PDA

View Full Version : Official Ben Tate Combine Blow-Up Thread


metafour
02-28-2010, 02:12 PM
Arguably the top performer thus far yet he's somehow getting very little play:

5'11 220lbs

T1st Bench Press - 26 reps
T1st Broad Jump - 10'4"
2nd Vertical Jump - 40.5"
3rd 40-yard Dash - 4.43 (official)

superman
02-28-2010, 02:15 PM
looks like the perfect hb on paper. i'd take him as early as the 2nd.

metafour
02-28-2010, 02:17 PM
10'4" broad jump is confirmed as tied for best with Hardesty.

3 of the 4 runningbacks who ran faster times were sub-200lbs (Spiller, Best, McKnight)

Clarkw267
02-28-2010, 02:17 PM
looks like the perfect hb on paper. i'd take him as early as the 2nd.

I like him or Hardesty for the lions in the 3rd. Although after today both might not make it there.

ThePudge
02-28-2010, 02:19 PM
Arguably the top performer thus far yet he's somehow getting very little play:

5'11 220lbs

T1st Bench Press - 26 reps
T1st Broad Jump - 10'4"
2nd Vertical Jump - 40.5"
5th 40-yard Dash - 4.45 (unofficial)

He's getting plenty of play in the Combine results thread.

FrankGore
02-28-2010, 02:23 PM
Was very impressed by Tate whenever I watched Auburn this year. Good to see him put up the workouts to verify that.

metafour
02-28-2010, 02:39 PM
4.43 official is 3rd fastest. Monster.

Saints-Tigers
02-28-2010, 02:41 PM
If some team bites on Pierre Thomas, we should grab him. Hell, if he is there in the 3rd, I'd take him even with our backs.

Very impressive.

GoRavens
02-28-2010, 02:51 PM
just pulled an awesome catch too.
I think he shoots up to late round 2/early 3rd

Saints-Tigers
02-28-2010, 02:54 PM
just pulled an awesome catch too.
I think he shoots up to late round 2/early 3rd


He sure did, finger tip grab on an overthrown ball.

Mr.Regular
02-28-2010, 02:55 PM
Wow sexy grab

prock
02-28-2010, 03:17 PM
40.5 inch vertical? dudes playin the wrong sport!

Saints-Tigers
02-28-2010, 03:26 PM
So what exactly keeps Tate out of the first round discussion? He's a highly productive SEC back with great size and workout numbers.

Scotty D
02-28-2010, 03:32 PM
So what exactly keeps Tate out of the first round discussion? He's a highly productive SEC back with great size and workout numbers.

Good question.

Day One Pick
02-28-2010, 03:50 PM
One thing is for sure. There will be quality NFL starting RB's available into the 4th round and beyond. With most teams set at the starting RB position, and the overall depth at most positions in this draft (especially on defense), there is sure to be some very good RB's slide. I bet Tate doesn't go until the late 3rd at best. In other year's, he's a 2nd round guy.

ElectricEye
02-28-2010, 04:03 PM
I've been huge on him all year. One things for certain; both he and Hardesty are far better athletes than they've been given credit for, Tate in particular.

DiG
03-01-2010, 09:15 AM
Im always disappointed when the Terps can't land in state talent like Tate and I usually hold grudges against guys that leave...but its hard with Tate. He seems like a real down to earth hard working guy. Im glad that he is tearing up the combine and am interested to see now how high he goes in April. My biggest question mark was always his speed but it looks like he will be just fine in that department.

TitanHope
03-01-2010, 09:36 AM
So what exactly keeps Tate out of the first round discussion? He's a highly productive SEC back with great size and workout numbers.

Extremely deep RB class, and Tate has some questions about his vision. Plus, I'm not sure Tate's 4.43 speed translates to the field. Tate's Weaknesses according to Scott: Does not have great vision or instincts --- Lacks explosion --- Isn't very shifty or elusive--- Struggles to get outside and turn the corner --- Not a big play threat --- Just an average blocker --- Ball protection issues. Lacks explosion, struggles to get outside, and not a big play threat seem to contradict Tate's 40, vert, and broad. Although, I do think Scott underestimated Tate in those areas.

But yeah, biggest hinderance is that this draft is 12 RB's deep, and any one of them could go before the 4th RD. Plus, several RB's besides Tate improved their draft stock. Montario Hardesty ran a 4.49 40 @ 225 lbs, had the highest vert, and tied with Tate for the longest broad. Ryan Matthews ran a 4.45 40, Jahvid Best ran faster than Spiller, and Toby Gerhart put up a better time than expected.

SenorGato
03-01-2010, 12:20 PM
So what exactly keeps Tate out of the first round discussion? He's a highly productive SEC back with great size and workout numbers.

Workout numbers are nice, but his natural athleticism isn't to that level.

Say someone like Greg Hardy...he hasn't done a thing right in his senior year to help his stock...that said if you've seen Greg Hardy play you know his on-field athleticism is as good as it gets and that even at 75% this year he was damn good on the field. Hardy ran like a 4.9 today.

Tate is opposite...a solid player with solid athleticism whose real strengths are a strong work ethic and durability. Tate's the kind of guy who's set to be a good starter/part of a rotation in the NFL, but his upside after that really isn't huge. I guess is a team is really looking for a RB who'll stay healthy and can take on a starters workload (not right away) he'd be a good option, but my feeling is that teams rarely reach for that.

metafour
03-01-2010, 12:51 PM
Workout numbers are nice, but his natural athleticism isn't to that level.

It very much is.

Ben Tate gets knocked because his running-style isn't one that pops a lot of highlight-reel plays; yet at the same time the one-cut and go power runner is going to have more success at the NFL level than the guy who dances around and makes spectacular plays in college that simply wont be there in the NFL. Tate will never be able to hit top speed in a second like Spiller or Best, but he has proven numerous times that his 4.43 speed isn't a mirage. Once he gets going he is hard to catch; see the run at 0:27 against Arkansas and the run at 1:57 against Northwestern:


NfBkonPBFGY

descendency
03-01-2010, 01:10 PM
looks like the perfect hb on paper. i'd take him as early as the 2nd.

Where did you get your sig?

ElectricEye
03-01-2010, 01:18 PM
The entire "his natural athleticism doesn't isn't there" is not true. Tate is fantastically athletic. This is what happens when somebody people don't think will time well all year(that was one of the knocks on Tate, people thought he didn't have the measurables) comes out and blows up.

SenorGato
03-01-2010, 01:44 PM
The entire "his natural athleticism doesn't isn't there" is not true. Tate is fantastically athletic. This is what happens when somebody people don't think will time well all year(that was one of the knocks on Tate, people thought he didn't have the measurables) comes out and blows up.

