Let's talk about Sean

[80Tiger 901]

29 minutes ago, lca408 said:

Both drops were in the redzone and both were situations where he either would have scored or would have put us on the 1 yard line. The pass in the endzone was well thrown but yes, Tony was also battling against a defender so it's a wash. The other you can legit pin on him. Based on that chart, we've had 9 total drops so far this year, with 1 being Tony in the endzone that wasn't all his fault, and 1 or 2 others that may have been for other QBs? That said, drops are wayyyy better than they were last year and better even than that game against Arkansas alone. True, without the drop in the endzone, Sean would've had his 4th TD pass of the year, Auburn would have won more comfortably, and this conversation maybe wouldn't be as contentious. But it is what it is and even with the drops, Sean has work to do to get better. That said, he also is going to have a ceiling in this offense, at least the way it is currently built. I don't think Sean has hit his ceiling yet and I think we'll see him and the whole offense look better over the next couple of weeks mainly because the defenses Auburn is facing are not as good as the 3 we've already seen. But he will have his limitations and personally, I think it's up to the coaches to build to his strengths since he is by far our best option right now.

Even so, he'll make some mistakes and hopefully those mistakes don't doom Auburn in any of these upcoming games, especially the ones on the road.

If I am thinking about the same two passes, I have a hard time blaming either QB or WR. Tough plays that you try to make during the game. On one TS was trying to reach around in front of the defender to make the catch. On the other one the ball was thrown so close to the sideline that even if TS makes the catch he is out of bounds, but it was about the only place for the ball to be. Just 2 guys trying to make football plays.

[bigbird 60,580]

@aujeff11 nice chart.

Some solid info. Where did you get the drops stat? Haven't been able to find those. Also,  What is criteria for catchable %? 

[aujeff11 6,243]

1 minute ago, bigbird said:

@aujeff11 nice chart.

Some solid info. Where did you get the drops stat? Haven't been able to find those. Also,  What is criteria for catchable %? 

My bad 

http://www.collegeandmagnolia.com/2016/9/28/13098756/how-have-auburns-wide-receivers-been-performing-so-far-in-2016

[gr82be 14,469]

5 hours ago, willieguns said:

your the guy that stirs the pot with everyone on here especially when nobody agrees with you.  So I am just going to agree with you just to keep it moving.  SW is the best QB we have had in the Malzahn era.  Does that work for you?  Even though he hasn't done anything significant since he been there and hasn't been lights out.  Even though the important stats you fail to acknowledge like TD's and INT's.  SW make me forget we even had Nick Marshall.  Does that make you feel better?  Finally the TV angle is the best view interms of evaluation.  They should send our opponents the TV copies of the video for study purpose because "bigbird" with a little b said he can see everything based on ESPN camera... Dude you a joke.  Probably some washed up never been who can't accept others peoples opinion.  Your probably this short 5'8 guy with a small guy complex, that's why your bigbird with a little B...

I'm not going to go back and read through this thread to find out what produced your response but in my best John McEnroe voice " you cannot be serious". Of course Bigbird does not need me to defend him but he has a very strong and valued reputation on here while you are still developing yours. Sometimes it's best the take the high road whether you feel you are right or wrong. Man I hope we start winning regularly again. The infighting is not becoming to Auburn fans. 

[lionheartkc 6,150]

9 minutes ago, bigbird said:

@aujeff11 nice chart.

Some solid info. Where did you get the drops stat? Haven't been able to find those. Also,  What is criteria for catchable %? 

The catchable has to be off.  It says that Marcus Davis only had 71.5% catchable, but also says he caught 10 and dropped 4 of the 16 thrown his way.  By definition of catchable, that would make his percentage 87.5%, and that doesn't account for balls that were just well defended (assuming they consider a well defended ball catchable).

[icanthearyou 4,463]

1 minute ago, lionheartkc said:

The catchable has to be off.  It says that Marcus Davis only had 71.5% catchable, but also says he caught 10 and dropped 4 of the 16 thrown his way.  By definition of catchable, that would make his percentage 87.5%, and that doesn't account for balls that were just well defended (assuming they consider a well defended ball catchable).

