forums

SIAP, latest from Dan Enos(4/2)

Advertisement
1mg of Epi said:
@Peter Gibbons... here ya go man. Let’s hear your argument.
Click to expand...

Mark Richt.....

Had better overall record:

Richt: 26-13 (.667%)
Golden: 32-25 (561%)

Had better conference record:

Richt: 16-8 (.667%), 1 division title
Golden: 17-18 (.486%), 0 division titles

Had better bowl record:

Richt: 1-2 (.333%)
Golden: 0-2 (.000%)

Had same number of wins over teams with winning records (in 18 less games):

Richt: 12
Golden: 12

Scored more points per game:

Richt: 30.7
Golden: 30.1

Gave up less:

Richt: 19.4
Golden: 21.9

And just think.

This is only the objective evidence.
 
Peter Gibbons said:
Mark Richt.....

Had better overall record:

Richt: 26-13 (.667%)
Golden: 32-25 (561%)

Had better conference record:

Richt: 16-8 (.667%), 1 division title
Golden: 17-18 (.486%), 0 division titles

Had better bowl record:

Richt: 1-2 (.333%)
Golden: 0-2 (.000%)

Had same number of wins over teams with winning records (in 18 less games):

Richt: 12
Golden: 12

Scored more points per game:

Richt: 30.7
Golden: 30.1

Gave up less:

Richt: 19.4
Golden: 21.9

And just think.

This is only the objective evidence.
Click to expand...
You’re going to pull out statistics? That’s just not a valid argument. Richt walked away when it was apparent he was over his head, Al stayed on and kept collecting Ls for 2 seasons. You’re not looking at comprable
Data sets.

Statistics also ignores strength of opponents. Al had Championship level FSU teams his entire tenure, strong VT and GT teams his entire tenure, and got creamed by a **** good ND team. Even Duke had a decent run during Als tenure. Decent for Duke, of course.

Mark had historically bad FSU on the schedule, hapless VT and GT teams, lost to an embarrassingly bad ND team. The entire coastal was down the last 3 seasons.

Except for a macro view, Statistics here are irrelevant. We aren’t comparing apples to apples. Mark had an impressive 10 game run. His defense collected an insane amount of turnovers, and at that point his QB wasn’t figured out by defenses yet. As soon as his opponents figured out how to attack his offense, the whole thing came crashing down. If Mark were even an average Xs and Os mind, he’s able To evolve his O. But he couldn’t.

Like I said previously, I’m not arguing Al was demonstrably better, he was a **** poor coach too. I’m saying that when the whole picture is looked at, I think Al did a better job.

Mark left this team in a state of disarray that not even Al ******* Golden Came close to. Mark knew what was coming if he stuck around, thankfully he was a stand up guy and left.

So if you want to hang your had on raw numbers devoid of context, you are more than welcome to. There’s a lot more going on here tho. Reasonable minds can disagree, and I get where you’re coming from, I just think the whole picture tells a different story.

Also... Al would’ve won the coastal if not for a bowl ban, and spent his entire tenure recruiting under a cloud.
 
1mg of Epi said:
@Peter Gibbons... here ya go man. Let’s hear your argument.
Click to expand...

Here's the subjective evidence.

Richt's best team was better than Golden's best: 2017 > 2013

In fact, according to SRS (which calculates strength based on point differential and SOS), Richt's two best teams were better than Golden's best: 2016, 2017 > 2013

So Richt had the two best teams of the era (8 years).

Now lets talk about the actual on-field product.

Richt got the best out of Brad Kaaya (150.3 rating, 3,532 yards, 27 TDs). He also managed to get the best out of Malik Rosier (131.1 rating, 3,120 yards, 26 TDs).

So the two QBs that spanned both coaches played their best football under Richt.

Richt was better at evaluating talent and distributing playing time, too. Joe Yearby got 75 more carries than Mark Walton in 2015. The next season, the roles flipped with Walton getting 105 more carries than Yearby.

2015
Yearby: 4.6 ypc , 6 TDs
Walton: 3.5 ypc, 9 TDs

2016
Yearby: 6.0 ypc , 7 TDs
Walton: 5.3 ypc, 14 TDs

Both players were more efficient and more productive.

This is true of almost every other position as well.
 
Advertisement
1mg of Epi said:
Richt walked away when it was apparent he was over his head, Al stayed on and kept collecting Ls for 2 seasons. You’re not looking at comprable
Data sets.
Click to expand...

Richt was "in over his head" but managed to win a higher percentage of his games, win a higher percentage of ACC games and win a higher percentage against teams with winning records.

You're making my argument for me.

Despite being at the tail end of his career, Richt was still far better than Golden was.
 
1mg of Epi said:
Al had Championship level FSU teams his entire tenure, strong VT and GT teams his entire tenure, and got creamed by a **** good ND team.
Click to expand...