He's not going in the first round, nor is he a first round type RB prospect.

Natural athleticism extends far beyond workout numbers.

Stupid example over the unforgiving internet, but one that should be taken for what it is give:

I'm 5'11 170 and my best friend is probably 5'9 160 or so. He can run faster than me, lift better than me, he can dunk...but he trains for that stuff. Ask him who the better athlete is and he'll tell you it's me. There's just a difference...It's a difference even amateur athletes know well. He's just a more refined athlete than I am...that creates a gap that proper training (say...NFL training) can close depending on how seriously I were to take the training as an individual.

Tate is a very refined athlete...no doubt about that...and there's tons of value in that...especially as a RB. It makes him a good candidate for forge become a career as a solid starter. He's been one of my favorite RB prospects in this draft and it's nice to see him getting some notice. But a good workout does not make him first round worthy...it DOES speak about his work ethic and level of focus/training.

Supporting Caste
03-01-2010, 02:17 PM
I thought Tate was underrated before, but now he's overrated (hilariously so).

1st round? LOL. No.

Addict
03-01-2010, 02:28 PM
not first round, but 2-3rd definately.

Supporting Caste
03-01-2010, 02:32 PM
4th. And ten characters.

SenorGato
03-01-2010, 03:08 PM
4th. And ten characters.

+1

Positional value + lack of further upside (maxed our frame and close to there with workout numbers) will hurt him...that said I think his workout jumped him 1-2 rounds to the 4th. Maybe someone grabs him in the 3rd...

TitanHope
03-01-2010, 03:16 PM
I think Tate has moved himself up into a 2nd-3rd RD'er (I had him as a mid-rounder prior to his combine [ie. 4th-5th RD])

CJ Spiller, Jahvid Best, Jonathan Dwyer, Toby Gerhart, Ryan Matthews, Montario Hardesty, and Ben Tate - I think all these guys improved their stock. All should all be gone by the start of the 4th RD.

I think Joe McKnight is over-rated, LeGarrette Blount has a ton of character concerns and missed practically an entire season, and Dexter McCluster doesn't have a true position and ran a poor 40 which hurt him in my view - but of course, those 3 guys are hard to project since their circumstances are unique. I don't think they helped their cause, and have caused the RB pool to becom more muddled. I'd say these guys are the 4th RD guys.

But yeah, definitely not a 1st RD'er. Spiller is the only 1st RD RB in my view.

critesy
03-01-2010, 03:19 PM
the thing about his 40 not translating to the field?! he literally turned the corner and ran for a big gain in every game this year.

he's great in pass pro, can catch the ball well and runs hard.


comparison is ronnie brown.

jimbo
03-01-2010, 05:41 PM
I've been high on him since the last few games of the year where I got to watch Auburn play.

He's a shorter Matt Forte. I'd take him in the second round.

big daddy russ
03-01-2010, 05:56 PM
One of Tate's biggest problems is that he's a longer strider than many other running backs, so he's naturally going to look slower and less-explosive than some of the other prospects. So whenever you watch the highlights, watch how he beats the angles rather than how fast his feet are moving.

On that note, he's not a first-rounder. Not because the talent isn't there, but because of so many other reasons. During the three years he's received significant PT, he's bounced through four offensive systems. He never really got a feel for Malzahn's system, and he had a hard time picking up assignments and reading his blocks because of it.

He struggled with options, sweeps, and other outside plays because of (like Scott said) his vision for the holes before they open.

Still was a productive back, but will need some time to develop. May be doubting his ability to pass block right now--who knows--but he was actually a better pass blocker as a sophomore than he was as a senior.

Someone said it best when they said he compares well to Ronnie Brown. And that's not just because they both went to Auburn. Both had/have great straight-line speed, but are one-move type of backs.

He looks good on tape, but still needs a year or two to get a feel for the system he'll be playing in and get the confidence that comes with it.

Saints-Tigers
03-01-2010, 05:58 PM
Great call on Ronnie Brown, I found him similar and had issues with his one move running, as you put it.

Tate isn't quite as gifted, and probably nt as good of a receiver, but good call.

metafour
03-01-2010, 06:10 PM
4th. And ten characters.

4th round? LMFAO.

If Joseph Addai can get drafted late first after putting up 900 yards his SR year (and 680 yards the year before) then Tate is easily worth a 2nd round pick. Tate was easily a better SEC back and his combine is actually more impressive than what Addai did. If you remember; Addai really blew up late after he ran like a 4.40 at 215lbs.

metafour
03-01-2010, 06:15 PM
lack of further upside (maxed our frame)

A "maxed out frame" is only an issue when you are talking about a prospect who is currently smaller than the norm but at the same time doesn't have the body-type to sustain anymore weight. At 5'11 220lbs why would you even want Tate to gain any more weight? You wouldn't, and furthermore; the fact that he is already physically developed is a positive if anything: why would I want to draft a guy who is going to need 2 years just to grow to par when I can grab a guy who is already prototype size and can physically play from day one?

J255979-11nine
03-01-2010, 06:42 PM
4th round? LMFAO.

If Joseph Addai can get drafted late first after putting up 900 yards his SR year (and 680 yards the year before) then Tate is easily worth a 2nd round pick. Tate was easily a better SEC back and his combine is actually more impressive than what Addai did. If you remember; Addai really blew up late after he ran like a 4.40 at 215lbs.

Because NCAA stats dictate how their game translates to the professional level..

How's Colt Brennan doing?

critesy
03-01-2010, 06:44 PM
Because NCAA stats dictate how their game translates to the professional level..

How's Colt Brennan doing?

well beyond tates stats, he also seemingly translates very well to the NFL, so he has the stats, measurables, testing and so on and forth.

metafour
03-01-2010, 06:56 PM
Because NCAA stats dictate how their game translates to the professional level..

How's Colt Brennan doing?

Thanks for the extreme exaggeration.

I've seen a lot of both and there is no way in hell that the difference between Addai and Tate is 3 full rounds, if there is any difference at all. Tate isn't a gimmick back in a gimmick offense; if anything he is an NFL-style back that has gotten a bit lost in the college game (especially his JR season in Auburn's train wreck offense).

He is a complete NFL-styled back (both measurables + running style) that is 5th all-time in rushing yards at a school that has produced a great amount of star college and NFL backs. He also did it under some pretty turmoil-filled years (offensive ineptitude in Tuberville's last few years).

RealityCheck
03-01-2010, 07:04 PM
Because NCAA stats dictate how their game translates to the professional level..
Chase Holbrook says hi.

