Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    SoonerFans.com Elite Member Soonerjeepman's Avatar
    Location
    paradise
    Posts
    7,863
    vCash
    500

    are we really "young"

    yesterday...the tv dudes kept pumping up OU as a really good team, self inflicted wounds in the 3 losses. One point was how "young" OU is.

    I agree, QB, RB, WR....but isn't our Oline all Sr?

    So, with next year our line will be "young" but special guys not....?

    DGB won't play...he's already #1 on the board...we get Mixon. Any other studs?

    Hopefully OU can finish out 3-0, going 9-3 and win a bowl. Yes, not up to OU's standards...but better than not winning out.
    How do you know if you get there, if you don't know where you are going?..oh and I had 1,713 post on the "other board"..I hate being a rookie again!

  2. #2
    SoonerFans.com Elite Member
    Posts
    8,621
    vCash
    80150

    Re: are we really "young"

    Yes, we'll lose 4 starters on the O-line. Let's just say we get worse at 3 OL positions. We'll also get worse at one more position, because Geneo is a senior. I think guys like Parker will be able to offset losing Hayes, and I don't think Wilson will be hard to replace, but let's just compromise and say we get worse at one more position.

    That amounts to getting worse at 5 positions. That leaves 19 positions that we are the same or better at. There's no reason to believe we won't be better next year.

  3. #3
    SoonerFans.com Elite Member bluedogok's Avatar
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    8,038
    vCash
    500

    Re: are we really "young"

    I don't know that they will get all that worse after losing the o-line from this season. They are playing very average this season. They look great against inferior competition but barely average against good d-lines.

  4. #4
    Answers - 25 Cents Rogue's Avatar
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    11,299
    vCash
    1700

    Re: are we really "young"

    If you struggle at OL, it really doesn't matter how good you are at any other position. See the 2014 Tennessee VOLS.
    Sometimes, a team improves despite graduating experienced players. This year's OL is huge, and experienced, but has consistently underachieved and failed to meet the hype or expectations as a group. Why these guys can't ever seem to line up and get 3 feet when we need it to keep a drive alive is beyond me. Is it coaching? Lack of talent? Psychology?

    Accd'g to Soonersports.com, we have 2 Centers, 10 Guards, and 8 Tackles. Only 5 of those are seniors. So, I'm hopeful for next year already.

    With our stable of RBs, we shouldn't have to keep wondering why QB mistakes or playcalling is costing us games. Line up behind these behomoths and give the deepest backfield in America opportunities to ground and pound. One of the national radio guys this morning was wondering why we keep getting away from our successful running game. It's a good question.

  5. #5
    Answers - 25 Cents Rogue's Avatar
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    11,299
    vCash
    1700

    Re: are we really "young"

    Quote Originally Posted by bluedogok View Post
    I don't know that they will get all that worse after losing the o-line from this season. They are playing very average this season. They look great against inferior competition but barely average against good d-lines.
    Why use ten words when fifty will do?

  6. #6
    SoonerFans.com Elite Member
    Posts
    8,621
    vCash
    80150

    Re: are we really "young"

    Quote Originally Posted by Eielson View Post
    Yes, we'll lose 4 starters on the O-line. Let's just say we get worse at 3 OL positions. We'll also get worse at one more position, because Geneo is a senior. I think guys like Parker will be able to offset losing Hayes, and I don't think Wilson will be hard to replace, but let's just compromise and say we get worse at one more position.

    That amounts to getting worse at 5 positions. That leaves 19 positions that we are the same or better at. There's no reason to believe we won't be better next year.
    Excuse my math. 22 starters on O and D...not 24. The rest remains true, though.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •