Hogville Info
• 9,713,497 Posts
• 393,906 Topics
• 22,230 Hogvillians
THE RULES (Read 'em!)
Quick Links
Pick'Ems:Football      Basketball      Baseball
Sister Sites:Gridiron HistoryFearless Friday
Listen NOW:Game ON 103.3 
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: SEC Stock Report  (Read 2460 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


  • All-American Hogvillian
  • *******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 3,725
Re: SEC Stock Report
« Reply #50 on: May 16, 2017, 09:52:06 am »

If we take our Hog colored glasses off then i think we agree based on what is proven  that the article is right on.   We have an ugly defense coming back so ugly the DC was asked to find another job.  So ugly we scraped the 4-3 for the 3-4. Lots of unknowns.  Sure we hope it is much better but based on last years results the defense is not good.

Defense grade C or worse based on what we know.

We lose all but one WR so lots of unknowns there. QB could be pretty good but with unproven Receivers and OL play last year being average at best and sometimes very bad.  We have on one RB with much experience but he has not proven he is an every down back and he is backed up with talent but unproven players.

Offense grade C.  Again based on what i definitely know i see another 7 win season. Of course I want to go into the season with my Hog glasses on and think all the defensive changes will bring instant gains, our OL will be much better, RB youth will be a positive and WRs will not miss a beat from last year.   But SEC and national sports writers go off facts so I can see why he wrote what he wrote.

Of course I am hoping we get to 10 wins but i can not predict this based on provens?


  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19,347
  • Ever since the war I've had a drinking problem
Re: SEC Stock Report
« Reply #51 on: May 16, 2017, 04:30:57 pm »

I think we are in better shape this year than last, though I wish RWIII wasn't gone.

That isn't a retort to what he said. I agree that we are in better shape heading into this season at RB than we were last season and have posted as much in this thread.

That says absolutely nothing about whether or not we are thin this season. Last year, we were thin at RB with a career backup in Walker having limited yards and carries and RW3 with some carries, but was injured before he had too much experience.

This year, what do we have? We have Whaley coming back with extensive carries, but who do we have behind him with experience? Hammonds and Day have a combined 19 touches of the ball. So yes, we are thin at the position. We have talent, potential, and some experience in our offense. However, we have only 1 rb on the offense who has touched the ball more than 16 times in his career.

So, it depends on how you define thin. I incorporate depth of bodies (Packers had to start a WR at RB), depth of quality bodies (2013 we only had JWill and Collins as quality backs), and depth of experienced bodies (2017 we only have Whaley). We have depth of bodies and depth of quality but lack depth of experience which I weight heavier than the others because a person having the physical talent won't always translate to production.

Sponsored Ad

Hogville encourages you to do business with the following...
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up

Fox 16 Arkansas