JMU has been by definition and results on the field a very average football team. It is not a one year abberation that has skewed the numbers they are exactly that - a mediocre team. We can point to MM or EW as the issue or the various coaching changes under MM over that same span, but there is one constant and that is the players, the talent. Over 5+ years now including this season, nothing has really resonated with them. Which leads me back too the players. Football is not wrestling, golf, or tennis where you win/lose both individually and as a team. Perhaps there is talent there I am just not going to continue to vouche for the talent level when we are getting middling results. What I am beginning to this is while they 'may be' talented over the last 4-5 recruiting classes we have brought in the wrong kids.

The talent level may not have been enough for semis/NC, but it has been enough to be getting 8-9 wins and into the at least the 2nd round/round of 16 of the playoffs at least 4 of the last 5 seasons and this season.

Last 5 seaosns when JMU should have been getting 8-9 wins a season was getting 6-7. JMU has been underachieving IMHOP by an avg of about 2 games per season over the last 5 seasons (and already 1 game this season).

(09-30-2014 11:57 AM)JMUETC Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 11:43 AM)BDKJMU Wrote:  

(09-29-2014 10:17 PM)JMUETC Wrote:  Stop the presses. BDK didn't feel like looking things up.

Here are the preseason all conference totals from the last 3 years (2012-2013-2014) first team only.

Towson -15
Maine - 10
Villanova - 8
New Hampshire - 8
W&M - 9
JMU - 6

2013 postseason all conference (CAA website sucks couldn't find 2012) first team only.

Towson - 8
Maine - 6
Villanova - 1
NH - 1
W&M - 6
JMU - 3

I guess I'll take your expert opinion over all the CAA coaches. Stick to correcting people's grammar. And thanks for calling BS!

Way to change the arguement, cherry pick, move the goal posts.
You said each of those 5 schools had more picks than JMU on the pre and postseason teams for each of the last 3 years. I showed that wasn't true by simply looking up one of those 3 years, 2013.

And you said CAA post season teams for the last 3 years. Now you want to move the goal post by saying 1st team only, along with admitting you didn't even look up 2012 and 2011, saying you can't find them because the CAA's website sucks. Nothing wrong with the website- easy to find under archives- they're all there going back to 2007, the CAA's inaugural year for football.
http://caasports.com/archives.aspx?path=football

2012 postseason All CAA:
VU: 12
TU: 12
UNH: 11
JMU: 10
W&M: 8
Maine: 5
http://caasports.com/news/2012/11/19/CAA...h=football

2011 postseason All CAA:
JMU: 12
Maine 11
UNH: 8
W&M: 8
TU: 5
VU: 4
http://caasports.com/news/2011/11/21/201...h=football

Next time you make a claim you might want bother and check to see if its true or not.
I'll say it again- the # of CAA honors a team receives has more to do with its wins and losses than its actual talent on the field, 2 things that don't always correspond. But keep believing if you want that JMU doesn't have the talent now, and in the last few years, to do much better than it has been doing.

Nice reading comprehension. Never said each in my post. Also said scanned which implies just a rough estimate. I guess even my BDK disclaimer didn't work.

We can debate all day about 1st and 2nd team. Perhaps you could create a formula that compares whether 3 first teamers means you have more or less talent then 1 first teamer and 4 second teamers. I couldn't care less. In my opinion, fewer first teamers means less talent as judged by the folks who coach against and who game plan for the players.

You do a great job gathering data. I'll leave it to others to analyze and interpret.

Again, never said JMU didn't have the talent to do better than they have done. Those are your words. I have said it is system AND players.

You're stuck on # of players on an all star team is more based on talent on the field than wins and losses. I'm saying JMU has had the talent to have more wins the last 5 seasons which would have = more players on the pre and post season all star teams.

I was stating that very point earlier, that JMU has had talent to do better than they have done the last 5 seasons & this year, and you countered with your whole not enough players on an all star team arguement, which seemed to imply you didn't agree.

(09-30-2014 12:40 PM)BDKJMU Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 11:57 AM)JMUETC Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 11:43 AM)BDKJMU Wrote:  

(09-29-2014 10:17 PM)JMUETC Wrote:  Stop the presses. BDK didn't feel like looking things up.

Here are the preseason all conference totals from the last 3 years (2012-2013-2014) first team only.

Towson -15
Maine - 10
Villanova - 8
New Hampshire - 8
W&M - 9
JMU - 6

2013 postseason all conference (CAA website sucks couldn't find 2012) first team only.

Towson - 8
Maine - 6
Villanova - 1
NH - 1
W&M - 6
JMU - 3

I guess I'll take your expert opinion over all the CAA coaches. Stick to correcting people's grammar. And thanks for calling BS!

Way to change the arguement, cherry pick, move the goal posts.
You said each of those 5 schools had more picks than JMU on the pre and postseason teams for each of the last 3 years. I showed that wasn't true by simply looking up one of those 3 years, 2013.

And you said CAA post season teams for the last 3 years. Now you want to move the goal post by saying 1st team only, along with admitting you didn't even look up 2012 and 2011, saying you can't find them because the CAA's website sucks. Nothing wrong with the website- easy to find under archives- they're all there going back to 2007, the CAA's inaugural year for football.
http://caasports.com/archives.aspx?path=football

2012 postseason All CAA:
VU: 12
TU: 12
UNH: 11
JMU: 10
W&M: 8
Maine: 5
http://caasports.com/news/2012/11/19/CAA...h=football

2011 postseason All CAA:
JMU: 12
Maine 11
UNH: 8
W&M: 8
TU: 5
VU: 4
http://caasports.com/news/2011/11/21/201...h=football

Next time you make a claim you might want bother and check to see if its true or not.
I'll say it again- the # of CAA honors a team receives has more to do with its wins and losses than its actual talent on the field, 2 things that don't always correspond. But keep believing if you want that JMU doesn't have the talent now, and in the last few years, to do much better than it has been doing.

Nice reading comprehension. Never said each in my post. Also said scanned which implies just a rough estimate. I guess even my BDK disclaimer didn't work.

We can debate all day about 1st and 2nd team. Perhaps you could create a formula that compares whether 3 first teamers means you have more or less talent then 1 first teamer and 4 second teamers. I couldn't care less. In my opinion, fewer first teamers means less talent as judged by the folks who coach against and who game plan for the players.

You do a great job gathering data. I'll leave it to others to analyze and interpret.

Again, never said JMU didn't have the talent to do better than they have done. Those are your words. I have said it is system AND players.

You're stuck on # of players on an all star team is more based on talent on the field than wins and losses. I'm saying JMU has had the talent to have more wins the last 5 seasons which would have = more players on the pre and post season all star teams.

I was stating that very point earlier, that JMU has had talent to do better than they have done the last 5 seasons & this year, and you countered with your whole not enough players on an all star team arguement, which seemed to imply you didn't agree.

Thought I read that you believed the team had 10 win talent. I don't see it. No matter who the coach is.

(09-30-2014 12:52 PM)JMUETC Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 12:40 PM)BDKJMU Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 11:57 AM)JMUETC Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 11:43 AM)BDKJMU Wrote:  

(09-29-2014 10:17 PM)JMUETC Wrote:  Stop the presses. BDK didn't feel like looking things up.

Here are the preseason all conference totals from the last 3 years (2012-2013-2014) first team only.

Towson -15
Maine - 10
Villanova - 8
New Hampshire - 8
W&M - 9
JMU - 6

2013 postseason all conference (CAA website sucks couldn't find 2012) first team only.

Towson - 8
Maine - 6
Villanova - 1
NH - 1
W&M - 6
JMU - 3

I guess I'll take your expert opinion over all the CAA coaches. Stick to correcting people's grammar. And thanks for calling BS!

Way to change the arguement, cherry pick, move the goal posts.
You said each of those 5 schools had more picks than JMU on the pre and postseason teams for each of the last 3 years. I showed that wasn't true by simply looking up one of those 3 years, 2013.