FSU was 9-4 in Golden's first year and 10-3 in his last.

So wrong about that, too.

Georgia Tech
2011: 8-5
2012: 7-7
2013: 7-6
2014: 11-3
2015: 3-9
-------------
Total: 36-30 (.545%)

Virginia Tech
2011: 11-3
2012: 7-6
2013: 8-5
2014: 7-6
2015: 7-6
-------------
Total: 40-26 (.606%)

So wrong on that account, too.

And Golden got creamed by a good Notre Dame team while Richt creamed a good Notre Dame team.

Seems to be another argument for me.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
1mg of Epi said:
Mark had historically bad FSU on the schedule, hapless VT and GT teams, lost to an embarrassingly bad ND team.
Click to expand...

In Richt's first year, FSU was as good or better than two of Golden's opponents who you claimed were "championship" caliber.

Georgia Tech
2016: 9-4
2017: 5-6
2018: 7-6
------------
Total: 21-16 (.568%)

Virginia Tech
2016: 10-4
2017: 9-4
2018: 6-7
-----------
Total: 25-15 (.625%)

Wrong again.

Keep going. You're on a roll.
 
"Strong GT teams" = .545 win percentage

"Hapless GT teams" = .568 win percentage

"Strong VT teams" = .606 win percentage

"Hapless VT teams" = .625 win percentage


:LOL:

One of my favorite qualities of clueless fanboys is their ego and insecurity. This guy is clearly "in over his head" and doesn't know even half of what he thinks he does but he'll be damned if he's going to man up and take the L without further embarrassing himself.
 
Advertisement
1mg of Epi said:
You’re going to pull out statistics? That’s just not a valid argument. Richt walked away when it was apparent he was over his head, Al stayed on and kept collecting Ls for 2 seasons. You’re not looking at comprable
Data sets.

Statistics also ignores strength of opponents. Al had Championship level FSU teams his entire tenure, strong VT and GT teams his entire tenure, and got creamed by a **** good ND team. Even Duke had a decent run during Als tenure. Decent for Duke, of course.

Mark had historically bad FSU on the schedule, hapless VT and GT teams, lost to an embarrassingly bad ND team. The entire coastal was down the last 3 seasons.

Except for a macro view, Statistics here are irrelevant. We aren’t comparing apples to apples. Mark had an impressive 10 game run. His defense collected an insane amount of turnovers, and at that point his QB wasn’t figured out by defenses yet. As soon as his opponents figured out how to attack his offense, the whole thing came crashing down. If Mark were even an average Xs and Os mind, he’s able To evolve his O. But he couldn’t.

Like I said previously, I’m not arguing Al was demonstrably better, he was a **** poor coach too. I’m saying that when the whole picture is looked at, I think Al did a better job.

Mark left this team in a state of disarray that not even Al ******* Golden Came close to. Mark knew what was coming if he stuck around, thankfully he was a stand up guy and left.

So if you want to hang your had on raw numbers devoid of context, you are more than welcome to. There’s a lot more going on here tho. Reasonable minds can disagree, and I get where you’re coming from, I just think the whole picture tells a different story.

Also... Al would’ve won the coastal if not for a bowl ban, and spent his entire tenure recruiting under a cloud.
Click to expand...

Bro, you’re caping for Al Golden. Al Fūcking Golden.

The stats are indisputable.

Demonstrably and objectively better.

Was also a better person, better for the program, statistically better, better in every way that counts. Donated $1 million to the IPF, was instrumental in generating the impetus of momentum to get it built quickly, and walked away from $20 million. Gluten would’ve never done any of that. Richt left the program in much better shape than he found it, with the exception of QB.... and in the end one of his QB selections may be a successful starter this year. Though there is no excuse in his handling of the offense.

This is not to downplay his failures, which was his stubbornness, his lack of willingness to innovate offensively, and his incredibly work hiring selections as far as coaches on the offensive side of the ball. All this falls squarely on Rick, and in the end they caught up with him at the end of the third year. At which time he did the best thing for the program which was to walk away and let someone come in and right the ship.

But saying Gluten was better - it’s just insane. I know you dislike Rick, maybe it’s because he was openly religious, I don’t know your reasons, but you’re sounding a little bit touched in the head to be perfectly honest. Defending Al Gluten is inexcusable
 
1mg of Epi said:
You’re going to pull out statistics? That’s just not a valid argument. Richt walked away when it was apparent he was over his head, Al stayed on and kept collecting Ls for 2 seasons. You’re not looking at comprable
Data sets.

Statistics also ignores strength of opponents. Al had Championship level FSU teams his entire tenure, strong VT and GT teams his entire tenure, and got creamed by a **** good ND team. Even Duke had a decent run during Als tenure. Decent for Duke, of course.

Mark had historically bad FSU on the schedule, hapless VT and GT teams, lost to an embarrassingly bad ND team. The entire coastal was down the last 3 seasons.

Except for a macro view, Statistics here are irrelevant. We aren’t comparing apples to apples. Mark had an impressive 10 game run. His defense collected an insane amount of turnovers, and at that point his QB wasn’t figured out by defenses yet. As soon as his opponents figured out how to attack his offense, the whole thing came crashing down. If Mark were even an average Xs and Os mind, he’s able To evolve his O. But he couldn’t.

Like I said previously, I’m not arguing Al was demonstrably better, he was a **** poor coach too. I’m saying that when the whole picture is looked at, I think Al did a better job.

Mark left this team in a state of disarray that not even Al ******* Golden Came close to. Mark knew what was coming if he stuck around, thankfully he was a stand up guy and left.

So if you want to hang your had on raw numbers devoid of context, you are more than welcome to. There’s a lot more going on here tho. Reasonable minds can disagree, and I get where you’re coming from, I just think the whole picture tells a different story.

Also... Al would’ve won the coastal if not for a bowl ban, and spent his entire tenure recruiting under a cloud.
Click to expand...
at this point i only care which one left the program better than when he got here. mark richt wins that one hands down.
 
Advertisement
OriginalCanesCanesCanes said:
Bro, you’re caping for Al Golden. Al Fūcking Golden.

The stats are indisputable.

Demonstrably and objectively better.

Was also a better person, better for the program, statistically better, better in every way that counts. Donated $1 million to the IPF, was instrumental in generating the impetus of momentum to get it built quickly, and walked away from $20 million. Gluten would’ve never done any of that. Richt left the program in much better shape than he found it, with the exception of QB.... and in the end one of his QB selections may be a successful starter this year. Though there is no excuse in his handling of the offense.

This is not to downplay his failures, which was his stubbornness, his lack of willingness to innovate offensively, and his incredibly work hiring selections as far as coaches on the offensive side of the ball. All this falls squarely on Rick, and in the end they caught up with him at the end of the third year. At which time he did the best thing for the program which was to walk away and let someone come in and right the ship.

But saying Gluten was better - it’s just insane. I know you dislike Rick, maybe it’s because he was openly religious, I don’t know your reasons, but you’re sounding a little bit touched in the head to be perfectly honest. Defending Al Gluten is inexcusable
Click to expand...
Hold up there big guy... You obviously didn’t read my post. Honestly I don’t blame u... ADD meds combined w too much free time isn’t necessarily a recipe for quick point making... I’ll paraphrase:

Al was a disaster of a coach.
Mark was a disaster of a coach.
Al was a horrible ambassador.
Mark was a great ambassador.
Al is a disaster of a person.
Mark is a stand up guy and a good person.

You remember all those douchbags who defended Golden all those years? They also used stats devoid of context to make their points. Remember how we anti goldenites were all idiots because stats showed D’no had a top 10 unit? Stats didn’t tell the story then, Stats don’t tell the story today. At all. I addressed that In my previous post.

So yea... Im not gonna change my mind about Marks incompetence because of my hate for Golden. All things considered, Mark was a worse football coach here than golden was. The difference between the two is who they are as people. I like and respect richt the person. I hate Al Golden the person. How I feel about the men personally has no impact on how I view the men as coaches.

Oh and btw.... Only a hypersensitive ***** would mistake my saltiness w richt the coach w caping for Al Golden. And since I know you are not a hypersensitive *****, I will assume either u didn’t read the full post, or I didn’t express my points clearly.

PS... why would u suggest I dislike richt because of his faith?
 
this thread really flows better when you put the trolls on ignore. Good work fellas, enjoying this discussion, lulz
 
Peter Gibbons said:
This is not true.

If not for a bowl ban, North Carolina would've won the Coastal.

So you top your post off with misinformation.

Nice.
Click to expand...
Nooooo if Miami didn’t self impose a bowl ban, Miami would’ve been the coastal champ.

In any event, it’s pretty obvious your knowledge of the game is superficial. You’re not really able to discern cause and effect. As a result you’re forced to stick to superficial arguments that lack depth. There’s nothing more boring than a conversation with someone who pulls out stats, yet doesn’t understand why the stats are what they are.

Like I said yesterday, read and learn about the game. In the meantime feel free to continue with your second rate trolling and hurling of silly insults.
 
1mg of Epi said:
Mark was a worse football coach here than golden was.
Click to expand...

No.

The cold hard objective data says otherwise.

You can’t wordsmith winning percentages, bowl records, big game wins, away.

You are what your record says you are.

I’m not excusing Rick’s failure.

But it’s delusion to say Golden was better. The cold hard objective facts say otherwise.

End of discuss for me.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top