A team with a veteran defense should never be a 14 point dog. What are the expectations people have these days? I figured this team would win 8 games. It's obvious that will not happen. Next year the defense will be rebuilding and many of the other Big 12 teams will be returning many of their players. This means more of the same results. Are people happy with this?
TCU
- Thread starter mountiefan88
- Start date
The defense's best player is out for the season and another upperclassmen is expected to miss the game for personal reasons. That's a pretty big hit on when facing a top five opponent at their place.
Not really. Several of those guys have limited starts and don't forget that Chestnut is very questionable as well. You take away two of your better defenders and a depth guy and it's going to be a difficult task. And the defense is good and but great anyway so...
Never said that, not at all. You made a comment on the betting line and the defense and I gave my opinion on that.
The issue is more that the 3 players are all DBs, 2 starters and 1 a key reserve. If we had on 1 DB, 1 LB, and 1 DL it would still be a problem but it wouldn't cause the juggling around we will need to do, or put us in a position where one more injury in that unit during the game means we would have to either play someone out of position or play someone with next to no experience
He may not have had the hype (maybe because he's a holdover and wasn't recruited by Dana), but Chestnut is, IMO, our best CB. Rumpf is not only a top reserve at CB, he's been playing safety and dime coverage too.
Joseph was a star. You can't count his loss as simply being 1 guy down equal to the loss of any other 1 player.
He may not have had the hype (maybe because he's a holdover and wasn't recruited by Dana), but Chestnut is, IMO, our best CB. Rumpf is not only a top reserve at CB, he's been playing safety and dime coverage too.
Joseph was a star. You can't count his loss as simply being 1 guy down equal to the loss of any other 1 player.
Not "all good," but significantly better. Give this team a great QB and it would be good, not great but 9-3 would be a lot more likely than 6-6, and 10-2 would not be hugely surprising. That said, recruiting and developing a QB is always a primary responsibility of any coach, let alone a coach who employs an offense that obviously places a high premium on QB play. Even conservative, power running teams are better with good QBs, but one with our style is obviously at a greater relative disadvantage with weak QB play. It's not high praise to say that a coach whose success is heavily dependent on QB play is failing primarily because of bad QB play. It's more in the vein of saying he has failed at something at which he could not afford to fail. The fact we don't even have an average QB let alone a good but not great one is our biggest problem. No matter which side of the Dana divide one is on, that would seem obvious.
Also, TCU, with Boykin, hasn't yet proved it is a great team either. If TCU goes 12-0 or 11-1 then they can be considered great or at least close to it. Thus far, they really haven't played anyone. If they win out the regular season that's enough to be considered "great" even if they lose to another great team in round 1. 11-1 and it will be a good topic to debate.
Also, TCU, with Boykin, hasn't yet proved it is a great team either. If TCU goes 12-0 or 11-1 then they can be considered great or at least close to it. Thus far, they really haven't played anyone. If they win out the regular season that's enough to be considered "great" even if they lose to another great team in round 1. 11-1 and it will be a good topic to debate.
Last edited:
So you chose to neglect the remainder of my post?
Mountiefan88, I think it is unfair of you to pressure Vernon into a response as you desire. This is his business and it is not in his best interest to have the kind of opinion you are trying to solicit from him.
Paint one of the other MMB narcissists into a corner if you want, start with Keaton, but I think Vernon is off limits for that kind of taunt.
Well, reasonable people can disagree about how much better QB performance we would need to be a good team this year. There's only one way we could ever find that out in the real world.
I'm not optimistic that Howard will develop into even a steady QB, and if we have one ready to be a steady QB on the team we should be playing him. That we're not suggests we will never know what tis team could accomplish with a better significantly QB play.
I think we have too many holes, O-line, D-line and pass coverage, in addition to QB to be a very good team without very high level QB play but we would be better and probably win a game or 2 more with merely steady play at QB.
I'm not optimistic that Howard will develop into even a steady QB, and if we have one ready to be a steady QB on the team we should be playing him. That we're not suggests we will never know what tis team could accomplish with a better significantly QB play.
I think we have too many holes, O-line, D-line and pass coverage, in addition to QB to be a very good team without very high level QB play but we would be better and probably win a game or 2 more with merely steady play at QB.