Supporting Caste
03-01-2010, 09:14 PM
Thanks for the extreme exaggeration.

I've seen a lot of both and there is no way in hell that the difference between Addai and Tate is 3 full rounds, if there is any difference at all.

You're making the hilariously naive mistake of assuming a player will go in this draft where he would have gone in a previous one, knowing what people knew back THEN rather than what they know now.

Watch this: If JAMAAL CHARLES went in the early 3rd round, BEN TATE WILL HAVE TO GO IN THE 12TH! THERE IS NO OTHER POSSIBILITY.

First of all, there's no way Tate's situation compares to Addai's simply because there's more than just Laurence Maroney to deal with: C.J. Spiller, Ryan Mathews, Jahvid Best, Montario Hardesty, Joe McKnight, Dexter McCluster, Toby Gerhart and Jonathan Dwyer could all go ahead of him.

Besides that, the running back position is already at a historically diluted level. You have guys like Tashard Choice and Shonne Greene starting seasons as team's third backs, and you think a team is gonna blow a 2nd rounder on Tate? LOL.

Look, very few teams need running backs, and they'll be taking players not named Ben Tate early on.

And you know what? It's not an insult to get drafted in the 4th round as an RB. He'll be OK.

metafour
03-01-2010, 09:28 PM
You're making the hilariously naive mistake of assuming a player will go in this draft where he would have gone in a previous one, knowing what people knew back THEN rather than what they know now.

Watch this: If JAMAAL CHARLES went in the early 3rd round, BEN TATE WILL HAVE TO GO IN THE 12TH! THERE IS NO OTHER POSSIBILITY.

First of all, there's no way Tate's situation compares to Addai's simply because there's more than just Laurence Maroney to deal with: C.J. Spiller, Ryan Mathews, Jahvid Best, Montario Hardesty, Joe McKnight, Dexter McCluster, Toby Gerhart and Jonathan Dwyer could all go ahead of him.

Besides that, the running back position is already at a historically diluted level. You have guys like Tashard Choice and Shonne Greene starting seasons as team's third backs, and you think a team is gonna blow a 2nd rounder on Tate? LOL.

Look, very few teams need running backs, and they'll be taking players not named Ben Tate early on.

And you know what? It's not an insult to get drafted in the 4th round as an RB. He'll be OK.

Yes, because I didn't realize that draft classes were different.

I still dont know what your stance is. I'm talking pure talent. I thought you were stating that Tate was a 4th round talent. Tate is significantly better than a 4th round talent, and even with this RB class I'd be willing to bet he goes higher than 4th round.

ElectricEye
03-01-2010, 09:28 PM
+1

Positional value + lack of further upside (maxed our frame and close to there with workout numbers) will hurt him...that said I think his workout jumped him 1-2 rounds to the 4th. Maybe someone grabs him in the 3rd...

Why is his frame being maxed out a bad thing? We're not talking about a lanky, raw defensive end or a stocky defensive tackle. That's a very, very good thing for a running back. Doesn't inhibit his upside at all. Give me a 220 pound Tate over a guy who will be 220 in a couple years.

I never said he was a first rounder, he has a few other issues besides positional value, I just think it's ridiculous that he goes out there and makes big runs all year AND backs it up in workouts and people are saying he doesn't work out to the numbers. Pigeon holing at it's finest. When he's Frank Gore in a few years(which he very possibly could be) people will be singing a very different tune. I think people are almost disappointed he doesn't fit their "doesn't work out well, but watch him run" Pierre Thomas cliché that people have been throwing around all year for him and Montario Hardesty. Surprise surprise, they're also physically talented players.

SenorGato
03-01-2010, 09:37 PM
A "maxed out frame" is only an issue when you are talking about a prospect who is currently smaller than the norm but at the same time doesn't have the body-type to sustain anymore weight. At 5'11 220lbs why would you even want Tate to gain any more weight? You wouldn't, and furthermore; the fact that he is already physically developed is a positive if anything: why would I want to draft a guy who is going to need 2 years just to grow to par when I can grab a guy who is already prototype size and can physically play from day one?

It is a positive thing, but that just means you're getting a good, pro ready player if/when you draft him.

I think he's your prototypical feature back in the mold of Thomas Jones. He could probably go in the 2nd, but considering the depth of this draft, his position, and the amount of talent that are juniors will cause him to fall.

TitanHope
03-01-2010, 09:46 PM
I think people are almost disappointed he doesn't fit their "doesn't work out well, but watch him run" Pierre Thomas cliché that people have been throwing around all year for him and Montario Hardesty.

This is directed at anyone who has an answer.

Ok, what's up with Pierre Thomas? This isn't the first time I've seen Hardesty compared to Thomas, or the first time I've heard someone talk about Thomas being a little off. I must have missed something.

ericzedwards
03-02-2010, 12:44 PM
I honestly believe that the only thing that will hold back Tate's draft position this year is the profusion of multi-back systems being employed in the NFL that utilize fourth-round (or later) running backs that are having great success. If the league was in the state it was a few years back, I think Tate would have an early second round grade this point at the latest! Call me crazy, but I'd take Tate over Jahvid Best any day of the week.

big daddy russ
03-02-2010, 02:48 PM
I honestly believe that the only thing that will hold back Tate's draft position this year is the profusion of multi-back systems being employed in the NFL that utilize fourth-round (or later) running backs that are having great success. If the league was in the state it was a few years back, I think Tate would have an early second round grade this point at the latest! Call me crazy, but I'd take Tate over Jahvid Best any day of the week.

I won't call you crazy. I don't like backs that go down too easy. You're going to get hit in the league. Better be strong enough to bounce a couple of those.

I like Best as a niche guy. Not as a feature runner. Tate has the ability to develop into that.

Clarkw267
03-02-2010, 02:56 PM
Tate and Hardesty are mirroring each other as far as draft stock is concerned.

Both were 3rd/4th round guys coming in, and both answered questions about their speed and overall explosiveness.

They are both now firm 3rd rounders, and I expect 1 of them to sneak into the bottom of the 2nd round.

HotRod35
03-02-2010, 05:21 PM
the thing about his 40 not translating to the field?! he literally turned the corner and ran for a big gain in every game this year.

he's great in pass pro, can catch the ball well and runs hard.


comparison is ronnie brown.

You wrote: "he literally turned the corner and ran for a big gain in every game this year."

He did? It doesn't show in his highlights or in his stats: 8 out of 14 games, his longest runs were less than 20 yards!

I think he very much improved his stock with his combine numbers, and it will get people looking at more tape of him. I am certainly impressed regarding his overall athleticism, based on his size. Very impressed, but there are still a lot of guys in front of him.

