Ay-Ziggy-Zoomba.com

So 2019 previews have already started....

https://www.sbnation.com/college-footba ... ule-roster

Of all FBS teams, BG was the first previewed. Bill Connelly previews conferences from worst to best, and within each conference from lowest projected ranking to top. So that sets the stage for 2019.

Let's build again.

Brutal.

MarkL wrote:So 2019 previews have already started....

https://www.sbnation.com/college-footba ... ule-roster

Of all FBS teams, BG was the first previewed. Bill Connelly previews conferences from worst to best, and within each conference from lowest projected ranking to top. So that sets the stage for 2019.

Let's build again.

I hate how often I have seen that Google search quote from the Briggs article as fact. Anyone who has read anything else written by him knows it was said in jest.

Aside from that, this is a pretty brutal preview, but nothing seems like a big stretch. I am pretty optimistic that we will see improvement as far as fundamentals go, but I think it will take a few years for that to turn into wins.

I do think the preview ... and placement... are a bit rough. I am looking at the team right now as lacking on depth but with good albeit undercoached and underdeveloped talent. It is a total rebuild, but it could be far worse.
It seems like the coaching staff could do a 2009, where they leverage the talent for their strengths and focus on improving skills rather than implementing new gameplan. The 2009 playbook on both sides of the ball was similar to 2008, transitioning only some to what Clawson envisioned.
There are some great RBs. Best position unit and only one with real depth. And enough offensive line talent to put together a good run game. Loeffler could focus on the run game, slow down the pace but keep most of the passing offense terminology, and make an effective offense.
And on defense ... any improvement would be nice. There are a lot of returning starts. I am unfamiliar with VanGorder's schemes but I've heard they are complicated, so a simpler scheme for now would be good.

Looking at the schedule, I don't think 6 or 7 wins is an unattainable goal. I also don't think 2 wins is out of the question. It all depends upon how the coaching staff approaches it and how the players buy in. I just hope the staff does not overhaul everything in year one.

What jumped out were the MAC charts and OHIO (F Solich) at the top of the heap.
Our problem, as with other MAC programs, begins to erode with the lack of stability at the HC'ing level. Which over time gnaws deeply into the frame work. Apparently/probably it will always be this way. It usually translates to sh*t on all fronts,: momentum, inter circle dynamics, fund raising, recruiting, apathy within community/campus.
Chronic as it is, we all find something to like and latch on to year after year. Can't wait for the ND game in early Oct.

Not a great look, but I think the expectations are warranted. Nothing about the last 3 years makes me feel like this team is about to step up and go 14-0.

My hope is that we see improvement every week and we win a few ballgames along the way to build momentum towards 2020 and beyond.

I forgot about Isaiah Johnson Mack. 50 Rec. 555 YDs 5 TDs for Wasu two years ago. Could be big time for us.

These previews are silly. Wholly based on speculation and what-ifs. Fact is, we won't know where the program is come August compared to where it is right now. The last three years have been awful, but it's not to say the new staff has the right attitude and schemes that play to the strengths to make the team successful. A fair assessment is wait until the spring game, see what things look like and go from there.

Mostly agree...handicapping this team right now is foolish. Too many unknown variables. There's always the possible grad transfers in over the summer and post spring departures as well. Couple that with the likelihood that some of the 2019 signees will see the field right away....

I'll know where this team is by October 1st....

The article calls Doege a Texas Tech transfer QB...once I saw that, the whole article lost validity