PonyFans.com

That's ridiculous. We have lost plays due to 1) 3 and outs, and 2)turnovers, and 3) the other team driving on us, and 4) long quick scores a couple of times.

What does this mean? Different coaches and system or clock? What about Vandy, I'll take their clock/plays and their record this year...

Somebody spent a lot of time to prove absolutely nothing.

Maybe a change in coaches and offensive systems could have an impact. There are so many variables from one year to the next, that just looking at the number of plays as a relation to differenct clock rules is a complete comparison of apples to oranges and waste of time.

I wonder if this was a government project?

mrydel wrote:That's ridiculous. We have lost plays due to 1) 3 and outs, and 2)turnovers, and 3) the other team driving on us, and 4) long quick scores a couple of times.

Every single game we lost this year, the opposing team scored more points. Conspiracy? I think not.

ponyboy wrote:

mrydel wrote:That's ridiculous. We have lost plays due to 1) 3 and outs, and 2)turnovers, and 3) the other team driving on us, and 4) long quick scores a couple of times.

Every single game we lost this year, the opposing team scored more points. Conspiracy? I think not.

Please do note that I did not say we lost due to...., I said we lost plays. I firmly believe in the "whomever scores the most points wins" theory.

Surely the biggest driver is that JJ has BLM come all the way to the sideline to speak to him between every play. BLM jogs over to the sideline (~5* seconds) They talk (~15 seconds), then BLM jogs back to the huddle (~5 seconds), BLM communicates the play (~3 seconds) and they line up (~5 seconds). That accounts for ~33 seconds.

Could someone who followed him closely at Hawaii say if this is how JJ always does things, or if it is driven by BLM being a true freshman and him wanting to fit in a some immediate coaching? If BLM can communicate the play in ~3 seconds then I assume JJ is talking to him about more than just the play for ~15 seconds.

I think JJ said that the players' reads in his offense are post-snap rather than pre-snap, but I am still surprised by how little time they allow between lining up and snapping the ball.

There could be some other drivers besides wanting to coach up the QB. The style of offense and the current level of players/experience lends itself to short possessions (3 and out, 77 yard td, pick, lot's of incompletions vs long grinding 15 play drive taking a lot of time off the clock) so maybe he wants to help the defense by running the clock when he can and just taking more time for the defense to rest even when the clock is not running.

Also, since there are a lot of deep routes and he does not substitute wr's much this could be a way of helping them stay fresh.

This slow pace has been the most unexpected element of JJ's approach to me - I had expected more of a "60 minutes of hell" approach so I am interested in the logic behind it.

* All times approximate (although I keep meaning to bring a stopwatch to see)

I seem to remember him doing this at Hawaii as well.

mrydel wrote:

ponyboy wrote:

mrydel wrote:That's ridiculous. We have lost plays due to 1) 3 and outs, and 2)turnovers, and 3) the other team driving on us, and 4) long quick scores a couple of times.

Every single game we lost this year, the opposing team scored more points. Conspiracy? I think not.

Please do note that I did not say we lost due to...., I said we lost plays. I firmly believe in the "whomever scores the most points wins" theory.

But that screws up my funny. Please modify your original post.

ponyboy wrote:

mrydel wrote:

ponyboy wrote:

mrydel wrote:That's ridiculous. We have lost plays due to 1) 3 and outs, and 2)turnovers, and 3) the other team driving on us, and 4) long quick scores a couple of times.

Every single game we lost this year, the opposing team scored more points. Conspiracy? I think not.

Please do note that I did not say we lost due to...., I said we lost plays. I firmly believe in the "whomever scores the most points wins" theory.

But that screws up my funny. Please modify your original post.

Don't worry. You are still well on your way to becoming a ponyman.

Just trying to imitate the master.

mrydel wrote: I firmly believe in the "whomever scores the most points wins" theory.

There's just not enough empirical data for that to be conclusive.

Also, I think the world is only 43 years old (44 in November) and dinosaurs roamed the SMU campus 30 years ago.

jtstang wrote:

mrydel wrote: I firmly believe in the "whomever scores the most points wins" theory.

There's just not enough empirical data for that to be conclusive.

Also, I think the world is only 43 years old (44 in November) and dinosaurs roamed the SMU campus 30 years ago.

That would be me according to my kids.

jtstang wrote:

mrydel wrote: I firmly believe in the "whomever scores the most points wins" theory.

There's just not enough empirical data for that to be conclusive.

Also, I think the world is only 43 years old (44 in November) and dinosaurs roamed the SMU campus 30 years ago.

OK, I can buy your beliefs, however I do wonder why, if the world was born in November, do we celebrate the New Year in January?

mrydel wrote:

jtstang wrote:

mrydel wrote: I firmly believe in the "whomever scores the most points wins" theory.

There's just not enough empirical data for that to be conclusive.

Also, I think the world is only 43 years old (44 in November) and dinosaurs roamed the SMU campus 30 years ago.

OK, I can buy your beliefs, however I do wonder why, if the world was born in November, do we celebrate the New Year in January?

That's the fiscal calendar.