I would not move him in front of the guys with more production than him. But I think he solidified himself as someone who needs to be looked at more closely than before.

So far I don't see anything that moves him in front of Spiller, Mathews, or Gerhart.

Do you move him in front of Dwyer? I would say yes absolutely. Anthony Dixon? I think I would. Hardesty? He also had a very good combine with similar production their senior years. I think for now that could go either way, but I would be willing to be convinced, for sure.

Best is a wild card, based on his speed, which is countered by his durability. But if you like power backs, and I do, then maybe.

His production numbers are not overly impressive; they are not bad but not so impressive that you don't put his combine numbers above all else.

He did improve in my eyes though, that is for sure.

critesy
03-02-2010, 06:10 PM
La. Tech, 117 yards long of 16.
Miss St, 157 yards long of 35
WVU, 75 yards long of 16
Ball St, 63 yards long of 18
Tenn, 128 yards long of 20 (catch long of 13)
Arkansas, 184 yards long of 60 (catch long of 13)
Kentucky, 132 yards long of 18
LSU, 67 yards long of 14
Ole Miss, 144 yards long of 53
Furman, 75 yards long of 19
Georgia, 67 yards long of 10 (1 catch long of 19)
Bama, 45 yards long of 11
Northwestern, 108 yards long of 24

while lots of those arent eye poppping he consistantly put up 15+ yard runs every game, some times multiple times a game.

HotRod35
03-02-2010, 06:43 PM
Again, let me stress that I am very impressed with Tate’s combine numbers and if he is a guy you had on your radar, then you are very happy. In the right spot in the draft, you could get very comfortable pulling the trigger on this guy.

Positives:

1) Outstanding combine numbers, and in the top of order in a number of categories
2) Fastest RB over 220 at combine
3) Outstanding Vertical, and Broad Jump
4) Good Production, his senior year
5) Very good size and speed ratio

Negatives (some of these are relative to his competition):

1) Just one season over 1,000 yards rushing
(By way of comparison Mathews had just one season too, but it was very 1,808 Vs 1,362)

2) Averaged just 81 yards rushing per game last two years
(By comparison, Mathews averaged 121 yards per game or 49% more per game)

3) Drop off in production between sophomore and junior year
(By way of comparison Mathews had a similar drop off between his Freshman, and Sophomore seasons, although it is noted Mathews played just 8 games his sophomore year)

4) Yards per carry for his last three years: 4.5; 4.2; 5.4
(By way of comparison Mathews had: 6.0; 5.4; and 6.6)

5) Just 7 out of 23 games his last two years included longest runs that were over 20 yards.
(By way of comparison Mathews had 14 out of his last 20, games with longest runs of over 20 yards)

6) Just 12 out of 23 games (just 52%) his last two years his YPC was 4.0 or more.
(By way of comparison, Mathews rushed for 4.0 YPC or more in 16 out of 20 games, or 80% of the time)


7) Ran for 100 yards or more just 9 out of his last 25 games, or 36%
(By comparison Mathews rushed for 100 yards or more 13 out of his last 20 games or 65% of his games)


8) Just 2 games out of his last 25 did he rushed for 150 yards or more, or just 8% of the time.
(By comparison Mathews rushed for 150 yards or more 7 times in his last 20 games, or 35% of the time, which is a better percentage than Tate had for 100 yard games)


I think the most concern I have, from a stats review, is that in nearly 1/2 of his games during his last two years he averaged 4.0 yards, or less, per carry. Most likely his YPC number will go down in the pros, and then what is it going to be? I like consistency and it is a big reason I like Mathews, and others, a lot more than Tate.

Note: Ben Tate played in 12 games in 2008 and 13 in 2009 for a 25 game total his last two years. Ryan Mathews played just 8 games in 2008 and 12 in 2009 for 20 games total, for his last two years.

critesy
03-02-2010, 07:28 PM
in 2008 ben tate played in one of thee worst run offenses in the country (105 of 120)

also, fresno plays in the WAC.

now.. i agree that matthews and tate and very equal players and to teams its whoever they like more than thee other. (i also put hardesty in this group as he is also very similar to both as well)

HotRod35
03-02-2010, 08:32 PM
in 2008 ben tate played in one of thee worst run offenses in the country (105 of 120)

also, fresno plays in the WAC.

now.. i agree that matthews and tate and very equal players and to teams its whoever they like more than thee other. (i also put hardesty in this group as he is also very similar to both as well)

First of all you need to ask yourself why was Auburn so poor running the ball? Did Tate contribute to that, at least from the standpoint that he was not a good enough runner in college to take them to another level? See Gerhart and Stanford, for an example.

Secondly, yes, Matthews’s plays in the WAC, but the numbers, production wise are not that close. No one else in the WAC put up those kinds of numbers so he "played above" the WAC.

Conversely, at least three other backs had as comparable or better years in the SEC: Hardesty, Dixon, and Ingram.

Also, look at the production Matthews had against these teams:

@ Wisconsin 19 carries; 109 yards; 5.9 YPC;
Boise State: 19 carries; 234 yards; 12.3 YPC;
@ Cincinnati 38 carries; 145 yards; 3.8 YPC;
@ Illinois 32 carries; 173 yards; 5.4 YPC;

Totals: 108 carries; 661 yards; 6.12 YPC

Other than the low YPC against a pretty good Cincy team those are outstanding numbers. He averaged 165 yards rushing against BCS schools (well I am throwing in Boise State, as they are as good as a majority of BCS schools). And three of these games were on the road.

Sorry but production wise against comparable opponents Tate does not have 4 nearly as good games to compare. There is little argument that can be made from a production standpoint. Keep in mind Auburn played just 8 SEC games he had the rest of the 5 games to fatten up and he didn’t do it, not to the extent that you would give him the benefit of the doubt just because he played in the SEC.

If Mathews had fallen on his face or had less production against BCS schools then your argument might be more persuasive. Playing in the SEC does not account for the huge difference in production.

In my opinion there is no way you move Tate or Hardesty in front of RM

critesy
03-02-2010, 08:52 PM
ah sorry by run offense i meant run offense as in the o-coordinator was terrible at putting together a legit offense in any way. (passing and running)

and he didnt fatten up in the other games cause they gave other backs carries to keep him fresh for games that mattered.

and like i said im not moving them infront, im putting them in the same category when people think of drafting one of them.

metafour
03-02-2010, 09:45 PM
The Tony Franklin experiment in 2008 was what got the entire staff at Auburn fired.

HotRod35
03-02-2010, 11:00 PM
The Tony Franklin experiment in 2008 was what got the entire staff at Auburn fired.

That in no way accounts for the fact, that he did not have outstanding production. Sorry, it just doesn't.