And you said CAA post season teams for the last 3 years. Now you want to move the goal post by saying 1st team only, along with admitting you didn't even look up 2012 and 2011, saying you can't find them because the CAA's website sucks. Nothing wrong with the website- easy to find under archives- they're all there going back to 2007, the CAA's inaugural year for football.
http://caasports.com/archives.aspx?path=football

2012 postseason All CAA:
VU: 12
TU: 12
UNH: 11
JMU: 10
W&M: 8
Maine: 5
http://caasports.com/news/2012/11/19/CAA...h=football

2011 postseason All CAA:
JMU: 12
Maine 11
UNH: 8
W&M: 8
TU: 5
VU: 4
http://caasports.com/news/2011/11/21/201...h=football

Next time you make a claim you might want bother and check to see if its true or not.
I'll say it again- the # of CAA honors a team receives has more to do with its wins and losses than its actual talent on the field, 2 things that don't always correspond. But keep believing if you want that JMU doesn't have the talent now, and in the last few years, to do much better than it has been doing.

Nice reading comprehension. Never said each in my post. Also said scanned which implies just a rough estimate. I guess even my BDK disclaimer didn't work.

We can debate all day about 1st and 2nd team. Perhaps you could create a formula that compares whether 3 first teamers means you have more or less talent then 1 first teamer and 4 second teamers. I couldn't care less. In my opinion, fewer first teamers means less talent as judged by the folks who coach against and who game plan for the players.

You do a great job gathering data. I'll leave it to others to analyze and interpret.

Again, never said JMU didn't have the talent to do better than they have done. Those are your words. I have said it is system AND players.

You're stuck on # of players on an all star team is more based on talent on the field than wins and losses. I'm saying JMU has had the talent to have more wins the last 5 seasons which would have = more players on the pre and post season all star teams.

I was stating that very point earlier, that JMU has had talent to do better than they have done the last 5 seasons & this year, and you countered with your whole not enough players on an all star team arguement, which seemed to imply you didn't agree.

Thought I read that you believed the team had 10 win talent. I don't see it. No matter who the coach is.

I said "There's only 2 teams that JMU will face with more talent- MD and maybe VU. I absolutely believe there's 10-2 talent on this team and anything less than 8-4 with playoffs is unacceptable."

I should have phrased it: IMHOP JMU has more talent than 10 of its 12 opponents. Who of JMU's other opponents besides UMD and VU have more talent across the board?

I don't think UD does. They may be close, but that game was at home. W&M might be close, but that game is at home. TU did last yr, but not this year, but lost more than anyone else in the league, and that game is at home. UR might be close and that game is on the road.

Anything less than 8-4 to me is unacceptable- losses to UMD, VU, @ UR, and 1 JMU shouldn't have (UD).

(09-30-2014 01:08 PM)BDKJMU Wrote:  I said "There's only 2 teams that JMU will face with more talent- MD and maybe VU. I absolutely believe there's 10-2 talent on this team and anything less than 8-4 with playoffs is unacceptable."

I should have phrased it: IMHOP JMU has more talent than 10 of its 12 opponents. Who of JMU's other opponents besides UMD and VU have more talent across the board?

I don't think UD does. They may be close, but that game was at home. W&M might be close, but that game is at home. TU did last yr, but not this year, but lost more than anyone else in the league, and that game is at home. UR might be close and that game is on the road.

Anything less than 8-4 to me is unacceptable- losses to UMD, VU, @ UR, and 1 JMU shouldn't have (UD).

I don't follow the CAA they way you do other than to go to the home games and watch most of the away on TV so I can't really answer the question about which other CAA teams are more or less talented. I guess I watch JMU and just don't see a lot of obvious talent, real or unfulfilled. Somehow, through scheme, talent, luck or curse, JMU loses to a lot of teams that we all agree they shouldn't.

(09-30-2014 01:21 PM)JMUETC Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 01:08 PM)BDKJMU Wrote:  I said "There's only 2 teams that JMU will face with more talent- MD and maybe VU. I absolutely believe there's 10-2 talent on this team and anything less than 8-4 with playoffs is unacceptable."

I should have phrased it: IMHOP JMU has more talent than 10 of its 12 opponents. Who of JMU's other opponents besides UMD and VU have more talent across the board?

