Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

If Sud doesn't get hurt last year, that would have been a bowl team, diamont wasn't close to being ready


Sud was struggling before the injury. I think we still would've been better but unless he got his head out of his rear I don't think it would've made a huge difference.
Posted

Sud was struggling before the injury. I think we still would've been better but unless he got his head out of his rear I don't think it would've made a huge difference.

 

Sudfeld had a QB rating of 126, Zander had a QB rating of 76. That is a huge difference. The learning curve with the new receivers was flattening out for Nate; when Zander had to take over it got as steep as could possibly be.If Wynn doesn't drop the TD pass, the Iowa game is 28-21 early in the second. Instead he drops it and two plays later Sudfeld's ( and our) season is over.

Posted

Sudfeld had a QB rating of 126, Zander had a QB rating of 76. That is a huge difference. The learning curve with the new receivers was flattening out for Nate; when Zander had to take over it got as steep as could possibly be.If Wynn doesn't drop the TD pass, the Iowa game is 28-21 early in the second. Instead he drops it and two plays later Sudfeld's ( and our) season is over.

Like I said we would've been better but I don't think with Sudfeld we would've made a bowl. He still struggled early and got half of his touchdowns in a single game against NT. He did nothing up to that point that inspired confidence. Heck everyone on here was talking about how bad he was playing. So I don't understand where all the "if we had Sud" comments are coming from. I think we would've been better off if Tre had stayed.
Posted

What progress. Easier schedule fewer wins.

Normally I view creanapoligist as a naive poster but he's right in this regard. The rebuilding process takes a while in most football programs but each year they seem to make some progression. I think we are developing our defense nicely. I think this is the year we go to a bowl .
Posted

I'm sorry but I don't consider going from the worst of all time to merely bad progress. And our offense has some huge question marks.


So you want us to go from worst of all time to beating powerhouses and winning championships in a few seasons?
Posted

So you want us to go from worst of all time to beating powerhouses and winning championships in a few seasons?

 

No but I don't think being horrible 4 straight years is indicative of the ability to get it done. 

Posted

Normally I view creanapoligist as a naive poster but he's right in this regard. The rebuilding process takes a while in most football programs but each year they seem to make some progression. I think we are developing our defense nicely. I think this is the year we go to a bowl .

Thanks for your opinion
Posted
@Brass Cannon You are trying WAY too hard to discredit Wilson and the progress he has made. Did he steal your girlfriend or something? And we didn't play a cakewalk schedule last year, I have no idea where that's coming from. Also, do you understand what gimmick team actually means? Running a no huddle isn't a gimmick. Actually, most of last year we just handed it off to Tevin and ran through teams.
Posted
Lol I'm not trying to discredit him. He's done that his own letting Bill Lynch field consistently better teams.

And no a team that tries to outscore it's opponents without offering anything remotely in the defensive category is a gimmick.

And just remember our D will still suck but we don't have Coleman anymore.

Statistically Wilson's best team has been worse than Lynch's worst. Yeah sorta says it all
Posted

Our SOS was 62nd last year, back from 61 previously.  That was up drastically from 76th the year before that. 

 

But just a comparison of Lynch and Wilson(BTW I was wrong Wilson has played a slightly less laughable schedule than Lynch.  To lazy to dig out just the OoC games, perhaps thats the stat I had heard being easier compared to Lynch)

 

These are overall ranks of College Football(Didn't want to use raw numbers because changes offenses and defenses and what not

 

Wilson has had a 7 spot harder schedule than Lynch.  65.75 versus 72.75

Wilson has had a 8.75 spot better offense than Lynch.  63.5 versus 72.25

Lynch has a 23 spot better defense than Wilson.  80 versus 103

Lynch also won 4 more games, 1 more per year. 

 

So its pretty simple if Lynch wasn't good enough, then Wilson is far from good enough.  The one year we had a respectable offense it was at the cost of having the worst defense in Big Ten History.  And Wilson has yet to have a respectable defense to see what that would do to the offense.  Theres no progress when one side of the ball is a complete joke. 

 

Progress is consistently getting better each year.  Psst thats what Lynch did, yet as I already stated thats not good enough. 

Posted
We are clearly getting better as a program under CKW. Our recruiting classes are better, putting guys in the pros, and CKW runs a fantastic offense that works against most teams when we have a QB that's not a true freshman. The defense will come, but it was hard to have a good defense when Mallory can't even teach a kid to do a basic tackle. Give CKW one more year, if there is no bowl this year then you can rip into him all you want. But it's impossible to sit there and say our teams aren't any better under CKW then they were under Lynch.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

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.

×
×
  • Create New...