There is no way; his numbers are not even close, to Ryan Mathews or
Toby Gehart. Not close.

His combine numbers are not that much better than Mathews, and not significantly better than Gerhart's. Not nearly enough to make up for the lack of production compared to those two.

Gerhart's production numbers dwarf Tate and his senior year he ran against teams who were better against the run and he still blew Tate's numbers away.

Consider that in just his last 7 games Gerhart had as many 100+ games as Tate did the entire season. And this included games against USC, Okalahoma, Cal, and Pac10 Champion Oregon. All had winning records except for Notre Dame who as 500. He rushed for nearly as many yard in the last 7 games alone than Tate did for the entire season.

No, Tate's stock has risen in my eyes but he is not close to Mathews or Gerhart. Not at this point.

critesy
03-02-2010, 11:16 PM
what were saying about 2008 is the playcalling and everything about the offense was just so bad, that matthews or gerhart wouldnt even help it out (hypothetically). like terrible. but we dont know what scouts are thinking, these are all just our opinions so we'll have to wait it out to the draft to see what teams like who better.

FUNBUNCHER
03-02-2010, 11:33 PM
In college, if a good RB gets the carries, he can outperform the offensive playcalling and/or the scheme.

Tate has tools and ability, but he never looked exceptionally fast to me on film, and always appeared to be a few notches below Cadillac and Ronnie Brown in terms of pure run ability and overall talent.

If he goes to the right team, say a franchise like the Skins, he will be given more than ample opportunity to earn PT, but nothing about Tates screams 'special' to me.

critesy
03-02-2010, 11:39 PM
In college, if a good RB gets the carries, he can outperform the offensive playcalling and/or the scheme.

Tate has tools and ability, but he never looked exceptionally fast to me on film, and always appeared to be a few notches below Cadillac and Ronnie Brown in terms of pure run ability and overall talent.

If he goes to the right team, say a franchise like the Skins, he will be given more than ample opportunity to earn PT, but nothing about Tates screams 'special' to me.

<33333 i hear ya on this.

metafour
03-03-2010, 11:23 AM
That in no way accounts for the fact, that he did not have outstanding production. Sorry, it just doesn't.

Are you an Auburn fan? I could write you a ten-page paper on the problems of Auburn's offense in 2008...and believe me, it very much does account for why he didn't produce. Just to break down the main aspects relatively quickly:

1) Franklin's offense is a "system". Franklin is an egomaniac. Put those together and you have a guy who seriously believes that his plug-and-play offense will work on any level. I'm not kidding when I say this, but one of his core beliefs is that he will run plays all game long and not care about the results because he believes that eventually, later in the game the defense will get tired and those plays that gained no yards will start to work. Take that philosophy with an offensive scheme which features about 3 running plays, 2 of which are extremely slow developing lateral sweeps and you have an extreme fundamental flaw. Franklin's running game will never work in the SEC. It gets even worse when you are taking a 220+lb North/South runner and having him run 5 yards towards the sideline on each running play, which is literally what happened at least 60+% of the time.

2) I dont want to get into the core flaws of the Tuberville coaching staff too much; but essentially the attempt was to fit a square peg into a round hole (ie: adapt Franklin's completely different offense onto a bunch of assistants which have been with Tuberville since he was at Ole Miss). Several offensive coaches never bought into Franklin, most notably the OL coach Hugh Nall. The result was one of the worst OL performances ever at Auburn. Couldn't block anything, penalties everywhere. Now you mix a flawed offense with an offensive line that is horrendous while trying to get a power-back to play like Reggie Bush.

3) Horrendous QB play. Auburn's QB in 2008 played with a damaged shoulder (which required surgery after the season). The result was a quarterback who could barely throw the ball 15 yards down field without having to float it. Now you mix a flawed running game with a terrible offensive line with a quarterback that was no threat to hurt anyone. What does that mean? Stack the box, OL cant block, your 220+lb RB is running sideways and getting hit before he can even turn up the field.


Your entire argument assumes that this was just any ole' situation you see around the country, which is about as far away from the reality as you can get. There was disconnect among the coaching staff; Franklin was fired 6 games into the season. Shortly before getting fired he apparently flipped out during a practice and went around coaching every single offensive group. The rest of the coaching staff was fired at the end of the season after Tuberville again failed to get rid of dead-weight on the offensive staff which had produced diminishing offensive performance well before the 2008 season. Auburn's offense finished 104th in total offense and 111th in scoring offense. Which other SEC school was in a similar situation? Tennessee, and go look at Hardesty's 2008 performance: 271 rushing yards and a 3.6ypc. Even worse than Ben Tate.

You go on to state that a good RB will produce anywhere. That is pure BS, and I can guarantee you that neither Gerhart nor Matthews would have done squat in Auburn's offense of last year in the SEC. Stanford has a very good offensive line and their pro-styled offense utilizes Gerhart perfectly as he is allowed to pound the ball. Take Gerhart and give him a garbage OL with a garbage QB, up the level of competition, and ask him to run sideways...if you think he is going to reach even half of what he produced this season then you are delusional.

big daddy russ
03-03-2010, 04:17 PM
That in no way accounts for the fact, that he did not have outstanding production. Sorry, it just doesn't.

There is no way; his numbers are not even close, to Ryan Mathews or
Toby Gehart. Not close.

His combine numbers are not that much better than Mathews, and not significantly better than Gerhart's. Not nearly enough to make up for the lack of production compared to those two.

Gerhart's production numbers dwarf Tate and his senior year he ran against teams who were better against the run and he still blew Tate's numbers away...

Two things:

1.) I don't know what universe you're living in, but in mine you'd be laughed at for trying to suggest that the PAC-10 has better run defenses than the SEC.

In my universe, we'd laugh and then we'd duct tape your mouth shut on principle. The SEC is far superior to the PAC-10 defensively, especially run defense. And the gap isn't even close.


2.) I'm lost. I though Tate just pulled off a 1,362-yard season?

There are so many other factors that come into play here, and you can't judge a back based exclusively on his output. If that was the case, Allen Patrick would be tearing up the league and Adrian Peterson would be a scrub.

Patrick, if you don't remember, succeeded AD. Gained 1009 yds on a 5.8 avg to AD's 1012 yds on a 5.4 average.

For that matter, if this is the route you want to go, then maybe Gerhardt should've been drafted ahead of AD.

Toby Gerhart carried the ball 343 times. A talented back like him is going to reel off a monster season when they touch the ball that much. That's 80 more carries than Tate. But as far as production goes, both averaged well over 5 ypc. That's more than enough production to prove you belong.

