Steele, Georgia and returns

Agree with his premise or not, you’re aware that Phil Steele puts a fair amount on emphasis on returning experience and production in his college football projections.  He’s posted data on three specific areas, listed here, along with Georgia’s ranking:

I don’t there’s much of a surprise in any of that.  Other than the o-line, here’s a lot of production returning.  Whether that amounts to more than a hill of beans is dependent on — guess what? — the offensive line establishing itself at least as a competent unit and just as a general principal, some coaching up.  It’s the second year for the staff, so that’s not an unreasonable expectation… which isn’t the same thing as a guarantee.

Advertisements

19 Comments

Filed under Georgia Football, Phil Steele Makes My Eyes Water

19 responses to “Steele, Georgia and returns

  1. gastr1

    The flaws in his approach were never more evident than last year, when he didn’t recognize that career starts didn’t translate because the OL was not suited to the demands of the new style. Seems as though Steele ought to modify his evaluations to consider significant nuances like that.

    Like

    • MGW

      Steele’s going to have outliers, man. It just happened to be UGA last year. He’s predicting what, 128 teams of 22 starters plus backups? There’s no perfect method.

      Like

    • DawgPhan

      Yes Steele didnt predict that an experienced group of coaches would take an experienced OL and drive them straight into the ditch.

      Like

  2. MGW

    I feel the same way; not really expecting anything too big, but… I kind of am. Excellence at OL isn’t necessary for major improvement for the offense. Mere competence at OL would do wonders for the offense.

    Like

    • Macallanlover

      Agree, we will be better offensively and the OL will be closer to average but certainly not great. That should be enough for what I expect but it hard to grasp the perfectly stated phrase from the Senator that reasonable expectations are not guarantees. Things still have to click together to have a great season (11-1), I am closer to a pretty good season (10-2, 9-3 ish). The one thing I am very confident in is the defense, don’t see how we can fall short of great expectations there, too much talent, expereince, and excellent depth. That mitigates some of my concern about the offense and allows that great season possibility to creep in.

      Like

      • Down island way

        Players play, coaches coach…….we are reading and extracting all this from the players, i’ll need more from the coaches this year. Our staff resumes really look superb….will require that to translate to actual W’s( more than 8).

        Like

      • MGW

        I expect the team to be about on par with 13 or 14. Which is to say realistically capable of beating any team on the schedule, but not necessarily in every game. Hopefully closer to that 14 team than 13. With some development and injury luck, more like 12.

        Like

  3. Russ

    New blood at OL is a feature, not a bug.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Everything hinges on the OL being competent (it wasn’t last year) and Eason progressing as he should.

    The WRs will be fine (not great, but fine) and the RBs will be exceptional, but if the OL and Eason doesn’t do its part it’s gonna be another slog to watch for 12 games.

    Like

    • MGW

      I don’t worry about Eason. Frankly, a lot of the analysis I’ve seen about his freshman year tends to ignore just how bad the line was. There’s sometimes a footnote about how his line wasn’t great, but the actual analysis of his performance will ignore the very real effect a porous line has on a QB. Its like theres a presumption that he would have had a statistically similar year even if the line was great. Which I find hard to believe.

      Like

  5. Dawgflan

    87.1% of offensive yards may be returning, but there weren’t enough yards last year. The OL and OC are the obvious question marks, will be interesting to see how 2017 shapes up.

    Like

  6. Irwin R. Fletcher

    I’m bullish on the line…and the offense as a whole. Second year under Pittman and better talent at Tackle. Second year QB and much better talent at WR… Nauta in his second year.

    Just think it will be a good year for the Dawgs.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Huntindawg

    I’ve never been a fan of the theory that an incompetent unit (OL, for example) suddenly becomes good because a year has gone by. It’s not a stretch to likewise assume they will just be a year older and just as incompetent.

    Like

    • Macallanlover

      Maybe, but second year in the new system is one reason to think positive. Also think there is just more talent available, and maybe athletes more suited for their assigned position. I agree it isn’t logical to think the calendar rolling forward is enough.

      Like

    • MGW

      nowhere to go but up

      Like

  8. W Cobb Dawg

    Frankly, I think Chaney & Pittman suck. They showed me absolutely nothing in 2016 that show they belong as coaches at this level. So he who expects nothing is never disappointed.

    I like a lot of what Kirby brings to the job. Seems to me he won’t be outworked. But the choices of assistants I’m not so sure about. Let’s hope they prove me dead wrong.

    Like