Some, Gabe included, have expressed the view that ultimately, "A team ends up where it should" by the end of the season. This view suggests that "breaks" (tipped passes, bounces of the ball, injuries, etc.), referee calls, and coaching all sort of settle to a record that the team's athletic abilities dictate in the first place. So, does the Tigers' record fairly reflect our talent?
I think a team "ending where it should" must take into account not only the talent/performance of the players but also the talent/performance of the coaches. I think the player talent on this team is better than many expected at the start of the season, despite the injuries on offense, and especially in comparison to some of the teams that might have been a bit over-rated based on their rankings (GA, SCar). KY has generally played better than most anticipated, but we were clearly the better team on 10/27, except for our coaching.
Sure, it's difficult to break out player performance from the coaching because players can be "coached up" (and maybe in this case, down), but if I were to grade and compare the different elements of this team and place them in the rankings based on abilities displayed on the field, I would say our talent suggests a top 10 overall offense (possibly better, with the advent of more passes to tight ends and others against GA, SC and KY), a top 25 overall defense, top 25 ST (again using CAPABILITIES based on a returning, talented, kicker, returning and talented punter and the potential of our return men), but coaching performance ranks, at best, lower half, maybe 80 of 129 FBS teams. That coaching performance, in light of the way our games played out, has cost us 2 games compared to what I would expect from other, better performing and more experienced, staffs. And yes, I am taking into consideration the fact that we were well-prepared for FL and KY, in advance of those games.
I think a team "ending where it should" must take into account not only the talent/performance of the players but also the talent/performance of the coaches. I think the player talent on this team is better than many expected at the start of the season, despite the injuries on offense, and especially in comparison to some of the teams that might have been a bit over-rated based on their rankings (GA, SCar). KY has generally played better than most anticipated, but we were clearly the better team on 10/27, except for our coaching.
Sure, it's difficult to break out player performance from the coaching because players can be "coached up" (and maybe in this case, down), but if I were to grade and compare the different elements of this team and place them in the rankings based on abilities displayed on the field, I would say our talent suggests a top 10 overall offense (possibly better, with the advent of more passes to tight ends and others against GA, SC and KY), a top 25 overall defense, top 25 ST (again using CAPABILITIES based on a returning, talented, kicker, returning and talented punter and the potential of our return men), but coaching performance ranks, at best, lower half, maybe 80 of 129 FBS teams. That coaching performance, in light of the way our games played out, has cost us 2 games compared to what I would expect from other, better performing and more experienced, staffs. And yes, I am taking into consideration the fact that we were well-prepared for FL and KY, in advance of those games.
