WDEKC

23 hours ago, AUBwins said:

I guess we lost the first game out of RR. At least they won a couple. 

 

Only loss was to the top seed in their group. Not a bad showing at all. 

On 3/11/2023 at 8:42 PM, AURex said:

Hockey is a recognized NCAA sport. This is non-NCAA club hockey. Not that it is uninteresting, and it can certainly be fun to watch.

How long has Auburn had a club hockey team? I certainly never heard of it in the past.

 

This recent iteration formed as an official Auburn club in winter 2009/spring 2010 and started playing games in the 2010/11 season.

On 3/11/2023 at 9:08 PM, AUBwins said:

Not certain but I do believe they have been around a lot longer than we think. I do think this tournament and organization is new this year.  They found a heck of a lot of club teams. Although SEC is represented by several schools.  I am sure has to do with Title IX or something but they could essentially start playing.  

Oh yeah club hockey has been around a long time and Auburn has had a few teams at different times dating back to the 80s at least.

College club hockey in general though isn't the easiest to follow or have very accurate rankings due to the leagues and divisions. This was a division 2 club tournament, but not ACHA division 2, which traditionally has been where the better club teams participate.

For reference, some of the recent schools to make the jump from club to NCAA D1 (like Lindenwood and Penn St) dominated ACHA D1 for multiple years.

Apparently, the team is in some sort of club hockey national tournament this weekend. It's a new one and college club hockey is hard to follow with all the different leagues and divisions popping up, but good luck and War Eagle.

It's good to see this become a success after getting it started in 2010 as a senior, but never getting a chance to play before graduating.

On 8/1/2018 at 8:57 PM, Zeek said:

 

I think “reloading” is the acception not the rule. 

I would accept reloading.

Historically you could definitely say UCLA is a blue blood, but of those 11 national champs 10 of them were won over a 12 year period that ended over 40 years ago. Since Wooden retired, I'd put them in the good-great program area and just a tier under elite, but not on the level of the other 4.

10 hours ago, AURex said:

Trying to decide if that's supposed to be a joke. Maybe your definition of "recently" is different from mine. But I agree, they are not a true "blue blood" in the class of UK, UNC, Duke and KU.

 

Right, there are only 4 true blue bloods in basketball. Those 4 programs are both the only ones in D1 with more than 2,000 overall wins and win percentages over .700.

For reference, I have only been able to find top 50 wins all time and win percentages and Virginia is on neither list.

On 2/28/2018 at 12:52 PM, lionheartkc said:

That would involve admitting that IMG is a sports factory and not a real school... that's not going to happen.

ftfy

On 10/24/2017 at 5:50 PM, Dual-Threat Rigby said:

A&M’s defense is the perfect test to see if the offensive philosophy has changed

 

very respectable run D, horrible pass D

Are they that respectable of a run defense or have they just not played many good rushing teams? bama, Arkansas and Miss State all had over 200 yards rushing and averaged about 5 yards per rush.

I'd be interested to see the difference in negative or short 1st down gains between the 1st and 2nd half. I thought the OL got better as the game went on.

1 hour ago, DAG said:

Definitely not underrated. Us fans might've made a big deal about him splitting time at QB, but based on the scholarships and recruiting rankings he is far from underrated.

Yeah that telecast was full of the entire ESPN staff of analysts gushing over JG and questioning the coach for rotating QBs.

2 hours ago, Bo Duke said:

The one I want to see is Trevor Lawrence. He chose a league with perhaps 1/3 the talent he would see in the SEC. He plays in  a division that Cartersville can dominate in the playoffs with the kids they scout, and bring in. He would not have the #'s he does playing 7-A ball vs. 4-A ball IMO.

Bartram Trail vs Cartersville is available for replay on watchESPN. Lawrence is the REAL DEAL IMO. Doesn't matter what level he's playing.

56 minutes ago, 1auburn1 said:

I was being a bit facetious considering the number of times it's been mentioned that he won't be the starter for his HS team.    He's a stud and I'm glad to have him but I'm hoping that the Lindsey offense will shine this season so that we can recruit stud polished QBs going forward.  It makes their likelihood of success higher. 

Why not both? If we also get Fields, we'd have both a stud polished QB and one that needs more development, but might have an even higher ceiling.

4 hours ago, ellitor said:

So did Megatron Johnson.

Completely difference offense when he went to GT though. Even Demaryius Thomas started his career at GT before Paul Johnson brought his triple option.

8 hours ago, NoALtiger said:

I still can't believe that in 2016 a game like this isn't on cable somewhere. All kind of crappy games shown all day on a variety of channels. As usual, the SEC alternate channel is unused and just waiting for a game like this. Ok, end of rant.

It was on cable.... Maybe not your package.

1 hour ago, ArgoEagle said:

We have def. got to throw the ball more to beat Ga and Bama. We were very 1 dimensional in the 1st half of the Vandy game and only managed 10 points. We were slightly more successful in the 2nd half by throwing more, but the offensive play calling was still too predictable IMO. I believe one thing we need to do for sure to be successful the last 2 games here, is to throw the ball much more on 1st down, and I'm not talking about bubble screens. We can't afford to be too predictable on O for these 2 games, or it will not be good for us. Not going to run over GA and Bama like we did Ole Miss and Arky.

I feel like I haven't seen as many bubble screens since Lashlee has taken over the past calling. I haven't kept count, but I'd almost say there have been more reverses than bubble screens.

24 minutes ago, StatTiger said:

It factors in total defense and scoring defense because it is a yards to point ratio. Like any other stat, you have to consider the level of competition. A team like Vanderbilt is ranked higher than Alabama because they have not faced very many quality offenses.

This is exactly what I was going to say.

Good stuff

Yeah, hard to say. Everything sounds good coming out of camp, but that's always the case with new coaches.

1 minute ago, Malcolm_FleX48 said:

Its terrible to admit, but yes, in these conditions that would hold true. But like I said, that's a lose lose for the DL early on. People right now are basically asking the DL to play a near FLAWLESS game on their own and just hang on. It's not a good situation by any stretch of the imagination. Best strategy is to keep things vanilla and worry about the rest of the SEC. Yes beating Clemson is literally a game changer, but if you've got to elevate your play to un-maintainable standards and risk losing your stars to do it, then you're not really doing yourself a favor if you end up losing that rank to another team and are out of contention because of injuries or worse. 

Right, I'm just saying we really don't matchup well on paper with them as a secondary. Almost everything you can analyze points to them having an advantage there other than C. Davis.

Who knows, maybe they step up and have a big game to help the front 7 out and the stars align to set up a dream season. Great thing about college football is that so many things can change from year to year and game to game.

I think all the talk about how our secondary matches up with their WRs and TE is somewhat moot. They are better and have the best QB in the country spreading the football around. Our opportunity to disrupt their offense lies solely in the hands of the DL.

6 minutes ago, Dixie1860 said:

STAHP. You are overthinking it. It will all work out. 

Well, the actual depth chart is much closer to what I would have expected. I probably shouldn't have taken the one rivals put together seriously at all.  It was more a question about Auburn's ability to get WRs up to speed as quickly as many other schools are able to.

2 hours ago, AU64 said:

He's a senior and played in more than 20 games.....just not a target perhaps...but compare that to freshmen who have mostly played against 5'8 DBs in high schools in front of a couple 1000 fans.     Stevens has probably earned the starting job...or he would not have it....JMO.  The young guys will get their chance but not starting....spot play perhaps.     I would be much more concerned if we did not have the Davis guys and Stevens but I'm happy that we have the experience available....to give the younger guys a chance to play and develop.

Just saying that experience is underappreciated

I think sometimes experience can be over-appreciated as well. Just because somebody has more experience does not mean they should automatically be ahead in a depth chart.

1 hour ago, AUsince72 said:

My 2 cents... Sometimes coaches will reward upper-classmen who work hard with "titles" (Starter).  However, if there's one position where "being the starter" vs "playing time" is not really important, it's WR.  That position is constantly rotating in and out.  Based on what we've heard, they seem to be practicing well and they're certainly get their chances to win that title this year!

This is a good point and probably what is most likely the case

2 hours ago, WarDamnEagleWDE said:

They are. And all but Davis should play Saturday. Would not be surprised to see NCM start.

Also good to hear. I haven't kept up much with this position battle so I was a bit surprised to see them at the bottom of this list. As I mentioned before, I'm not sure how accurate this is from rivals. I don't really think of JGT or BMatt as great football minds and really just report based on what info they are given.

12 minutes ago, AU64 said:

Stevens is a senior and has played in 28 games...Ryan Davis....not so much but has good credential from his HS days and played off and on last season as a freshman....any experience against SEC opponents is valuable.  My only thought is that the Davis guys are small.....

Stevens has 19 receptions in 3 years. Maybe the light finally came on, but I wouldn't consider him a proven player.

I understand they are just freshman, but other programs across the country seem to get some pretty good production out of freshmen WR. A certain program across the state has had 3 different WRs have BIG freshman years in the last 8 years.

And maybe one of ours does this year, but I would expect at least one of them to be considered in the 2 deep on a depth chart at this point. It's not like we are bringing back Duke and Sammie this year.