Why hasn't anyone discussed this yet...

[tiger21]

They inflate tackle stats badly. Its pretty classless in my opinion... but at the same time i highly doubt they inflate sacks. But you never know..



And Alkwans a very good linebacker and football player but to say hes head and shoulders (and torso) above everyone in the area? lol. You can't take away from the fact that he had a great D-line taking up blocks in front of him

[mc29012]

On average I would say there are about 55-65 defensive plays in a game, 55 X 14(number of games BC played this year) is 770 defensive plays and that is a little light to begin with. and 98 X 6 is 588, add the players above 98 and I think the number would get somewhere around 675 tackles. that is by 6 players roughly. Assisted tackles count as well so that isnt even 675 plays where only 1 tackle was recorded, there was 2 or 3 on each play. So that means these players made about 2/3 of the tackles. (which makes sense considering the other 5-7 obviously werent in on as many tackles)
And as far as sacks go, with a number as low as 21, I dont think you could fluff too much without people noticing it. And Chumrik had the majority of the sacks on the team and they did play 14 games

[El-Moldo]

So there are 55-65 defensive plays per game? Then what about the plays where NO ONE is given credit for a tackle. Those would be incomplete passes, players running out of bounds, touchdowns, players slipping or falling down, punts, etc etc. Now take away about 12-15 plays from that 55 and you got 40-43 plays per game where tackles are awarded. Makes a difference now, doesn't it. So you now take 14 X 43 and you got 602 defensive plays that required a tackle. So now you have 6 players making 675 tackles on 620 plays. This is better than the loaves and fishes. (You parochial kids remember that story, don't you). Pray tell then, what did the other 5 defensive kids do the whole game. Maybe the other 5 players were given NEGATIVE tackles. I mean you do get negative yardage if you are a runningback, right? Why not negative tackles. Hey, that's a great idea. Give negative tackles for MISSING tackles.

[Manfred]

This is why FH does NOT EVER report tackles, to the Trib-Democrap or anyone else. A player is tackled by 4 guys at the line of scrimmage, and the spotters can't get a good read on who it was that actually brought him down first, so they "pick 1", usually it's the consensus better player around the immediate area. Don't tell me this doesn't happen. These spotters are human and aren't infallible. Not to mention bias'ed for their homeys.

[coaching4life]

Alkwan Williams was the best defensive player in the lhac hands down and its a shame anyone would think otherwise

[mc29012]

So there are 55-65 defensive plays per game? Then what about the plays where NO ONE is given credit for a tackle. Those would be incomplete passes, players running out of bounds, touchdowns, players slipping or falling down, punts, etc etc. Now take away about 12-15 plays from that 55 and you got 40-43 plays per game where tackles are awarded. Makes a difference now, doesn't it. So you now take 14 X 43 and you got 602 defensive plays that required a tackle. So now you have 6 players making 675 tackles on 620 plays. This is better than the loaves and fishes. (You parochial kids remember that story, don't you). Pray tell then, what did the other 5 defensive kids do the whole game. Maybe the other 5 players were given NEGATIVE tackles. I mean you do get negative yardage if you are a runningback, right? Why not negative tackles. Hey, that's a great idea. Give negative tackles for MISSING tackles.

OK then what about the special teams plays where tackles are made, and I also said 55 was a low number for defensive plays in a game, so add like 7-8 plays for punts and kickoffs, so that takes the original 55 down to like 50. 50 X 14 is 700. so 675 tackles on 700 plays is realistic because most of the time 2-3 players get credit because of assisted tackles. and the defensive backs and defensive ends are obviously not going to make as many tackles as ther linebackers and interior linemen because the ball is going in the direction of them most of the time.

[G_RowTrojan]

Mc,
What you are failing to note is that 173 of these tackles were made by 1 player. You also forgot about plays run when the jv's were in the game. This is gross inflation of defensive statistics and should be identified as such.
173 tackles
132 tackles
113 tackles
112 tackles
102 tackles
98 tackles

These 6 players made 730 tackles, while there own offensive teammates (including punt returns, kick returns, receptions, and rushes) ran only 712 plays total all year (according to maxpreps). Please don't even attempt the ridiculous response of " they ran less plays because they were beating everyone". The entire Bishop Carroll team had a total of 1194 tackles according to maxpreps as well. I beg you to show me some form of math that will support this number of tackles being achieved during one season by one team that played 14 games. That is an average of 85.285 tackles per game. Please just concede the argument and admit that this is gross inflation and should have been considered by the Tribune when they were determining the players of the year.

[El-Moldo]

Thank you, G_Row

[woninthetrenches]

No, maxpreps has them at 627 tackles for the whole team.

[lhacbigfan]

After looking at BC's stats, their tackle stats look to be about normal but what is inflated that makes their total tackles so high is the number of assists that they give. They probably give assisted tackles to everyone that jumps on the pile at the end of the play, and that's why their number is so high. If you want a more accurate observation of how good someone was, look just at their solo tackles and not at assists. The Makin kid who has 173 tackles listed, only had 72 solo tackles and 101 assists. That makes you look at his 173 tackles a little differently.