I think that means 10 of 14 catchable.  10/14=.714285714857143

[bigbird 60,580]

14 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

My bad 

http://www.collegeandmagnolia.com/2016/9/28/13098756/how-have-auburns-wide-receivers-been-performing-so-far-in-2016

Thanks

[lionheartkc 6,150]

5 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

I think that means 10 of 14 catchable.  10/14=.714285714857143

So they did the math on the wrong numbers, since it should have been 14 of 16.  The receptions and drops are both catchable and there were 16 targets.  It also appears that they gave a 100% catchable score if there were no drops, even if every ball was not caught.

Good catch... or something less punny, ican.  

[JwgreDeux 1,279]

Stevens has more drops than 2. He had two maybe three in last week's game alone. He droped the first third down pass of the game. Hit him in the chest on 3rd and 3. Dropped one on the one yardline and then another that would have been a touchdown, though it was contested. We won this game, but those three drops, killed a drive and changed two probable touchdowns into filed goals. So maybe he hasn't dropped a lot of balls, but those drops directly cost us points. I think he has really stepped up his level of play, but to beat Ole Miss or Bama etc...got to have those catches. 

[aujeff11 6,243]

2 minutes ago, JwgreDeux said:

Dropped one on the one yardline and then another that would have been a touchdown, though it was contested.

The latter shouldn't be considered a drop if it's contested. JMO. 

Should not be a PBU and a drop on same play.

[JwgreDeux 1,279]

6 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

The latter shouldn't be considered a drop if it's contested. JMO. 

Should not be a PBU and a drop on same play.

I understand, and am curious what the actual definition is, but to me if a WR gets both hands on a ball and doesn't bring it in, that would be a drop. Spliting hairs here, my point primarily was that is a play we need him to make, not saying he isn't a solid WR. 

[augolf1716 21,303]

5 hours ago, willieguns said:

your the guy that stirs the pot with everyone on here especially when nobody agrees with you.  So I am just going to agree with you just to keep it moving.  SW is the best QB we have had in the Malzahn era.  Does that work for you?  Even though he hasn't done anything significant since he been there and hasn't been lights out.  Even though the important stats you fail to acknowledge like TD's and INT's.  SW make me forget we even had Nick Marshall.  Does that make you feel better?  Finally the TV angle is the best view interms of evaluation.  They should send our opponents the TV copies of the video for study purpose because "bigbird" with a little b said he can see everything based on ESPN camera... Dude you a joke.  Probably some washed up never been who can't accept others peoples opinion.  Your probably this short 5'8 guy with a small guy complex, that's why your bigbird with a little B...

Now that's some funny stuff  right there. I especially like your last statement.......

[JwgreDeux 1,279]

Not sure what thread we were discussing it in, but this is the play I was referring to when I said Sean took a sack on a play that was well called in the red-zone and executed pretty well. At the 4 and 5 second mark of this video, you will see Davis come open at the top of the screen heading to the back corner of the endzone. He is one on one with no help and has plenty of room for a pass over the top of the defender who goes under the route. SW looks right at him and starts to make the throw at the 6 second mark. Instead, he pulls it down and takes the sack at the 7 second mark.

 

[lionheartkc 6,150]

31 minutes ago, JwgreDeux said:

39 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

The latter shouldn't be considered a drop if it's contested. JMO. 

Should not be a PBU and a drop on same play.

I understand, and am curious what the actual definition is, but to me if a WR gets both hands on a ball and doesn't bring it in, that would be a drop. Spliting hairs here, my point primarily was that is a play we need him to make, not saying he isn't a solid WR. 

Jeff's right.  A drop is when the receiver can but fails to make the catch without outside interference. 

[CleCoTiger 1,957]

3 hours ago, AUsince72 said:

As this season goes on, I'm more and more of the mind that if Herb can get the O-line going (and there are some signs that they're improving) and, I'll add to it, if Chandler Cox can improve as well, this offense actually might be pretty good.

Yes, I agree that there's too much of a lack of creativity but a really good offensive line can make that look instead like AU is just "running it down their throats".

There are some signs, yes. But one issue I'm not sure that can be overcome are Austin Golson's limits at left tackle against elite speed rushers.  (Link is to Cole Cubelic's Film Room at YouTube and should open at 5 minutes and 32 second in.)  Golson was a serviceable center and he's a serviceable left tackle protecting the blind side as well. It may be that as he re-acclimates to playing the LT spot during this season he will be able to correct some deficiencies by working on the technique things Cubelic pointed out, but I'm just not sure that he's fundamentally quick enough/moves well enough to handle players in the class of Myles Garrett (aTm), Arden Keys (LSU) and others.  I think Leff has some issues on the right side as well but at least that's not the blind side.

Let me add this. I'm not trying to be personally critical of the effort being put forth by Golson (or Leff.)  I think they are out there busting their arse and playing hard. It's just that even  if they play to the limits of their ability I'm not sure those limits match up well against players at DE that are likely future first or second round NFL draft picks.

[imaolgatiger 523]

31 minutes ago, JwgreDeux said:

Not sure what thread we were discussing it in, but this is the play I was referring to when I said Sean took a sack on a play that was well called in the red-zone and executed pretty well. At the 4 and 5 second mark of this video, you will see Davis come open at the top of the screen heading to the back corner of the endzone. He is one on one with no help and has plenty of room for a pass over the top of the defender who goes under the route. SW looks right at him and starts to make the throw at the 6 second mark. Instead, he pulls it down and takes the sack at the 7 second mark.

 

He had a split second at best and it would have taken a near perfect throw, under pressure.  I would rather that  he eat it vs. throw a pick or fumble.

[CleCoTiger 1,957]

3 hours ago, lionheartkc said:

One thing I've looked for and haven't been able to find much about was, how good were the Offensive Lines at Tulsa?  I still think a less than stellar O-Line is Gus/Rhett's achilles heel no matter what offense they are trying to run.  I do think that we can get a lot better, though, if we stop trying to force plays that require the O-Line to shoulder a large amount of the burden.

Tulsa's OL was not great, but it was good enough.  (Seriously, the Tulsa O-lines are on that completely ridiculous and out of context set of stats that some folks like to post over and over again to tell us what a lousy O-line coach Herb Hand supposedly is.)

[CleCoTiger 1,957]

2 hours ago, aujeff11 said:

Just some proof that our WR's have done pretty well, particularly Tony Stevens.

Nice chart! Now what we need to do is mix it up a little more on first down and stay our of 3rd and forever ("Boy, I pray that we can hit this one and get a first down against all odds!") situations.  If the D is gonna stack the box to stop the run, gotta make 'em pay and send the bill via Express Airmail.

[lionheartkc 6,150]

11 minutes ago, CleCoTiger said:

Tulsa's OL was not great, but it was good enough.  (Seriously, the Tulsa O-lines are on that completely ridiculous and out of context set of stats that some folks like to post over and over again to tell us what a lousy O-line coach Herb Hand supposedly is.)

Then my theory that Gus needs a good O-Line for his offense to work is totally shot.  I officially can't explain how he can do what he did at Tulsa and not do it here.

[AuburnNTexas 7,172]

3 hours ago, lionheartkc said:

One thing I've looked for and haven't been able to find much about was, how good were the Offensive Lines at Tulsa?  I still think a less than stellar O-Line is Gus/Rhett's achilles heel no matter what offense they are trying to run.  I do think that we can get a lot better, though, if we stop trying to force plays that require the O-Line to shoulder a large amount of the burden.

A less than stellar O-line hurts all Offenses not just Gus's.  I have said multiple times that as good as Nick and CAM were they also had the advantage of stellar O-Lines. Would they have both been better behind this line than SW of course they would have been because both could make something out of nothing with their legs.  That is the advantage of a DT QB of the caliber of CAM and Nick. Remember the Oregon game where our O-line didn't dominate CAM was not as great as the games where the O-line did dominate. The other side give SW Sammie Coates and the CAM or NM O-lines and SW would look a lot better. The problem with DT's is in most cases that means they can run but are suspect as throwers.  The ones who can do both are special and make any team better.

I like SW but I don't think he is a world beater at least not at this point in his career but we would have beaten Clemson with either of the O-lines that CAM and Nick had and probably have beaten A&M also. If we were 3-1 or 4-0 we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[lionheartkc 6,150]

15 minutes ago, CleCoTiger said:

There are some signs, yes. But one issue I'm not sure that can be overcome are Austin Golson's limits at left tackle against elite speed rushers.  (Link is to Cole Cubelic's Film Room at YouTube and should open at 5 minutes and 32 second in.)  Golson was a serviceable center and he's a serviceable left tackle protecting the blind side as well. It may be that as he re-acclimates to playing the LT spot during this season he will be able to correct some deficiencies by working on the technique things Cubelic pointed out, but I'm just not sure that he's fundamentally quick enough/moves well enough to handle players in the class of Myles Garrett (aTm), Arden Keys (LSU) and others.  I think Leff has some issues on the right side as well but at least that's not the blind side.

Let me add this. I'm not trying to be personally critical of the effort being put forth by Golson (or Leff.)  I think they are out there busting their arse and playing hard. It's just that even  if they play to the limits of their ability I'm not sure those limits match up well against players at DE that are likely future first or second round NFL draft picks.

On a happy note.  We don't have to play Miles Garrett or Arden Key again, this year.  Since the last I checked, they are the #1 and #2 sack artists in the SEC, everything else is going to be easier.

[DAG 34,016]

We still talking about RZ issues, huh? 

[lionheartkc 6,150]

9 minutes ago, AuburnNTexas said:

A less than stellar O-line hurts all Offenses not just Gus's.  I have said multiple times that as good as Nick and CAM were they also had the advantage of stellar O-Lines. Would they have both been better behind this line than SW of course they would have been because both could make something out of nothing with their legs.  That is the advantage of a DT QB of the caliber of CAM and Nick. Remember the Oregon game where our O-line didn't dominate CAM was not as great as the games where the O-line did dominate. The other side give SW Sammie Coates and the CAM or NM O-lines and SW would look a lot better. The problem with DT's is in most cases that means they can run but are suspect as throwers.  The ones who can do both are special and make any team better.

I like SW but I don't think he is a world beater at least not at this point in his career but we would have beaten Clemson with either of the O-lines that CAM and Nick had and probably have beaten A&M also. If we were 3-1 or 4-0 we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Yea... my theory on Gus's offense particularly suffering from average or worse O-Line play is that he has A LOT of plays that require time to unfold, mostly because of the window dressing.  He doesn't have a lot of boom-boom plays in his repertoire. Even our dives take that extra split second or so, because we're always in shotgun. 

[CleCoTiger 1,957]

8 minutes ago, AuburnNTexas said:

A less than stellar O-line hurts all Offenses not just Gus's.  I have said multiple times that as good as Nick and CAM were they also had the advantage of stellar O-Lines.

There were a lot of times also when I thought both of those QB's made those O-lines look better than they were. When protection broke down, Nick was an escape artist. And Cam? Shoot. He was an escape artist AND a veritable Mack truck.

[CleCoTiger 1,957]

9 minutes ago, lionheartkc said:

On a happy note.  We don't have to play Miles Garrett or Arden Key again, this year.  Since the last I checked, they are the #1 and #2 sack artists in the SEC, everything else is going to be easier.

True, we don't have to face those two again this season, but there are still some mighty, mighty fine DE's for opponents on our remaining schedule. Golson will get better as he re-accilmates to the position, I am sure, simply because he'll get to see what mistakes he's making in technique and get 'em (I hope!) corrected.