OK, Monroe, let's condense the two reviews, and compare them side by side on a position by position basis. I think you'll find that the difference is more the choice of language than in the actual review. I use more positive language than Paul does, but when you cut to the core, we see most all the positions about the same way:

OL - Me: "about the same"; Paul: "about as well as 2015"
TE - Me: "Stronger in 2016"; Paul: does not discuss tight ends
WR - Me: "all the starters return" "should be improved"; Paul "Our WR group is fairly reliable"
RB - Me: "RB should be improved in 2016"; Paul: "We have a decent stable of running backs, most of whom are unproven"
QB - Me: "no worse that 2015"; Paul: says that like last year, doesn't return great QB

On offense, to me we seem to see things about the same. Paul doesn't mention tight ends, which I think will be somewhat stronger than last year. The biggest difference is that I'm more optimistic than Paul is about how the unproven running backs will perform. A smaller difference is that I'm more optimistic that with another year of experience, the wide receivers will improve somewhat.


Now the defense:
DL - Me: "I think this will be the best defensive line under Solich"; Paul: no mention
LB - Me: "If they stay healthy, this will be a very, very good group of linebackers."; Paul: "If they stay healthy it will be a good group."
DB - Me: "There are many holes to fill." "DB will be worse than last year"; Paul: "CB is a serious problem"

On defense, Paul omits discussion of the defensive line, which is the strongest position group on the team. He and I essentially agree on the other positions, though I have more confidence that he does that the staff will find some cornerbacks from among the new recruits.

Then, there is the end conclusion. I expect this to be a very good team, the best yet under Solich. Unless someone else is very, very good, I think Ohio will go to the MACC. Paul thinks it will be about the same as 2015, but possibly will go to the MACC. Again, the biggest difference is that I used more optimistic language, rather than the actual conclusion.

On a position by position basis, our reviews of both sides of the ball are very similar, actually, which is why I said it was a fairly fine line. He does omit discussion of two positions that I think will be very strong, TE and DL, but I don't think it was deliberate. Really at it's core, the largest point of difference between our reviews is at cornerback. He expects the drop at cornerback to be enough to hold the overall team performance to the 2015 level. Me, I think they will find from among the new recruits and redshirts some people that can fill the position adequately. I don't think it will be as good as last year, but I think the cornerbacks will be good enough to prevent a disaster.

I didn't say they were equivalent. I said there was a fine line between his analysis and mine. Paul sees the same areas of weakness as I do, and the same areas of strength as I do, though he accidentally omits discussion of the defensive line, which I think is going to be scary good. Since he didn't mention it, I don't know what his opinion is of the defensive line, and perhaps it differs from mine. On the other positions, he seems to see about the same level of strength and weakness at each position as I do. If he saw weakness where I see strength, then I'd say there was a major difference between his analysis and mine.

As you point out, there is perhaps more difference in the end conclusion than there are on a position by position basis, but even then, the difference is not that great. Paul isn't saying Ohio will be bad. He sees Ohio as a contender for the East championship "because BG is in a rebuilding cycle and the rest of the division is not very strong". Meanwhile I see Ohio winning the East, rather than just as a contender, but even that is a fine distinction, because if Ohio wins, we are both right. Remember that in reaching my conclusion, I have already accounted for the fact that BG won't be as good as last year (since last year's BG team was perhaps the best MAC team of the last decade).

Probably the difference on the composite team outlook between mine and some others comes from a difference in perspective on coaching. Some people, such as yourself don't have a lot of confidence in the coaches, while I do think the coaches do a good job. When you have a position where the same players return, such as Wide Receiver or Defensive line, a person with a negative outlook on coaches would expect things to be "about the same", whereas any time the same players return, I expect them to be improved from an extra year of coaching and experience. When I add up the expectation of a number of small positional improvements from experience and coaching across the team, I end up with a composite expectation of an improved team.

I'll let Paul speak up, and perhaps he sees things differently. Maybe he does have major disagreement with how good I think one or more positions will be, but didn't voice it distinctly enough. Maybe, for example, he disagrees with my analysis of the defensive line, but forgot to mention it. I didn't see anything, though, in his analysis that that differed starkly from mine.

In the meantime, Monroe, what is your analysis of the various positions for this fall?

I noticed two quotes in the Post article on running backs:
http://tinyurl.com/z5xbugd



[quote=post]“It’s gonna keep us from getting tired on the field,” White said. “Fresh legs are the best. Five backs probably switching out four or five different linebackers, we’re probably gonna win that competition.”[/OUTER_QUOTE]

The first quote helps confirm my expectation that the offense will be somewhat better than last year. The second quote gives me some confidence that they are building some depth at linebacker, something that was a problem last year.