Predict the 2013 season

[carlfense]

I find it amusing the amount of people who said our defense would take "suckage" to a whole new level. That defense grew up as the season went on and they are a group that will be really fun to watch these next couple of years.

You're right about the improvement as the season went on but the people who said that the defense would take suckage to a whole new level were right over roughly the first half of the season.

Defense sucked against:

Wyoming, SDSU (1st half), UCLA (2nd half), and Minnesota. That's "3" games. So about a quarter of the season.

I'd say that they were pretty tough to watch (with exceptions) through the first 7 games. So . . . roughly half of the season.

Fortunately the competition was extremely weak.

 

[Creed]

Beat a blue blood SEC team to end your season on a high note!!!

 

[JTrain]

Nobody based an 8-4 prediction off of injuries, thay based it off Bo and his coaching. Given the circumstances Bo and his coachng made the difference between 8-4 and 5-7. The injuries wee the difference between 8-4 and 11-1.

I think you could make a much more convincing case that coaching issues led directly or indirectly to the Minnesota and Michigan State losses (perhaps even Iowa) as well as the Wyoming, Northwestern and Penn State being much closer than necessary. The only game I can imagine that we may have won by out-coaching the opponent would be Michigan, and that would be due only to the defensive coaching. But even that is a stretch. Michigan looked pretty bad at that point in the season and was not playing very inspired football.

 

[Redux]

I don't think the MSU loss was because of coaching. The gameplan wasn't horrid. We were in a position to get back into the game for a majority of the day. Turnovers were absolutely murderous. Granted turnovers come back on coaching but that many was on the players. The Minnesota game was just a disaster, you take an opponent for granted and throw the weight of a team on a hobbled quarterback and you end up with what we witnessed. Iowa, I don't know man, that was on everybody.

Bo is taking a lot of heat but the thing we all forget is we are still led by a man who just completed his 6th year as coach surrounded by assistants that are even newer to their respective positions. The youth was apparent throughout the year but they grew up a lot too. The season could have gone worse or better either way you look at it. If this group (team/staff) can stick together we can finish this recruiting cycle with a strong class, bowl win and take some momentum towards a conference crown. The talent is there, the coaches are getting better lets see what next year brings.

I'll take a refill by the way, I'm still thirsty as hell!

 

[Ratt Mhule]

How did coaching cost us MSU?

 

[JTrain]

I don't think the MSU loss was because of coaching. The gameplan wasn't horrid. We were in a position to get back into the game for a majority of the day. Turnovers were absolutely murderous. Granted turnovers come back on coaching but that many was on the players. The Minnesota game was just a disaster, you take an opponent for granted and throw the weight of a team on a hobbled quarterback and you end up with what we witnessed. Iowa, I don't know man, that was on everybody.

Bo is taking a lot of heat but the thing we all forget is we are still led by a man who just completed his 6th year as coach surrounded by assistants that are even newer to their respective positions. The youth was apparent throughout the year but they grew up a lot too. The season could have gone worse or better either way you look at it. If this group (team/staff) can stick together we can finish this recruiting cycle with a strong class, bowl win and take some momentum towards a conference crown. The talent is there, the coaches are getting better lets see what next year brings.

I'll take a refill by the way, I'm still thirsty as hell!

Haha, I appreciate the benevolence in your tone. It must be Christmastime. But I think the bolded parts actually show that coaching was involved, at least to an extent, in all three of the aforementioned losses. But leaving that aside for now, what is your case for the three wins Bo and his coaches made the difference in? You say coaching helped us from 5 wins to 8. The only possible argument (albeit a weak one IMO) is the Michigan game. I can't see how our coaching excelled in any of the other close wins. As stated above, I think coaching was mediocre to poor in Northwestern, Wyoming and Penn State. The fact that those teams stayed as close as they did seems to me a testament to the opposing coaches' performances.

 

[JTrain]

How did coaching cost us MSU?

Schematically I think we were in pretty solid position that game, so I don't think the coaching was that bad. But I do think six fumbles (in light of how consistently Bo's teams have had issues) has to come back to coaching. If you disagree, I probably can't convince you, but you'd have to make a case for why Bo's teams have had so many issues in this area, spanning six years and hundreds of different players. I don't believe it is a coincidence.

 

[Redux]

Michigan showcased what the team can do when focused, that was a well coached game. I think the Wyoming win was also due to coaching, a couple bad calls towards the end and we lose that game. South Dakota State could have gone like Wyoming but we adjusted and responded to the coaching. Illinois and Purdue were both comfy wins that can be attributed to the coaches even if they are awful teams. Northwestern was all on RK3, Bo had nothing to do with the Hail Mary. The Penn State game looked like a physical chess match and I feel confident saying that Bo was the better coach that day.

 

[Redux]

How did coaching cost us MSU?

Schematically I think we were in pretty solid position that game, so I don't think the coaching was that bad. But I do think six fumbles (in light of how consistently Bo's teams have had issues) has to come back to coaching. If you disagree, I probably can't convince you, but you'd have to make a case for why Bo's teams have had so many issues in this area, spanning six years and hundreds of different players. I don't believe it is a coincidence.

It's not secret turnovers have been a major issue for a few years now. I would think extra detail will be paid now that Bo clearly has to be in Eichorsts danger zone.

 

[JTrain]

Michigan showcased what the team can do when focused, that was a well coached game. I think the Wyoming win was also due to coaching, a couple bad calls towards the end and we lose that game. South Dakota State could have gone like Wyoming but we adjusted and responded to the coaching. Illinois and Purdue were both comfy wins that can be attributed to the coaches even if they are awful teams. Northwestern was all on RK3, Bo had nothing to do with the Hail Mary. The Penn State game looked like a physical chess match and I feel confident saying that Bo was the better coach that day.

So you think if we replace Bo and staff with generic, average staff than we would have lost against Wyoming, SDSU, Illinois and Purdue?

 

[Ratt Mhule]

When we lose its 100% on the coaches. When we win, they did nothing to help.

How about the defense making adjustments against NW? How about the defense against Michigan and PSU?

 

[Redux]

Michigan showcased what the team can do when focused, that was a well coached game. I think the Wyoming win was also due to coaching, a couple bad calls towards the end and we lose that game. South Dakota State could have gone like Wyoming but we adjusted and responded to the coaching. Illinois and Purdue were both comfy wins that can be attributed to the coaches even if they are awful teams. Northwestern was all on RK3, Bo had nothing to do with the Hail Mary. The Penn State game looked like a physical chess match and I feel confident saying that Bo was the better coach that day.

So you think if we replace Bo and staff with generic, average staff than we would have lost against Wyoming, SDSU, Illinois and Purdue?

Say we have a Charlie Weiss or a Lane Kiffin in place. Yes, we absolutely could have lost those games. 6 short years ago we definitely would have lost those games.

 

[Ratt Mhule]

How did coaching cost us MSU?

Schematically I think we were in pretty solid position that game, so I don't think the coaching was that bad. But I do think six fumbles (in light of how consistently Bo's teams have had issues) has to come back to coaching. If you disagree, I probably can't convince you, but you'd have to make a case for why Bo's teams have had so many issues in this area, spanning six years and hundreds of different players. I don't believe it is a coincidence.

Well Im pretty sure Kenny Bell said turnovers are not the coaches fault, so there is that.

 

[JTrain]

Michigan showcased what the team can do when focused, that was a well coached game. I think the Wyoming win was also due to coaching, a couple bad calls towards the end and we lose that game. South Dakota State could have gone like Wyoming but we adjusted and responded to the coaching. Illinois and Purdue were both comfy wins that can be attributed to the coaches even if they are awful teams. Northwestern was all on RK3, Bo had nothing to do with the Hail Mary. The Penn State game looked like a physical chess match and I feel confident saying that Bo was the better coach that day.

So you think if we replace Bo and staff with generic, average staff than we would have lost against Wyoming, SDSU, Illinois and Purdue?

Say we have a Charlie Weiss or a Lane Kiffin in place. Yes, we absolutely could have lost those games. 6 short years ago we definitely would have lost those games.

That's where we disagree. I see all four of those as quite easily winnable for an average staff.

 

[Redux]

Michigan showcased what the team can do when focused, that was a well coached game. I think the Wyoming win was also due to coaching, a couple bad calls towards the end and we lose that game. South Dakota State could have gone like Wyoming but we adjusted and responded to the coaching. Illinois and Purdue were both comfy wins that can be attributed to the coaches even if they are awful teams. Northwestern was all on RK3, Bo had nothing to do with the Hail Mary. The Penn State game looked like a physical chess match and I feel confident saying that Bo was the better coach that day.

So you think if we replace Bo and staff with generic, average staff than we would have lost against Wyoming, SDSU, Illinois and Purdue?

Say we have a Charlie Weiss or a Lane Kiffin in place. Yes, we absolutely could have lost those games. 6 short years ago we definitely would have lost those games.

That's where we disagree. I see all four of those as quite easily winnable for an average staff.

And they should be winnable. And they were all wins. If it came down to Bo's coaching being as big an issue, we should have lost at least one of them. But we didn't and we persevered with a really young banged up team.