|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jul 16, 2010 17:06:58 GMT -8
Finishing 7th would probably mean 2-6 in conference play. Since I cannot confidently predict a win over Mizzou, that would mean at best 5-7 as our final record for 2010. Man, that would be a real disappointment. 5-7 would not even match Craft's best year (yes, I know we played two I-AA teams that year!).
Lose. lose, lose, lose, lose. That's what most San Diego fans think of SDSU in terms of football. We must break the cycle of losing, and finishing 6-6 will at least do that. .500 isn't much, but it would be the best finish in SEVEN years. It would be a start.
Furthermore, breaking even is simply a matter of finishing 5th, with loses to the four teams above us and wins over the bottom four. Who the hell are those bottom four, anyway? I don't see any of those teams that might be mistaken for Army 1945 or USC 1972.
If this team can't overachieve for a change, when will it? 2020? We can't wait that long.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jul 16, 2010 17:08:22 GMT -8
Were the same defensive starters in the UNLV game as well? As to the Wyoming and UNLV meltdowns I recall Hoke complaining that some guys didn't take chances, whatever the hell that means. If that's the way we're supposed to halt meltdowns, then we may continue to have them. Chances have odds of 50 - 50 in my estimation. like i said..those meltdowns wont happen again. wellman has and will continue to make sure of that. Learning how to win can be one of the hardest things to do and improved cardio and strength will help, but between the ears - that jury is still out. |
|
|
|
Post by sancarlosaztec on Jul 16, 2010 17:12:58 GMT -8
Replying by blackberry so this will be brief.
SGF, thanks for your kid gloves but I stand by my post and don't mind debating. The responses so far have been interesting so thanks for posting this question.
I think CSU SDSU and WYO are all up and coming FB programs.
I'm very high on our current staff and their work so far.
However I'm still waiting for wins as evidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by steveaztec on Jul 16, 2010 17:21:26 GMT -8
Finishing 7th would probably mean 2-6 in conference play. Since I cannot confidently predict a win over Mizzou, that would mean at best 5-7 as our final record for 2010. Man, that would be a real disappointment. 5-7 would not even match Craft's best year (yes, I know we played two I-AA teams that year!). Lose. lose, lose, lose, lose. That's what most San Diego fans think of SDSU in terms of football. We must break the cycle of losing, and finishing 6-6 will at least do that. .500 isn't much, but it would be the best finish in SEVEN years. It would be a start. Furthermore, breaking even is simply a matter of finishing 5th, with loses to the four teams above us and wins over the bottom four. Who the hell are those bottom four, anyway? I don't see any of those teams that might be mistaken for Army 1945 or USC 1972. If this team can't overachieve for a change, when will it? 2020? We can't wait that long. AzWm 6-6 would not be overachieving. In fact it may be under achieving with this schedule. Our Aztecs should be expected to win a minimum of 6 this year and really should win 7. |
|
|
|
Post by Frantic on Jul 16, 2010 17:35:25 GMT -8
I have never been wrong because the Aztecs ended up winning more games than I predicted. Never.
I will not get sucked in again. Did anyone but me watch the meltdown at the end of last year?
It's ironic we play Mizzu this year, because I say "Show Me"...for once. Until then, 7th sounds about right to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fred Noonan on Jul 16, 2010 19:50:18 GMT -8
I have never been wrong because the Aztecs ended up winning more games than I predicted. Never. I will not get sucked in again. Did anyone but me watch the meltdown at the end of last year? It's ironic we play Mizzu this year, because I say "Show Me"...for once. Until then, 7th sounds about right to me. Sounds familiar. I've been wrong about Aztec football a lot, but not because they win more games than I thought. Correct. Wouldn't it be nice to either pick them correctly or have them win more games than you picked? Believe that one when I see it! The Fred Noonan School of Navigation.  |
|
|
|
Post by fowl on Jul 16, 2010 21:44:48 GMT -8
I agree with the OP standings. I think we can all agree that the probablity of us beating TCU/Utah/BYU/Mizzou are slim (I would generically say 10% on each), we get AFA early which historically is not a good time to play them although we get them at home thus I would assign a 35% probablity of a win there. We have to go to Wyoming which, hemoglobin aside, is a tough place to win and that team will likely be better and have more confidence but will be coming off a tough opening slate of games and might be beat up enough to give us a shot (probablity = 40%). CSU had our number in the first half of the game last year and although we get them at home and they will likely be starting a true at QB they will have a very good run game as they are four deep at RB and bring back the entire line. The best thing for a young, untested QB is a great run game. Plus we get them toward the later part of the season so the QB will have some games under his belt. I think CSU will be far better this year than last year where it seemed like they lost momentum and it just snowballed (probability = 45%).
I believe that NM will be far better than last year as well and will be the surprise team of the MWC this year after they have adjusted to Locks' systems. I see them winning 4-5 games this year. We have to travel to them so anything is possible (probablity = 50%). Similar to NM, I think everyone is counting out UNLV. UNLV is where we were a year ago - new coaching staff coming off a dismal year. They have some talent there and I think Hauck will get them turned as thus far he seems to be very similar to Hoke. Plus this game is always a toss up and the dog usually plays spoiler. We do get them at home so probability = 55%.
I think Nicholls St. is out of their league and given their performances last year we should handle them. However, they are going to a totally new system offensively so Rocky and Co. will have little idea as to what to expect (like us vs UCLA last year) but the talent level is such that we should be able to overcome that and the game is at home (probability = 90%). With NM St. I think we are in for a trap. Yes they have some holes, but I think that we might be a bit overconfident because of last year and we have to travel so it would not shock me to see them sneak up on us (probability = 50%). Utah St. has more talent than NM St. and is one to watch out for. We get them at home though (probability 50%).
So if you add everything up the expected number of wins looks like this:
Nicholls St - 0.9
NM St - 0.5
Mizzou - 0.1
Utah St. - 0.5
BYU - 0.1
AFA - 0.35
NM - 0.5
WYO - 0.4
CSU - 0.45
TCU - 0.1
Utah - 0.1
UNLV - 0.55
Total expected wins = 4.55 rounded up = 5
|
|
|
|
Post by McQuervo on Jul 17, 2010 4:18:31 GMT -8
I said 6-6 san meltdowns to Wuo and Lower Nev we had it,,,
|
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Jul 17, 2010 5:15:50 GMT -8
We will see what injuries we suffer before the first game. Then we will know with minor degree what we can do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gaztec on Jul 17, 2010 6:08:03 GMT -8
The San Diego makeup will have a lot to do with it. Lots of other areas in the nation have live and die newspaper support, SD doesn't. Lots of other areas have captive audiences (Michigan, etc.). Wins bring fans (for the most part; I'll get there anyhow) bowls, money, exposure; and fans help with wins (recruiting, etc). The first impetus still has to be the team winning (go coaches!!) to get any of that back on SDSU's side. It's been depressing, esp. Wyo and LV last year. Even so, I'm expecting 7+ this year.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2010 9:18:04 GMT -8
I just don't know what to expect. Concerns: We don't know how to win and have shown an ability to fall apart when things don't go our way We don't create a lot of turnovers which to me isn't some luck quotient like Phil Steele believes, it is a sign of a lack of athleticism and either of the positions that directly lead to turnovers: pressure off the edge and secondary coverage skills - we don't hit QBs with our ends/outside linebackers, and our secondary was the worst unit on the field in my opinion We have no semblance of a running game Now those are all tempered by: new juco lineman that could/should(maybe better) make an impact and adding Hillman and the juco into the backfield - Sullivan full time at fullback/the other back in split backs Some newer, younger players in the secondary; Preston's athleticism could make him a great fit at the monster back At Chuck's introductory luncheon at the Hall of Champions, I told him our team didn't know how to win. He answered that they would be taught how to do so.  I think turnovers are in part related to luck. However, I agree with you that Steele is wrong in concluded that is completely true. Rather, as you say, most of them are created by aggressive defenses and offenses inattentive to detail. On the running game, a former player told me last year that in his view, the absence thereof was as much a result of mediocre running backs as mediocrity on the line. In that regard, I don't hear Miller's name mentioned at all and therefore hope he will redshirt to pack on some muscle weight so he can compete to replace Sullivan at FB next year. While Kazee showed some ability, he's simply too small to be the primary guy as he was at the end of 2009 and with the talent coming in, I would expect him to become just a situational guy. Bottom line for me is I expect improvement in the running game even without much improvement in the O-line. (I'm actually more concerned that O-line mediocrity is going to negate what could be our best passing attack since 2002.) I agree on Preston's athleticism. Still, I'm hesitant to anoint him the answer at the Aztec position as I've just seen him take bad angles and be out of position too many times the last couple years to be confident he can get it done. (Sure hope he proves me wrong.) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2010 9:35:06 GMT -8
Replying by blackberry so this will be brief. SGF, thanks for your kid gloves but I stand by my post and don't mind debating. The responses so far have been interesting so thanks for posting this question. I think CSU SDSU and WYO are all up and coming FB programs. I'm very high on our current staff and their work so far. However I'm still waiting for wins as evidence. I'll just respond to the CSU part. You aren't alone in thinking they will rebound this year. Hell, how could they not after going a perfect 0-8 in conference? However, unlike you and many on the conference board, I just don't see where the excitement is coming from: 1. CSU's record since 2004: 26-45. In other words, they've won a whopping four more games than we have! 2. Yeah, they won a bowl game two years ago. However, their average margin of victory in their seven wins was 5 points whereas their average margin of defeat in six losses was 21 points. 3. They have an alleged stud true freshman coming in at QB but we didn't recruit him even though he's from SD county and looking at video, he's got a bit of a hitch in his delivery. 4. They return only one starter on the O-line and only three other starters on offense. 5. Although they return eight starters on defense, one is a 5-9 cornerback who couldn't cover anybody a year ago and their other cornerback is a senior who couldn't beat out their other cornerback who couldn't cover anybody last year. 6. They have zero bye weeks this year, which is never a good thing. Bottom line for me is that despite a winless conference season a year ago, CSU might be the most overrated team in the MWC going into the season. No, they won't finish 0-8 again, but I'll say they win just two. |
|
|
|
Post by azteken on Jul 17, 2010 9:55:54 GMT -8
I would love 13 wins! I expect 7: if we really have improved, we should win 3 NC games, and go 4-1 vs. UNLV, UNM, CSU, WYO & AFA. 6-6 and a bowl win would be good too.
