Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Would you be willing to say that we had the type of talent at TE last year?

Yes I would. Powers was perfectly capable, but when he wasn't blocking he only seemed to get an ocassional pass outside where the corners could get at him.

A tightend's bread and butter is a matchup against a slower/smaller LB over the middle. Power's talents were wasted IMO.

Rick

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Posted

Remember this name: Chris Loving

Guy could be real special here. Juco transfer coming in the Fall.

I never count on JUCO Fall semester enrollees. It's about 50/50 as to whether they make the grades/credits to be eligible.

Talk to me when Loving is enrolled.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Posted

I kind of agreed with Dickey about it but also kind of disagree...on one hand, if you as a coach don't want to keep losing great players to injury playing a bunch of "bodybag" games, then find a common ground with a "name" team that would still be an upset if you won. Tech and Baylor were good examples of this. But when you consider the core of the reasoning...the point was to be able to stay healthy for conference games, attract better recruits, and grow the program. After a couple of years playing "careful" against your Top 10 opponents, if your plan worked, you should have the resources to be a bit more competitive. So I guess my point is that yes, it's fine to scale back the level of your OOC games for a couple of years to build a great conference record and go to a few bowls, but once you get that momentum, you need to push the ceiling a bit higher.

The problem with holding back on OCC opponents so that you can win more conference games is that by the end of the our four year undefeated run in the Sunbelt every casual fan basically said that we were now "king of the dipshits". We went to four bowls (and only won one) and had a four year undefeated run in our conference, but no one took us anymore seriously than before it all started.

You want to get noticed and taken seriously? Then always show up in your "I didn't come here to lose" t-shirt......and play like it.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Posted

A two qb system worked for the 1957 SWC champion Rice Owls. I understand different times, but Frank Ryan and King Hill shared duties with Rice.. Both were talented. I can work. As someone said, " Every other position it is called depth, but at qb it is controversy.

I agree, but we aren't counting on him to do a whole lot for us in the passing game. Not saying he can't, just saying I wouldn't expect a lot of catches for Loving. Coop Jones and Marcus Smith are the more likely receiving threats at tight end. Should be a fun position to watch.

  • Upvote 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love GoMeanGreen.com? Tell a friend!
  • What's going on Mean Green?

    1. 5

      Navy Beats OU

    2. 25

      Another NIL Coaching Casualty

    3. 2

      Athletics site shows no more Bowl tickets available?

    4. 5

      Navy Beats OU

    5. 25

      Another NIL Coaching Casualty

  • Popular Contributors

  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      15,505
    • Most Online
      1,865

    Newest Member
    Jepper
    Joined
  • Most Points

    1. 1
    2. 2
      NT80
      NT80
      137,723
    3. 3
      KingDL1
      KingDL1
      131,640
    4. 4
      greenminer
      greenminer
      124,005
    5. 5
      TheReal_jayD
      TheReal_jayD
      109,059
  • Biggest Gamblers

    1. 1
      EdtheEagle
      EdtheEagle
      26,591,647
    2. 2
      UNTLifer
      UNTLifer
      4,480,984
    3. 3
      untphd
      untphd
      842,505
    4. 4
      flyonthewall
      flyonthewall
      670,422
    5. 5
      3_n_out
      3_n_out
      578,480
    6. 6
    7. 7
      UNT_FH_FR_YR
      UNT_FH_FR_YR
      454,039
    8. 8
    9. 9
    10. 10
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Please review our full Privacy Policy before using our site.