TCU's receivers suck, but Meacham made them not suck. Boykin sucked at QB, but Cumbie made him not suck. OU doesn't have a talent issue, OU has a coaching issue.
TCU's receivers suck, but Meacham made them not suck. Boykin sucked at QB, but Cumbie made him not suck. OU doesn't have a talent issue, OU has a coaching issue.
You do realize that:Originally Posted by thecrimsoncrusader
a) this is cumbie's first year
b) Boykin's stats are the same as his FR stats 2 years ago?
Just from the NFL perspective..
I have 9 guys from FSUs offense and 4 guys from their defense getting drafted in 2015. That is a team that can out talent others to a win.
I would probably say that TCU has as many guys as we do that I think are NFL caliber..Haven't completed TCU or Kstate evals fully, but I would say they have as many as OU does.
Bazinga
And yet they can still be beaten at home by ND if 1 flag stays in a ref's pocket. CFB parity is ruining CFB
It was a lot easier when only elite programs were put on TV and received attention..Not to mention the limits, but I think it has more to do with the 1st than the 2nd.
It's hard to measure the "want to" in a kid. If the desire and dedication are there, most guys on D1 scholarship at conference heavyweights are able to play at comparative levels. Some athletes outshine all others, of course, some glaringly at the college level. Unless one team has amazing talent, I think it comes down to the desire to win, as evidenced by the Sugar Bowl last year. For sure, Bama had more talent across the board than we did. Same can be said for Texas year in and year out, if you go by recruiting services and stars, which is what those people who issue stars do for a living - evaluate talent. Kstate has far less talent than we do - on paper. My observation is that teams reflect the personality of their coaching staff, in general. Some teams have high energy and play loose and take chances, and other teams play a tighter, more conservatively, and not to lose rather than win. Sometimes those teams that play loose and take chances are the teams that win big games and gain a lot of momentum, while the latter teams can go stale and sputter without innovation and adjustment.
I don't know exactly what you're looking at during each game, but our lines haven't been "dominated" three games in a row. Have there been times that our line was moved around? Of course. Just like every football game ever played. Texas' defensive line did a good job of controlling the LOS, but their offensive line did not dominate the day. In both the TCU and KSU games, there were times that the lines were pressed, but not dominated at all.
As for the "two line coach geniuses are not bringing in a ton of high quality talent to replace the "average league"-type talent already here." comment, they've had one year under their recruiting belts (at OU). I'm not sure what you were expecting, but so far, the guys they have brought in seem pretty solid. I guess I'm just not sure what you're looking at, or how you're evaluating talent (although I suspect it's all based on how many stars they had in high school).
Very true. There was a time when a program could sell a kid with the "you'll be playing on TV!" line. Nowadays, that hardly registers on their interest meter...everyone plays on TV.
Also, I'd say the defensive line at Michigan is one of its few bright spots this season, and the offensive line at WVU seems to be doing okay. So there's that.
Posting Permissions
