Paradoxical Seasons

[walksalone]

If this topic has already been gone over, feel free to gif bomb the sh*t out of this and call me a moron...

 

Tonight they were showing the '10 Mizzou game and last years NW game, and it got me thinking...

 

At what point did the team go from being a strong defensive team with a questionable offense ('09, '10) to a team with a strong offense and a questionable defense? Was it the hiring of Beck, the loss of Carl, the change in conference, or a change of recruiting philosophy...

[MLB 51]

If this topic has already been gone over, feel free to gif bomb the sh*t out of this and call me a moron...

 

Tonight they were showing the '10 Mizzou game and last years NW game, and it got me thinking...

 

At what point did the team go from being a strong defensive team with a questionable offense ('09, '10) to a team with a strong offense and a questionable defense? Was it the hiring of Beck, the loss of Carl, the change in conference, or a change of recruiting philosophy...

Down year in recruiting. Well, two down years. Bo's first two classes weren't very good. They were also more suited to Big XI type play.

 

I also think the addition of Beck and recruiting from an offensive stand point improved dramatically.

[Danimal]

If this topic has already been gone over, feel free to gif bomb the sh*t out of this and call me a moron...

 

Tonight they were showing the '10 Mizzou game and last years NW game, and it got me thinking...

 

At what point did the team go from being a strong defensive team with a questionable offense ('09, '10) to a team with a strong offense and a questionable defense? Was it the hiring of Beck, the loss of Carl, the change in conference, or a change of recruiting philosophy...

Down year in recruiting. Well, two down years. Bo's first two classes weren't very good. They were also more suited to Big XI type play.

 

I also think the addition of Beck and recruiting from an offensive stand point improved dramatically.

 

THREE down years in defensive recruiting, we had six d-linemen in the '10 class. Cotton is starting on O, one played but quit, the other four will never see a significant snap. LaVonte was the only LB and he was a JUCO, ya we were recruiting for the 12 but geez. We got good db's that year but squat for the front 7.

 

Bo is a little stubborn with his scheme but he didn't suddenly get stupid the system works with the right guys. Our downturn came from just not getting nearly enough athletic go-getters that can do what Bo asks of them in '08, '09, and '10. It really began showing in '11 and hit us like a hammer in '12. Hell Zach Zwinak was able to take it to the house on last year's D. It will show this year when we have to play such a young group. But at least this group is inexperienced but athletic. As this D gels we should start seeing a rise towards becoming feared again. While we aren't rolling in big-name recruits I do think we are doing much better at scouting than in the past, and that will begin showing this season.

[tmfr15]

In terms of recruiting... I don't think we will every pull the type of classes that the a lot of schools garner, but I don't think that means all hope is lost by any means. It's hard to say this with the backing of a lot of evidence, but I really think that Tom had a lot of classes that, judged by the standards of today, would be comprised mostly with three stars and complimented by a handful of four stars and once in a while a five star. We developed our guys well back in the day, and, more importantly, we didn't miss on guys. When we went for the big-time names, we were able to pull in guys that made contributions and fewer guys that quit, didn't pan at all, or switched commitments at the last second. In the biggest years, I would guess that Tom was batting 1000 in this regard. I think Frank's biggest problem was that he started to see more issues like DeAngelo Evans, Carl Crawford, and Ryan Schuler and all of that. For Bo its Bubba Starling, Chase Rome and Todd Peat.

 

We have got to develop guys maximise our walk on potential and hit very close to the bullseye in terms of scouting to make the most of our big name guys.

 

This is not any news to Bo and he is working on it.

 

I am getting the feeling that its about to happen. And we are closer than we think.

 

Patience is hard, but so long as we are in the nine and 10 win neighborhood, I will believe that we are just a few strikes of luck away from being back to where we should be on the national landscape.

[MichiganDad3]

The loss of Sanders

[It'sNotAFakeID]

If this topic has already been gone over, feel free to gif bomb the sh*t out of this and call me a moron...

 

Tonight they were showing the '10 Mizzou game and last years NW game, and it got me thinking...