I'm not saying Tate is better, but basing your whole argument around production and stats is a horrible way to prove a point about two NFL prospects.

toonsterwu
03-04-2010, 07:20 PM
I like Tate a lot. I don't know if I buy his playing speed as good as the 40 as he ran, but I believe he's a guy that you can utilize as a bigger back in a platoon, a guy that you can get in the midrounds to pound away. Put it this way ... Jon Dwyer in the first/early 2nd, Toby Gerhart in the 2nd (and I could see late first - seems like a perfect Norv Turner back), or Tate in the 3rd/4th? I think I'd lean Tate and try to address other needs first.

Scott Wright
03-04-2010, 09:15 PM
Based on the popularity of this thread you will all probably be interested to know that I just confirmed Ben Tate as a guest for tomorrow's podcast. Tune in live at 5pm eastern at http://www.primesportsnetwork.com

brasho
03-04-2010, 09:27 PM
He's not going in the first round, nor is he a first round type RB prospect.

Natural athleticism extends far beyond workout numbers.

Stupid example over the unforgiving internet, but one that should be taken for what it is give:

I'm 5'11 170 and my best friend is probably 5'9 160 or so. He can run faster than me, lift better than me, he can dunk...but he trains for that stuff. Ask him who the better athlete is and he'll tell you it's me. There's just a difference...It's a difference even amateur athletes know well. He's just a more refined athlete than I am...that creates a gap that proper training (say...NFL training) can close depending on how seriously I were to take the training as an individual.

Tate is a very refined athlete...no doubt about that...and there's tons of value in that...especially as a RB. It makes him a good candidate for forge become a career as a solid starter. He's been one of my favorite RB prospects in this draft and it's nice to see him getting some notice. But a good workout does not make him first round worthy...it DOES speak about his work ethic and level of focus/training.


To give a good example of what you're talking about... RB Chris Henry of the Titans was something like 6' 220 and ran his 40 in the 4.3 range yet he is a terrible RB, sure he can run and jump and lift, but can he play football?

Emmitt Smith was 5'9 209 lbs coming out of college and ran a 4.6 and was a heckuva football player.

I used to be a sport specific trainer and I trained people how to become faster, more agile, and more powerful and from a testing standpoint I was impressive. 5'7 185 4.50 (and sometimes sub 4.5 40) 36" VJ and at that time about 20 reps of 225 (but I also trained myself to reach those measurables)... but whenever I played football there was always guys more athletic than me, despite me being faster, stronger, and more sudden. They were naturally athletic and fluid, I was a self-made athlete and there was a difference.

HotRod35
03-08-2010, 08:14 PM
Are you an Auburn fan? I could write you a ten-page paper on the problems of Auburn's offense in 2008...and believe me, it very much does account for why he didn't produce. Just to break down the main aspects relatively quickly:

1) Franklin's offense is a "system". Franklin is an egomaniac. Put those together and you have a guy who seriously believes that his plug-and-play offense will work on any level. I'm not kidding when I say this, but one of his core beliefs is that he will run plays all game long and not care about the results because he believes that eventually, later in the game the defense will get tired and those plays that gained no yards will start to work. Take that philosophy with an offensive scheme which features about 3 running plays, 2 of which are extremely slow developing lateral sweeps and you have an extreme fundamental flaw. Franklin's running game will never work in the SEC. It gets even worse when you are taking a 220+lb North/South runner and having him run 5 yards towards the sideline on each running play, which is literally what happened at least 60+% of the time.

2) I dont want to get into the core flaws of the Tuberville coaching staff too much; but essentially the attempt was to fit a square peg into a round hole (ie: adapt Franklin's completely different offense onto a bunch of assistants which have been with Tuberville since he was at Ole Miss). Several offensive coaches never bought into Franklin, most notably the OL coach Hugh Nall. The result was one of the worst OL performances ever at Auburn. Couldn't block anything, penalties everywhere. Now you mix a flawed offense with an offensive line that is horrendous while trying to get a power-back to play like Reggie Bush.

3) Horrendous QB play. Auburn's QB in 2008 played with a damaged shoulder (which required surgery after the season). The result was a quarterback who could barely throw the ball 15 yards down field without having to float it. Now you mix a flawed running game with a terrible offensive line with a quarterback that was no threat to hurt anyone. What does that mean? Stack the box, OL cant block, your 220+lb RB is running sideways and getting hit before he can even turn up the field.


Your entire argument assumes that this was just any ole' situation you see around the country, which is about as far away from the reality as you can get. There was disconnect among the coaching staff; Franklin was fired 6 games into the season. Shortly before getting fired he apparently flipped out during a practice and went around coaching every single offensive group. The rest of the coaching staff was fired at the end of the season after Tuberville again failed to get rid of dead-weight on the offensive staff which had produced diminishing offensive performance well before the 2008 season. Auburn's offense finished 104th in total offense and 111th in scoring offense. Which other SEC school was in a similar situation? Tennessee, and go look at Hardesty's 2008 performance: 271 rushing yards and a 3.6ypc. Even worse than Ben Tate.

You go on to state that a good RB will produce anywhere. That is pure BS, and I can guarantee you that neither Gerhart nor Matthews would have done squat in Auburn's offense of last year in the SEC. Stanford has a very good offensive line and their pro-styled offense utilizes Gerhart perfectly as he is allowed to pound the ball. Take Gerhart and give him a garbage OL with a garbage QB, up the level of competition, and ask him to run sideways...if you think he is going to reach even half of what he produced this season then you are delusional.

With all due respect, I think you have me confused with someone else and with some different posts. You quoted, from one of my posts and then went on to attribute several arguments to me, that I didn't make.

For example, I never wrote, nor do I think the following: "You go on to state that a good RB will produce anywhere." I have made several posts over time regarding Gerhart's production his freshman year, which were not that great. That was a very bad football team, that won just one game, and as a result Gerhart's numbers were not that great.

I will say this, though, I don't agree with this statement: " I can guarantee you that neither Gerhart nor Matthews would have done squat in Auburn's offense of last year in the SEC." Now, having stated that I don't agree, I am not saying Gerhart's production would have been as good as it was at Stanford this year. Relying on your analysis if the Auburn offense, I am sure it would have be less. However, if Auburn's offense was good enough for Tate to rush for 1,300 + yards I am confident, that while Gearhart might have produced less than he did with Stanford, he would have certainly produced "squat."

Regarding this quote from you: "if you think he is going to reach even half of what he produced this season then you are delusional." I am not delusional, and, as stated above, I am willing to defer to you as to the quality of Auburn's offense. I assure you, however, that it was good enough for Gerhard to get more than half the production, of what he did with Stanford.