Yes, UNM will be better. But we should improve more. I think UNLV has not yet bottomed out. Didn't we hold AFA without an offensive TD in Colo Springs last year? We owe Wyo.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2010 10:05:30 GMT -8
BTW, I predict we go 3-5 in conference but don't become bowl eligible. Why? Because I think we are going to lose OOC not only at Missouri, who is going to blow us out if we don't put continual pressure on Blaine Gabbert, but also at home to Utah State.
Andre thinks we choke the game away at NMSU because it's on the road. I'll say if we lose that one, the slap in the face will get us fired up for USU and we'll win that one. Whatever is the case, Andre and I agree we aren't going to win both of them, just one.
|
|
|
|
Post by steveaztec on Jul 17, 2010 10:07:37 GMT -8
BTW, I predict we go 3-5 in conference but don't become bowl eligible. Why? Because I think we are going to lose OOC not only at Missouri, who is going to blow us out if we don't put continual pressure on Blaine Gabbert, but also at home to Utah State. Andre thinks we choke the game away at NMSU because it's on the road. I'll say if we lose that one, the slap in the face will get us fired up for USU and we'll win that one. Whatever is the case, Andre and I agree we aren't going to win both of them, just one. If this happens.....we truly did make a "lateral" move in the hiring. No way we should not go 3-1 out of the gate this season. |
|
|
|
Post by steveaztec on Jul 17, 2010 10:32:30 GMT -8
I have never been wrong because the Aztecs ended up winning more games than I predicted. Never. I will not get sucked in again. Did anyone but me watch the meltdown at the end of last year? It's ironic we play Mizzu this year, because I say "Show Me"...for once. Until then, 7th sounds about right to me. Are you usually predicting what you truly feel.....Or predicting lower, so you won't be wrong? Just saying.  |
|
|
|
Post by Frantic on Jul 17, 2010 10:42:33 GMT -8
If this happens.....we truly did make a "lateral" move in the hiring. No way we should not go 3-1 out of the gate this season. Wrong. Daffy Duck would have been a lateral hire. There are many reasons unrelated to coaching why we may not go 3-1 out of the gate. Fred Dryer was on the radio last week talking about Coryell and the SDSU days. Dryer had nothing but praise for Hoke and the staff; he said "they get it". As we all remember, after Long's first year, Dryer had already seen enough and told Long to his face. So for now I'll stand by Dryer. |
|
|
|
Post by aztech on Jul 17, 2010 11:01:09 GMT -8
If this happens.....we truly did make a "lateral" move in the hiring. No way we should not go 3-1 out of the gate this season. Wrong. Daffy Duck would have been a lateral hire. There are many reasons unrelated to coaching why we may not go 3-1 out of the gate. Fred Dryer was on the radio last week talking about Coryell and the SDSU days. Dryer had nothing but praise for Hoke and the staff; he said "they get it". As we all remember, after Long's first year, Dryer had already seen enough and told Long to his face. So for now I'll stand by Dryer. If I recall when Fred lost it he said it to Weber, not Long. |
|
|
|
Post by Frantic on Jul 17, 2010 11:03:13 GMT -8
Wrong. Daffy Duck would have been a lateral hire. There are many reasons unrelated to coaching why we may not go 3-1 out of the gate. Fred Dryer was on the radio last week talking about Coryell and the SDSU days. Dryer had nothing but praise for Hoke and the staff; he said "they get it". As we all remember, after Long's first year, Dryer had already seen enough and told Long to his face. So for now I'll stand by Dryer. If I recall when Fred lost it he said it to Weber, not Long. I recall Dryer said it publicly at a booster luncheon in late November 2006 after Long's players quit against TCU and New Mexico. |
|
|
|
Post by steveaztec on Jul 17, 2010 11:04:54 GMT -8
If this happens.....we truly did make a "lateral" move in the hiring. No way we should not go 3-1 out of the gate this season. Wrong. Daffy Duck would have been a lateral hire. There are many reasons unrelated to coaching why we may not go 3-1 out of the gate. Fred Dryer was on the radio last week talking about Coryell and the SDSU days. Dryer had nothing but praise for Hoke and the staff; he said "they get it". As we all remember, after Long's first year, Dryer had already seen enough and told Long to his face. So for now I'll stand by Dryer. It wasn't a "lateral" hire? Then how come we were 4-8 last year, blew 3 games we should have won and attendance was down? I've got no problem with Hoke. I like Hoke. And on Long vs Dryer. Dryer was out of line on that, but you can stick with him if you want......I will stick with Marshall Faulk, who thinks Long should have got a 4th year. |
|