 

At what point did the team go from being a strong defensive team with a questionable offense ('09, '10) to a team with a strong offense and a questionable defense? Was it the hiring of Beck, the loss of Carl, the change in conference, or a change of recruiting philosophy...

 

Yes.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

The loss of Sanders

 

What?

[Mavric]

I'd say it's mainly the talent available. The 2008 class (which I don't really count as "Bo's") and Bo's first two (2009 & 10) were below average and the only big stars to come out of those classes were basically all on offense.

 

2008

Steinkuhler - solid but not spectacular

Compton - same

Fisher - lost a lot due to injury

PJ Smith - fair

Dennard - one star on defense

B. Cotton - good contributor

Meredith - solid but not spectacular

Reed - great early then faded

 

2009

Ankrah - one more year but not a lot yet

Burkhead - Superman

Andrew Green - contributor, one more chance

Martinez - Rewriting the record books

Sirles - four year starter

Randle - one more shot

Martin - one good year

Kinnie - solid

Gomes - playmaker

Pensick - contributing more recently

Qvale - same as Pensick

Zimmerer - solid

 

2010

David - All-American but was only here two years

Hardrick - solid contributor

C. Cooper - we'll see this year

Enunwa - very good

K. Bell - All-American caliber

C. Evans - very good

H Jax - late getting here, we'll see this year

Mitchell - solid contributor

J Cotton - see more this year

SJB - contributor

 

So in those three classes, there were not a lot of "impact" players. And the few we did get were mostly on offense. Martinez and Burkhead pushed the offense to an elite level. And having Reed, Cotton, Bell and Enunwa along with some solid lineman filled in great.

 

For whatever reason, we haven't done as well on defense. Partially, I think there are fewer top defensive players to go around and it's harder to get the good ones out of the south. We've also had some combination of bad luck and bad choices. David was obviously huge but with him and Gomes probably being two of the best three defenders on that list (Dennard being the other) but both being JUCOs, they weren't here for very long. We still have some of those guys left (Ankrah, Green, Randle, Cooper, Evans, HJax, Mitchell, SJB) and that's probably most of our starting defense this year so they still have a chance, but so far only Evans has really stood out.

[Count 'Bility]

The change of conferences is and always will be THEE most undersold reason-not excuse, REASON-for our struggles over the last couple years. The changing of conferences did so much legitimate damage to routine and preparation and such, that really, the significant will probably never be fully known by anyone but players and coaches who actually had to deal with it.

[Mavric]

The change of conferences is and always will be THEE most undersold reason-not excuse, REASON-for our struggles over the last couple years. The changing of conferences did so much legitimate damage to routine and preparation and such, that really, the significant will probably never be fully known by anyone but players and coaches who actually had to deal with it.

Eh, it was definitely a factor and made things harder. But I have a hard time believing that, had we switched before the 2009 season, that Suh, Prince, Dennard, Crick, Gomes, Haag and company would have had much trouble shutting down the offenses we've seen over these two years.

 

It's more about the Jimmys and Joes, less about the Xs and Os.

[Count 'Bility]

The change of conferences is and always will be THEE most undersold reason-not excuse, REASON-for our struggles over the last couple years. The changing of conferences did so much legitimate damage to routine and preparation and such, that really, the significant will probably never be fully known by anyone but players and coaches who actually had to deal with it.

Eh, it was definitely a factor and made things harder. But I have a hard time believing that, had we switched before the 2009 season, that Suh, Prince, Dennard, Crick, Gomes, Haag and company would have had much trouble shutting down the offenses we've seen over these two years.

 

It's more about the Jimmys and Joes, less about the Xs and Os.

It was a complete change in not only style of football, but instead of just facing 4 non con opponents, the entire 12 game schedule was of teams we had never faced before. 3 previous seasons of Big 12 football. All the tendancies and offensive and defensive schemes that the players had learned and gotten down literally had to be thrown out the window, and they literally had to start over from scratch.

[Mavric]

The change of conferences is and always will be THEE most undersold reason-not excuse, REASON-for our struggles over the last couple years. The changing of conferences did so much legitimate damage to routine and preparation and such, that really, the significant will probably never be fully known by anyone but players and coaches who actually had to deal with it.

Eh, it was definitely a factor and made things harder. But I have a hard time believing that, had we switched before the 2009 season, that Suh, Prince, Dennard, Crick, Gomes, Haag and company would have had much trouble shutting down the offenses we've seen over these two years.

 

It's more about the Jimmys and Joes, less about the Xs and Os.

It was a complete change in not only style of football, but instead of just facing 4 non con opponents, the entire 12 game schedule was of teams we had never faced before. 3 previous seasons of Big 12 football. All the tendancies and offensive and defensive schemes that the players had learned and gotten down literally had to be thrown out the window, and they literally had to start over from scratch.

So our 2009 defense would have struggled just as much?

[Count 'Bility]

The change of conferences is and always will be THEE most undersold reason-not excuse, REASON-for our struggles over the last couple years. The changing of conferences did so much legitimate damage to routine and preparation and such, that really, the significant will probably never be fully known by anyone but players and coaches who actually had to deal with it.

Eh, it was definitely a factor and made things harder. But I have a hard time believing that, had we switched before the 2009 season, that Suh, Prince, Dennard, Crick, Gomes, Haag and company would have had much trouble shutting down the offenses we've seen over these two years.

 

It's more about the Jimmys and Joes, less about the Xs and Os.

It was a complete change in not only style of football, but instead of just facing 4 non con opponents, the entire 12 game schedule was of teams we had never faced before. 3 previous seasons of Big 12 football. All the tendancies and offensive and defensive schemes that the players had learned and gotten down literally had to be thrown out the window, and they literally had to start over from scratch.

So our 2009 defense would have struggled just as much?

by giving up boatloads of points and yards? No. Most definitely not. W

 

Would they just kept on rolling and been just as good as they were in the Big 12 and designed for? No. Most definitely not.

 

I understand there has been a talent issue and have spoken for that fact numerous times as well. I also apologize if it came off as saying the conference change was most important factor, becuase that is not the case. I just said it was the most undersold factor. It's just a fact that seems to never be spoken of when trying to figure out why things went downhill a bit the last couple years. Combining that with the steps back in talent the last couple years, I've been on the side that says we've been pretty fortunate that the last couple years weren't worse.

[EZ-E]

The change of conferences is and always will be THEE most undersold reason-not excuse, REASON-for our struggles over the last couple years. The changing of conferences did so much legitimate damage to routine and preparation and such, that really, the significant will probably never be fully known by anyone but players and coaches who actually had to deal with it.

Eh, it was definitely a factor and made things harder. But I have a hard time believing that, had we switched before the 2009 season, that Suh, Prince, Dennard, Crick, Gomes, Haag and company would have had much trouble shutting down the offenses we've seen over these two years.

 

It's more about the Jimmys and Joes, less about the Xs and Os.

It was a complete change in not only style of football, but instead of just facing 4 non con opponents, the entire 12 game schedule was of teams we had never faced before. 3 previous seasons of Big 12 football. All the tendancies and offensive and defensive schemes that the players had learned and gotten down literally had to be thrown out the window, and they literally had to start over from scratch.

So our 2009 defense would have struggled just as much?

 

We didn't need Linebackers in the Big 12 at all. Suh masked a lot of our issues at that position because at times he was our linebackers.

[Dagerow]

I think the primary reason, in my opinion, is that most of the d coaches changed (sanders, Carl, etc), and Bo put his focus on the offense.

One thing I've noticed is that when Bo focuses on an issue that needs to be address, it gets addressed (with the limited exception of turnovers). For example, when our D dominated under Bo, the offense was bad - really bad. Bo devoted significant time to it and now you see the result. But, other issues creep up while Bo is focused on other areas. One positive I see now is that Bo is focused on teaching the inexperienced d, so I think that will help substantially with their progress and effectiveness.

 

And yes, I like Kool Aid and drink it often right before the season starts.