It will be interesting to see how many of offensive linemen of Stanford this year, even get drafted, much less play in the NFL, vs the same thing for Auburn's offensive line this year. I have a strong guess it will be less for Stanford than Auburn, but I could be wrong.

Look, let me stress again, I am very impressed with Tate numbers from the Combine. I think he should and will help himself with his performance. My biggest point was rebutting someone who thought he should be moved into the top 1 or 2 rounds or if he should be drafted in from of Mathews, or Toby Gerhart. I don't think he should be drafted in either of those rounds or in front of either of those players.

What ever the reasons for his lack of production (and keep in mind I am referring to "lack" of production, relative to Mathews and Gerhart, as I think he had a good season and more than enough to get drafted) it is what it is to a certain degree. If his numbers were closer to Mathews or Gerhart, I wouldn't mind giving him the benefit of the doubt, for all the reasons you suggest. But they are not close.

I do like him and his outstanding combine did move him up, in my mind.

LonghornsLegend
03-08-2010, 08:34 PM
What's a good comparison for Tate? Rudi Johnson is who I keep thinking of, and it's really not because he went to Auburn to, but I can't think of a better one.

HotRod35
03-09-2010, 02:28 AM
Two things:

1.) I don't know what universe you're living in, but in mine you'd be laughed at for trying to suggest that the PAC-10 has better run defenses than the SEC.

In my universe, we'd laugh and then we'd duct tape your mouth shut on principle. The SEC is far superior to the PAC-10 defensively, especially run defense. And the gap isn't even close.


For starters, if you were in my "universe" I would take that roll of duct tape and stick right up your *##, and then send you to your room to do some research. And there wouldn't be any "we" to it.

For the record, I live in the universe where you don't go around spouting facts, when you don't know what you are talking about. And you wouldn't be allowed to go around talking out of your *##; at least, you wouldn’t be able to talk very loudly, after that roll of duct tape gets squarely lodged in there.

Obviously you don't know, so I will tell you, the Pac-10 had better defenses against the run, than the SEC, period.

It is a fact, supported by the official stats of the NCAA. The NCAA stats clearly rank a higher percentage of Pac -10 teams in the top 1/2 of team defenses against the run. The evidence is clear and conclusive.

I know there is a strong desire, among many, to believe everything about the SEC is better than everything about any other conference. This is especially true regarding anything to do with defenses.

But hoping, and wishing, and stomping your feet while saying it's so, doesn't make it so. It may make you feel good, but it has little to do with facts, or reality.

To be sure, the SEC had two teams that were outstanding against the run: Alabama ranked 2, and Florida ranked 12th. Both were better than any PAC-10 team; but two teams, a conference does not make.

The fact is that as good as these two teams were, the balance of the conference paled by comparison. Take Kentucky at 100, and Vandy, at 105, these two teams were about as bad as you get, and still be considered division 1 programs. That is, when you consider there are just 65, or so, BCS conference schools, and just 120 total Bowl Division 1 teams.

Moreover, since the SEC teams play just 8 conference games, few teams in the conference will play the top two teams. This has the effect of making the conference appear stronger than it is, with regard to strength of schedule for the typical conference team.

This is especially, true, when comparing strength of schedules between the PAC-10 and the SEC teams. No team in the conference plays everyone in the SEC. Consequently, not every SEC team faced more than two conference teams ranked in the top 40. By comparison, every Pac-10 team faced at least four conference teams ranked in the top 40, and 6 faced at least 5.

The actual facts, and not wishful thinking, when comparing the SEC Vs the Pac-10, and their respective run defenses, include the following:

1) 8 Pac-10 teams, or 80%, ranked in the top 60, against the run
2) 6 SEC teams, or just 50% ranked in the tope 60 against the run

3) More than ¾ or 80% of Pac-10 Teams are ranked above the 50th percentile against the run
4) Just ½ or 50% of SEC teams, are ranked above the 50th percentile against the run.

5) The average rank of all Pac-10 Teams against the run is 47
6) The average rank of all SEC Teams against the run is 57

5) The average rank of the top 1/2 of of Pac-10 Teams was 27.
6) The average rank of the top 1/2 of of SEC Teams was 34.

7) The top 1/2 of all Pac-10 Teams ranked 39th or better
8) The top 1/2 of all SEC Teams ranked just 58th or better

9) The average ranking of the bottom 1/2 of Pac-10 teams was 67, or just right at the mid point of all teams, at the 53rd percentile.
10) The average ranking of the bottom 1/2 of SEC teams was 81, or well below the mid point of all teams, at just the 39th percentile

11) The Pac-10 had just 2 teams, or 20%, rank below 60th, or the 50th percentile
12) The SEC had 6 teams or fully 50% of its total teams, ranked below 60th, or the 50th percentile

13) 80% of all Pac-10 teams rank higher than the 50th percentile
14) Just 50% of all SEC teams rank higher than the 50th percentile

As you can see, the SEC is top heavy, with two teams that were outstanding. However, out side of these two teams, the conference is much weaker than people realize. Indeed, far from being the leader people perceive them to be, outside of the top two, the conference appears to be weaker than the average BCS conferences.

For example, contrary to popular opinion the Pac-10 is a conference, which is very strong against the run; as can be seen, it is significantly better than the SEC. This is true, even when averaging in the very high production of the two best SEC teams.

The impact of playing in the Pac-10 means that your schedule is clearly more difficult against the run, as compared to playing in the SEC. Moreover, what is often overlooked is that the Pac-10 plays 9 conference games Vs, just 8 in the SEC.

Indeed, if a team can avoid playing one of the top 2 teams in the SEC, and most do, your schedule becomes a fairly easy, at least with regard to facing run defenses. It is certainly not like running a season long gauntlet, of top quality defenses against the run, as it is often, and erroneously, made out to be.

With regard to playing in the Pac-10, because you are forced to play an extra conference game you are forced to play one more game against a team, which on average, is of a much better quality defense against the run.
What does that mean in the real world? Well, for one thing it makes the typical Pac-10 schedule is much more difficult, than the typical SEC schedule, when looked at as far as quality run defenses.

For example, since we are talking about Tate, why don't we look at Auburn's schedule to see the impact of playing one less conference game, in a conference that has weaker defenses against the run, to begin with.

Next we can compare the quality of schedule against run defenses that Auburn, and therefore Tate, faced as compared to the defenses that a typical Pac-10 team faced. It doesn’t matter which Pac-10 team you look at, as they are all similar, because of the extra game. I just happen to have Stanford’s numbers handy.

For starters, all 13 games that Stanford played were against Bowl Subdivision 1 teams. Auburn played 2 of 13 games against 1AA teams, Ball State, and Furman. Consequently Tate played just 11 teams ranked in the top 120.

