GFBfan
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2009
- Messages
- 3,758
- Reaction score
- 1,616
- Points
- 113
False, Mason's defense in 1999 was better than any of Claeys' defenses.
When looking at the Gophers S&P ranking compared to the rest of the B1G over the past 6 seasons, the Gophers on average had the 8th best defense in the conference. Their highest ranking was last year, but it was still only 6th best in the conference. That is a fact. Those rankings closely compare to other defensive stats.
Their offense's average S&P ranking was 8.33 over past 6 seasons, so only slightly worse than the defense when comparing them to the rest of the B1G.
The average rankings of ~8 out of 12/14 teams, make sense when Kill/Claeys combined conference record was 20-29.
Again, I don't have a bias or dislike for Claeys/Kill. I do dislike it when the biggest Claeysists such as yourself want to vastly overrate what the previous regime accomplished. We've been a mediocre program since Mason took over and we still are today. There's plenty of room for improvement on both sides of the ball.
One year Masons D was better. Agreed. The contention is and still no Acknowledgement from you is the D in the past 5 years was as good as we've seen around here in a long time.
That is not overrating their accomplishments. It is giving credit for what they were good at. Recognizing unheralded players in HS and getting them to play at a high level, on the defensive side of the ball.
Again I'll say they were not lights out dominant, but they had more sustained success on D than I can ever recall, and that goes back to the 70's. yet you still will not make any claim to that, instead you pivot, deflect, change the topic and yeah but it to death.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk