HCCH defenses

HCCH defenses

Postby dawgdad1 » Tue Oct 27, 2015 12:49 pm

These are the last two years of HCCH defenses at Murray State. If one did research, I believe similar numbers would be found at other schools. 2014 512 yds per game given up and 42 points. 2013 479 per game and 31 points. SOFT = SOFT
2014
TOTAL OFFENSE 5625 6145
Total Plays 893 1038
Average Per Play 6.3 5.9
Average Per Game 468.8 512.1
Points Per Game 36.6 42.5

2013
TOTAL OFFENSE 4783 5756
Total Plays 882 1033
Average Per Play 5.4 5.6
Average Per Game 398.6 479.7
SCORING 358 382
Points Per Game 29.8 31.8
dawgdad1
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun May 31, 2015 12:41 am

Re: HCCH defenses

Postby AP » Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:26 pm

The last two years at Murray prove very little, IMO. That's a bad job and needs to be examined in context. Can't imagine if I had to recruit 70% of my roster from inside the state of Kentucky or whatever the requirement was up there.
AP
 
Posts: 4913
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 2:38 pm

Re: HCCH defenses

Postby dawgdad1 » Tue Oct 27, 2015 4:16 pm

True but his offense was able to put up yards and points and they were recruited in the same way. I looked at stats from Georgia Southern during his tenure. I was not able to find box scores for stats back that far but did find the scores for the 2077, 2008, and 2009 seasons.
2007 31 pts per game
2008 31 pts per game
2009 29 pts per game
Georgia Southern is a completely different story than Murray St. and these are less than stellar numbers.
dawgdad1
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun May 31, 2015 12:41 am

Re: HCCH defenses

Postby Butkuss » Tue Oct 27, 2015 4:41 pm

dawgdad1 you can go all the way back to his Valdosta St and D2 days and see the same trend. Bobby Wallace and UNA loved to play them because they weren't soft on D and most years they could make enough plays to win.
User avatar
Butkuss
 
Posts: 5590
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 1:52 am
Location: Northwest Al

Re: HCCH defenses

Postby Smurf » Tue Oct 27, 2015 5:17 pm

I am not thrilled either with what I have seen under his leadership, but in the sake of fairness, dude had to have done something right to have won two-thirds of his games over a 15 year span and to have won a national championship. His teams may or may not have been soft back in the day, but if my coach wins at national title, is coach of the year, and makes it through two regular seasons without losing a game, I honestly would not have been very concerned with soft vs. hard. Whether or not he succeeds at Samford is certainly debatable, particularly given this downward spiral, but like it or not, he has a good resume and has a history of high success. I want to see that success translate to Samford.
BOE.
Smurf
 
Posts: 5014
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 4:17 pm
Location: Durham, NC

Re: HCCH defenses

Postby dawgdad1 » Tue Oct 27, 2015 6:11 pm

I would agree with your statements in normal circumstances. However, at the time he was swinning all those games, the #HatchAttack was a new thing. In the late 90's and early 2000's Mumme and company had a fresh new offense. Plain and simple, it isn't fresh anymore. Defenses have caught up to it. Used to, You could outscore people with it. Not true anymore, at least on a consistent basis. And the lack of physicality puts your defense in a bind since that is what they practice against most of the year. The difference in the up tempo offenses that are run today is many of them are still ground in running the football and being tough up front. I beleive that defenses are catching up to these offenses today. The game of football is won at the line of scrimmage on both sides. Always has been and always will be. And you have to practice that. When you go out in shells and play tag on the field, you better being ready to do that on Saturdays.
dawgdad1
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun May 31, 2015 12:41 am

Re: HCCH defenses

Postby Smurf » Tue Oct 27, 2015 7:12 pm

He won a national title and has won roughly two thirds of his games. Those are facts that are not changed by whether you agree or disagree. Personally I think they are also lofty accomplishments regardless of whether that translates to success at SU or not. I want to see him thrive here because as a result, my alma mater will thrive.

You seem very hesitant to give the guy the least bit of credit. Do you have an axe to grind against him? I am not thrilled with Hatcher right now either, but he has a successful history regardless of the circumstances. It appears you cannot even admit that.
BOE.
Smurf
 
Posts: 5014
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 4:17 pm
Location: Durham, NC

Re: HCCH defenses

Postby dawgdad1 » Tue Oct 27, 2015 7:45 pm

It's no secret that I believe this was a bad hire. I have no problem admitting that he has had success in the past. But, as he moved up in level of competition, what has transpired? I would love for him to be hugely successful at Samford. My family has had a lot of time and energy invested in the program. I just don't think he's the man for the job. He took over a program that has really good talent (I believe everyone on this board agrees to that) and has done nothing with it. Players are despondant and lack any effort on Saturdays. IMO, this lies directly with the head coach. It isn't like he took over a program that had zero talent and zero work ethic and had to rebuild. If the program had been run down when he took it over, I think everyone would feel different. But, that isn't the case. It has been stated by a former player(from a current starter) that his guy, Coach Bostick, doesn't even talk with his players when they come off from a series. What's up with that? He is in charge of and coaches ALL special teams. I believe you (forgive me if it wasn't) has complained greatly about punt and punt return teams. What's up with that? It's almost as if he wants to fail.
dawgdad1
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun May 31, 2015 12:41 am

Re: HCCH defenses

Postby big_dog1968 » Wed Oct 28, 2015 1:13 am

The defense is the same from last year, same coach, same personnel, less grads. I can assure you they are practicing mostly against a scout team of freshmen and walk ons. These comments about soft offense, soft defense, is absurd. My own feelings about this style of hurry up and get as many plays and possessions as possible, are that you help your own scoring, but you also help the other team as well. Check out the b12, lots of scoring, not much defense.
Image
User avatar
big_dog1968
 
Posts: 2292
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 7:30 pm

Re: HCCH defenses

Postby dawgdad1 » Sun Sep 01, 2019 7:23 pm

Maybe if i just reply it will show
dawgdad1
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun May 31, 2015 12:41 am

Next

Return to The Dog Pound

  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: Jiggs and 19 guests