To Auburn’s credit they did play West Virginia, out of conference, which ranked 37th. They also played Northwestern in a bowl game and they were ranked 41st. These games helped bolster a weak conference schedule which included just 4 teams ranked in the top ½ of all teams against the run. By comparison, Stanford played 7 conference teams, ranked in the top ½ of all teams.

To the head to head comparisons for total schedules:

1) Stanford played 8 teams, or 62% of their schedule against teams ranked in the top ½, of all teams, against the run.
2) Auburn played 6 teams, or 46% of their schedule, against teams ranked in the top ½, of all teams, against the run.

3) For Stanford, the average rank of those 8 teams was 31, which is roughly equivalent to the 75th percentile quality of team
4) For Auburn, the average rank of their top 8 opponents was 43, which is roughly equivalent to the 64th percentile quality of team

5) For Stanford, 6, or 46% of their opponents ranked in the top 1/3 of all teams
6) For Auburn, just 3, or 23% of their opponents ranked in the top 1/3 of all teams

7) For Stanford, 5, or 38% of their opponents ranked in the top 1/4 of all teams
8) For Auburn, just 1, or a mere 8% of their opponents ranked in the top 1/4 of all teams

As can be clearly seen, the quality of defenses Stanford faced was much more difficult than the quality of run defenses that Auburn faced. Considering Items 7 and 8 above, the greater quality of defenses faced by Stanford, against the run, is clear, and it is not close.

Indeed, it is somewhat staggering to consider that Stanford faced 5 times as many opponents in the top 25%, against the run than Auburn did.

An honest review of these two typical schedules reveals, that playing against SEC run defenses is not what it is cracked up to be. Plain and simple, when it comes to run defenses, it is clearly easier, on average, to play in the SEC, than to play the typical Pac-10 schedule.

Moreover, in addition to the cold hard facts as presented by the official NCAA records, the fact that the Pac-10 has better defenses against the run is further supported by the Head to Head play of SEC teams VS Pac 10 teams, this year. For the record, in that regard, the SEC running backs produced less rushing yards against the Pac-10 schools, than their season averages.

Accordingly, why don't you do yourself, and all of us a favor, by trying pulling your head out of, your fellow SEC sycophant's derriere, long enough to do some actual research and get your facts straight. I promise, there will be time to go back and look for his roll of duct tape later.

big daddy russ
03-11-2010, 12:05 AM
You're throwing out these stats and still only have half the facts.

The SEC is a run-dominant league. The Pac-10 is not. Of course the SEC is going to have worse numbers against the run. Nearly half the league had more rushing attempts than the Pac-10 leader, Oregon.

RUSHING
Team..............Attempts
1. Oregon........547
2. Stanford......536
3. California.....471
4. Oregon State....440
5. USC............438
6. Arizona........430
7. UCLA...............421
8. Washington.....390
9. Arizona State...382
10.Washington St..354

Team.................Attempts
1. Alabama.........601
2. Mississippi St...555
2. Florida............555
4. Kentucky.........551
5. Auburn...........550
6. Ole Miss..........503
7. Tennessee.......476
8. Vanderbilt.......451
9. Georgia...........447
10. LSU...............435
11. South Carolina..435
12. Arkansas........395

Clarkw267
03-11-2010, 12:13 AM
You can't use NCAA run defense rankings to say that the Pac 10 had better run defenses that the SEC. As the previous poster pointed out, those stats are skewed by the number of attempts. And also, the SEC has better running attacks in general.

HotRod35
03-11-2010, 10:39 AM
You're throwing out these stats and still only have half the facts.

The SEC is a run-dominant league. The Pac-10 is not. Of course the SEC is going to have worse numbers against the run. Nearly half the league had more rushing attempts than the Pac-10 leader, Oregon.

RUSHING
Team..............Attempts
1. Oregon........547
2. Stanford......536
3. California.....471
4. Oregon State....440
5. USC............438
6. Arizona........430
7. UCLA...............421
8. Washington.....390
9. Arizona State...382
10.Washington St..354

Team.................Attempts
1. Alabama.........601
2. Mississippi St...555
2. Florida............555
4. Kentucky.........551
5. Auburn...........550
6. Ole Miss..........503
7. Tennessee.......476
8. Vanderbilt.......451
9. Georgia...........447
10. LSU...............435
11. South Carolina..435
12. Arkansas........395

This is a joke.....Right?

All kidding aside, I really don't think it's appropriate to make fun, at the expense of SEC supporters, by pretending to be one, and then pretending to make an argument, on their behalf, that is so utterly devoid of any critical thinking, or substance.

I will admit, I have had my issues with SEC sycophants, but this is a bit much.

big daddy russ
03-11-2010, 07:10 PM
This is a joke.....Right?

All kidding aside, I really don't think it's appropriate to make fun, at the expense of SEC supporters, by pretending to be one, and then pretending to make an argument, on their behalf, that is so utterly devoid of any critical thinking, or substance.

I will admit, I have had my issues with SEC sycophants, but this is a bit much.

I'm completely lost as to where you're trying to go here.

I don't see how it's a joke. It seems to me that my argument uses plenty of critical thinking skills. It explains basic reasons that a conference (in this case the SEC) would have inflated defensive stats. If you've ever taken a statistics course in college, you might remember the skewed sample. It shows one set of statistics and uses other stats to support it, but doesn't take into account any outside factors or outliers.

Furthermore, I never said that I was or wasn't an SEC supporter, just bringing up counterpoints to your argument.

big daddy russ
03-12-2010, 01:14 AM
For starters, all 13 games that Stanford played were against Bowl Subdivision 1 teams. Auburn played 2 of 13 games against 1AA teams, Ball State, and Furman. Consequently Tate played just 11 teams ranked in the top 120....
Oh, and I forgot to call you out on this earlier. Last I checked, Ball State's in the MAC.

HotRod35
03-12-2010, 10:07 AM
Oh, and I forgot to call you out on this earlier. Last I checked, Ball State's in the MAC.

Your are correct and I was mistaken. And one of my high school coaches played there, he would make me run extra sprints if he knew that. Also, My Father in Law went there.

It is a fine example of the powerhouse programs the SEC plays non-conference, and it should have been obvious to me.

All kidding aside, at least Auburn has made some attempt to schedule some decent schools non-conference, such as West Va. That is better than most, in the SEC, which tend to play very weak non-conference games, especially if there is no long term rivalry involved, such as UF Vs FSU, S Carolina Vs Clemson, or Tech Vs UGA.

But you are correct, Ball State is not 1AA.