Time to Rethink the Dickey situation

TIgreen01 · September 22, 2005

Speaking as somone looking in over here from time to time, I agree. QB development can't be rushed. Period. It's the most important position on the field, and it's most apparent when someone inexperienced is back there. Heck, look at Vince Young from his So. year to now. Big improvement...I think that position is going to get better as the year goes on.
Frankly, I'm not real surprised. Offensive line is a position that demands not only physical ability and preparation, but attitude. They have to have an attitude of "you WILL NOT beat me, or touch my quarterback. I WILL put you either on your back, or out of my RB's path" We'll see more downfield and (successful) play action passing when the O line gets this attitude and starts making things happen in the running game, and they learn to pick up the blitz and hit the hot routes. That's just the way it works.
Tulsa sort of knew the level they needed to play at based on their game at OU. UNT as a whole, didn't, IMO. Once they got down, things snowballed, and then you have 54-2.
That's just my take. I think UNT will play much better this weekend--although the scoreboard may not show it.
Regarding Dickey: He is a winner. He is trying to build a power-running team that can throw to keep the D honest--which is IMO a very sound approach, considering the skill level of the athletes he is recruiting. He's a good coach.
Also, a poster mentioned that the level of OOC competition hasn't changed. That's right, and the talent level of their recruits hasn't either. The talent level of UNT's recruits has risen, and that's the reason they're winning the SBC right now. Having said that, they are still not recruiting athletes anywhere near as good as their OOC opponents--and I'll include Tulsa in there as well.
At any rate, Go MG--my home county team!
←

Good post. I have one problem with it, though.....if we are STILL not "recruiting athletes anywhere near as good as Tulsa" (and other OOC opponents) after 4 straight bowl wins, who's to say that we ever WILL? Do kids want to come play the style of football that is played at UNT under DD? What about at Boise St. under Dan Hawkins? They were our equal a few short years ago....anybody know where their recruiting classes rank? Are they still recruiting Big West/Sun Belt caliber athletes but win more b/c of their creative gameplans?? Having watched them on tv several times they don't appear to be much more talented than UNT, but they run all over the field and create mismatches by confusing their opponents. To me, that is a better recipe for success at the mid-major level...mid-majors can't just line up and run the ball against BCS caliber opponents...heck, you have a hard time doing that unless you are more talented than the opponent--which is why we win the Sun Belt every year. Thoughts??

LongJim · September 22, 2005

Good post. I have one problem with it, though.....if we are STILL not "recruiting athletes anywhere near as good as Tulsa" (and other OOC opponents) after 4 straight bowl wins, who's to say that we ever WILL?

That's a good question. I think that winning increases the quality of the recruits from year to year, but it is a gradual thing, especially for a mid-major.

Do kids want to come play the style of football that is played at UNT under DD? What about at Boise St. under Dan Hawkins? They were our equal a few short years ago....anybody know where their recruiting classes rank?

According to Rivals: Boise State's ranking within their conference was:

2004--#1, with 1 4-star and five 3-star commits.

2003--#3, (behind Tulsa and SMU) Two 3-star commits.

2002--#6, (behind Tulsa @ #5, who had five 3-star commits)

Total commits: 72

Compared to UNT's ranking within the Sun Belt:

2004:--#2, (behind Utah State) Two 3-star commits.

2003:--#4, (behind ULALA, MUTS, Ark St.) Two 3-star commits.

2002:--#7, Tied with NM State. One 3-star commit.

Total commits: 45

Something to keep in mind: the total commits represent athletes who are ranked nationally by Rivals, so they don't include a lot of the JUCO players that DD has brought to UNT. Even so, it's easy to see that Boise has had over 1.5 times more nationally-ranked athletes sign with their program--although UNT is improving every year.

Are they still recruiting Big West/Sun Belt caliber athletes but win more b/c of their creative gameplans??

They are (right now) recruiting better athletes--and more of them. As is Tulsa. According to Rivals.

mid-majors can't just line up and run the ball against BCS caliber opponents...heck, you have a hard time doing that unless you are more talented than the opponent--which is why we win the Sun Belt every year. Thoughts??

I agree. But the same applies for the passing game. If the quarterback and receivers aren't as talented or experienced as the secondary and DL they face, they're going to get creamed too. If a team has been able to recruit well at the RB position, relative to the other athletes they have, doesn't it make sense to have a run-oriented attack? Conversely, if you're recruiting has been great at QB and WR for the last couple of years, you'd be passing a lot more.

I think UNT's backs are BCS level backs. It remains to be seen if the QB and WR positions will be/are. I personally believe that if UNT keeps winning, their recruiting will continue to improve--no matter what style of offense they run.

Edited September 22, 2005 by LongJim

NT91 · September 22, 2005

If DD would win some OOC games. He would get more job offers.

greendog · September 22, 2005

Here's my problem....I think that there has been signifigant improvements in the last few years with North Texas Athletics in general. With the facility upgrades, better recruiting and I think a better all outlook for the future of the program. However, I think that one true way to measure how far we have come as a football program is by how well we compete against out of conference opponents. Why OOC? Because the level of competition in that has not changed. Changing to the Belt is what's changed. We get blown out. Against Baylor? Tulsa? - I can understand getting killed by UT, OU (of the past), and other "major" programs but I think that we have tricked ourselves into thinking that we are better than we are or that we are in a better position than what we really are. Everyone of us considers us a "mid major" but the truth is, we can't beat teams that are not even considered good "mid majors." i.e. FAU, Baylor, Air Force...since 2002 we have won 3 games against OOC opponents, we have played 16. We beat Baylor, Nicholls St and Cincinatti. There is a difference between being negative and being a realist who expects more from your school. If we want to be a big time program, we (as fans) need to react to 50 point losses against Tulsa (?) as such. What is the measuring stick now? Are we content with just winning the Sun Belt every year? I just think that the benchmark needs to change and we should start expecting more
←

greendog · September 22, 2005

Good post. I have one problem with it, though.....if we are STILL not "recruiting athletes anywhere near as good as Tulsa" (and other OOC opponents) after 4 straight bowl wins, who's to say that we ever WILL? Do kids want to come play the style of football that is played at UNT under DD? What about at Boise St. under Dan Hawkins? They were our equal a few short years ago....anybody know where their recruiting classes rank? Are they still recruiting Big West/Sun Belt caliber athletes but win more b/c of their creative gameplans?? Having watched them on tv several times they don't appear to be much more talented than UNT, but they run all over the field and create mismatches by confusing their opponents. To me, that is a better recipe for success at the mid-major level...mid-majors can't just line up and run the ball against BCS caliber opponents...heck, you have a hard time doing that unless you are more talented than the opponent--which is why we win the Sun Belt every year. Thoughts??
←

I for one am not a big DD fan and I don't think he is a big fan of NT. So be it.

I respect what he has done for the program but feel that his success has been

basically against Sun Belt teams. At one time we were almost even with TT but

they are light years ahead of us now. TCU is a better program and Baylor is

moving ahead. SMU and us are about even in my opinion.

Here is my delima. The conference and our stadium are our biggest recruiting

problems. When we get the new stadium and move "up" to the CUSA we

should be able to compete with the top CUSA teams year after year. To

move up and beat the "big boys" we are going to have an exciting coach of the

Hayden Fry type that can put an exciting offense on the field. The really good

teams are balanced and if they are not the only chance they have is to have a

solid defense and a TT passing game. I can't stand TT but I would watch them

when they are on TV because they are EXCITING.

In 3 or 4 years with a new stadium I feel that we will need someone other than

DD to take us to the next level.

TIgreen01 · September 23, 2005

That's a good question. I think that winning increases the quality of the recruits from year to year, but it is a gradual thing, especially for a mid-major.
According to Rivals: Boise State's ranking within their conference was:
2004--#1, with 1 4-star and five 3-star commits.
2003--#3, (behind Tulsa and SMU) Two 3-star commits.
2002--#6, (behind Tulsa @ #5, who had five 3-star commits)
Total commits: 72
Compared to UNT's ranking within the Sun Belt:
2004:--#2, (behind Utah State) Two 3-star commits.
2003:--#4, (behind ULALA, MUTS, Ark St.) Two 3-star commits.
2002:--#7, Tied with NM State. One 3-star commit.
Total commits: 45
Something to keep in mind: the total commits represent athletes who are ranked nationally by Rivals, so they don't include a lot of the JUCO players that DD has brought to UNT. Even so, it's easy to see that Boise has had over 1.5 times more nationally-ranked athletes sign with their program--although UNT is improving every year.
They are (right now) recruiting better athletes--and more of them. As is Tulsa. According to Rivals.
I agree. But the same applies for the passing game. If the quarterback and receivers aren't as talented or experienced as the secondary and DL they face, they're going to get creamed too. If a team has been able to recruit well at the RB position, relative to the other athletes they have, doesn't it make sense to have a run-oriented attack? Conversely, if you're recruiting has been great at QB and WR for the last couple of years, you'd be passing a lot more.
I think UNT's backs are BCS level backs. It remains to be seen if the QB and WR positions will be/are. I personally believe that if UNT keeps winning, their recruiting will continue to improve--no matter what style of offense they run.
←

Dang good research! A lot of people on this board put very little stock in the rivals recruiting rankings, but I think that there is something to them...esp. the numbers that you pointed out. 72 - 45 is a BIG gap. I think that DD has established a reputation as a recruiter of hidden talent, but at some point you have to start recruiting some of these highly ranked kids--if for nothing more than to get some good press and create some buzz among other kids/coaches....that and the fact that most of them are highly ranked for a reason. I also think that the rankings, as they pertain to lineman, are usually not far off. We RARELY land a heralded Olineman or Dlineman. To run the power running game that DD likes, we need to be landing more powerful linemen....not just BCS caliber backs(though you have to start somewhere ).

Now, I don't mean to take anything away from our players. The absolute best players we've had here in the last 5 years came in as mostly unheralded recruits. Jonas Buckles was the highest ranked recruit I can ever remember us getting before we landed Jamario Thomas.

September 23, 2005

Mr. Dickey is the best NT will get on such a shoestring budget. As for the stadium, for a lot less money you could get a coach who could create enough excitement about the program to get the money to build a stadium. The school's 'long road' approach to building the program is just allowing other programs to pass us by. They don't really recognize the importance of it and the ultimate impact on the institution overall. They don't seem to really have a game plan for how athletics development will transform the school's reputation or about jump-starting a dramatic improvement in competitiveness. The men's football and basketball programs are the keys to building school spirit. That is something that NT has not done well at all and they pay for it every day.

I know there are a relative few who really get into NT on its own. That did not happen for me. I didn't get any school spirit until I got to Virginia and then they hogged it for a lot of years. But if I had never gone there, I wouldn't care much about NT's activities today. As I've said before, I can't say what it was that was lacking. I always had a good feeling about my experience at NT but I didn't develop any care about how we stacked up against other schools. I think there's some people that really value that actually. But you have to make a choice. You can't decide you don't care about it but then go out and engage in competition, because the result is you get slaughtered and look bad. So if we're going to do it, let's do it right. That's going to cost a bunch more money. I think it's worth the investment. This sort of 'we can't decide' thing is just really embarrassing. I'm going around up here in the foreign land of Tennessee with a big 'North Texas' on my car and man that's somewhat harder to do after the other night.