I don't think UD does. They may be close, but that game was at home. W&M might be close, but that game is at home. TU did last yr, but not this year, but lost more than anyone else in the league, and that game is at home. UR might be close and that game is on the road.

Anything less than 8-4 to me is unacceptable- losses to UMD, VU, @ UR, and 1 JMU shouldn't have (UD).

I don't follow the CAA they way you do other than to go to the home games and watch most of the away on TV so I can't really answer the question about which other CAA teams are more or less talented. I guess I watch JMU and just don't see a lot of obvious talent, real or unfulfilled. Somehow, through scheme, talent, luck or curse, JMU loses to a lot of teams that we all agree they shouldn't.

Fair enough.

(09-30-2014 01:08 PM)BDKJMU Wrote:  Anything less than 8-4 to me is unacceptable- losses to UMD, VU, @ UR, and 1 JMU shouldn't have (UD).

It is fixin' to get a lot worse. I think we are looking at an optimistic 6-6, likely 5-7, and God forbid, if we slip up somewhere you can invert your minimum acceptable record to 4-8. I hope I am wrong.

If we somehow miraculously come alive, which I consider impossible given what we have seen so far, AND we find that horseshoe again, then 8-4 would be awesome!

The ONLY bright spot I have seen from this team is limited turnovers (7 through 5 games). Hey, that's something, right?

I did a little additional digging on the season to date numbers. On plays from scrimmage, we've got a run/pass split of 55.4%/44.6%, and we're averaging about 87 plays a game (which is a ton, of course). Average gain on running plays is 5.06 yards, while average yards per pass attempt is 6.34. I came across a NY Times blog of all places in which it said that yards per pass attempt is the single most important statistic in football. The team that wins that usually wins the game. That's been true in four of five JMU games this season. Lee needs to continue to improve his accuracy and decision-making to become a better quarterback, of course. His completion percentage three of the last four weeks has been over 50%, which is an improvement over his days at GA Tech. Would probably be nice if he could approach 60% at some point (you'd then see yards per pass attempt increase, as would win totals).

(10-01-2014 11:23 AM)Dukes84 Wrote:  I did a little additional digging on the season to date numbers. On plays from scrimmage, we've got a run/pass split of 55.4%/44.6%, and we're averaging about 87 plays a game (which is a ton, of course). Average gain on running plays is 5.06 yards, while average yards per pass attempt is 6.34. I came across a NY Times blog of all places in which it said that yards per pass attempt is the single most important statistic in football. The team that wins that usually wins the game. That's been true in four of five JMU games this season. Lee needs to continue to improve his accuracy and decision-making to become a better quarterback, of course. His completion percentage three of the last four weeks has been over 50%, which is an improvement over his days at GA Tech. Would probably be nice if he could approach 60% at some point (you'd then see yards per pass attempt increase, as would win totals).

Just a little bit of perspective... using those stats, we're averaging 35 passes per game. For Lee to approach 60% pass completion (based on Lee making 50% of his throws), he would only need 3 more completions per game for that to happen. That really isn't much. Factor in WR's dropping passes (D.Brown for instance), and that impacts his completion rate.
While he's missing more throws than I like, he has been improving. Also many of his off throws are not INT gimmes like I felt he was doing early in the season.
Does he have a way to go? Absolutely, but he is showing signs of improvement, and I can't fault him for that.

Great perspective. I think the run/pass split is right around where we want it with a slight lean toward the running game. Also to add to the dropped passes affecting completion %, there are also 3-5 passes per game that Lee throws away b/c no one is open. I would much rather see him do that and give it another try on 3rd down, than try to thread the needle and force passes to covered guys.

I agree that Lee has improved in the last couple games and hopefully that trend will continue. However, you can't use dropped passes and throw away passes as an excuse for his completion percentage standing at 51%. Every QB in the country has those and the majority still have higher completion percentages. I think it will be hard for him to reach 60% before the end of he season but I do think he will continue his improvement and end up higher than where he currently stands.

People continuing to refer to Daniel Brown's dropped pass reminds me of Scott Norwood's NFL career. A great kicker is unfairly remembered for missing one in the Super Bowl. Forget all the great kicks in a Pro Bowl career. Daniel Brown has the best hands of any receiver I believe has ever played for JMU. I am not saying he is the best receiver; just that he has great hands. So, he dropped a pass. Let's move on. He is far and away our best receiver. Everyone makes a mistake at some time during their career.

(10-01-2014 12:45 PM)BSKB 24 Wrote:  People continuing to refer to Daniel Brown's dropped pass reminds me of Scott Norwood's NFL career. A great kicker is unfairly remembered for missing one in the Super Bowl. Forget all the great kicks in a Pro Bowl career. Daniel Brown has the best hands of any receiver I believe has ever played for JMU. I am not saying he is the best receiver; just that he has great hands. So, he dropped a pass. Let's move on. He is far and away our best receiver. Everyone makes a mistake at some time during their career.

+100. If Withers is going to insist on throwing the ball 35+ times a game, Brown doesn't get nearly enough looks.

(10-01-2014 12:58 PM)jmu82 Wrote:  

(10-01-2014 12:45 PM)BSKB 24 Wrote:  People continuing to refer to Daniel Brown's dropped pass reminds me of Scott Norwood's NFL career. A great kicker is unfairly remembered for missing one in the Super Bowl. Forget all the great kicks in a Pro Bowl career. Daniel Brown has the best hands of any receiver I believe has ever played for JMU. I am not saying he is the best receiver; just that he has great hands. So, he dropped a pass. Let's move on. He is far and away our best receiver. Everyone makes a mistake at some time during their career.

+100. If Withers is going to insist on throwing the ball 35+ times a game, Brown doesn't get nearly enough looks.

So what you are saying is we should not have a balanced offense. We run 55% of the time. And Brown has been getting plenty of looks after a slow first 2 games. Brown does have great hands but not the greatest and getting seperation from coverage. Don't force the ball, just throw to the open guy.

(10-01-2014 12:45 PM)BSKB 24 Wrote:  People continuing to refer to Daniel Brown's dropped pass reminds me of Scott Norwood's NFL career. A great kicker is unfairly remembered for missing one in the Super Bowl. Forget all the great kicks in a Pro Bowl career. Daniel Brown has the best hands of any receiver I believe has ever played for JMU. I am not saying he is the best receiver; just that he has great hands. So, he dropped a pass. Let's move on. He is far and away our best receiver. Everyone makes a mistake at some time during their career.

I wouldnt go that far , but a drop like that is a mental lapse. In a big game like that you wonder why that happens. My solution would be to feed him more.

(10-01-2014 11:41 AM)JMad03 Wrote:  

(10-01-2014 11:23 AM)Dukes84 Wrote:  I did a little additional digging on the season to date numbers. On plays from scrimmage, we've got a run/pass split of 55.4%/44.6%, and we're averaging about 87 plays a game (which is a ton, of course). Average gain on running plays is 5.06 yards, while average yards per pass attempt is 6.34. I came across a NY Times blog of all places in which it said that yards per pass attempt is the single most important statistic in football. The team that wins that usually wins the game. That's been true in four of five JMU games this season. Lee needs to continue to improve his accuracy and decision-making to become a better quarterback, of course. His completion percentage three of the last four weeks has been over 50%, which is an improvement over his days at GA Tech. Would probably be nice if he could approach 60% at some point (you'd then see yards per pass attempt increase, as would win totals).

Just a little bit of perspective... using those stats, we're averaging 35 passes per game. For Lee to approach 60% pass completion (based on Lee making 50% of his throws), he would only need 3 more completions per game for that to happen. That really isn't much. Factor in WR's dropping passes (D.Brown for instance), and that impacts his completion rate.
While he's missing more throws than I like, he has been improving. Also many of his off throws are not INT gimmes like I felt he was doing early in the season.
Does he have a way to go? Absolutely, but he is showing signs of improvement, and I can't fault him for that.

Using those stats JMU is avg almost 39 passes per game. (194 attempts in 5 games). Completed 98, would need to have completed 117 to break 60%, close to 4 more completions per game to make that happen