Discussion in 'Football' started by gtchief, Oct 17, 2019.
That's considered passing right?
Hell by the time the professor scales it, he'll probably have at least a B.
Hard to argue being any higher at this point. I think a win over Citadel gets us a C or C-, and a win over Temple gets us to C+ or B- territory (given the expectations that this was a rebuilding year). The point deficit against conference opponents is rough though, and I kind of wish I hadn't seen it totaled up like that.
I’d give it an F until after signing day
They gave Les Miles a B so with a win over The Citadel I think we'd already be in the C+/B- range. Besides that the only major blip outside of expectations was the 2nd quarter of Duke imo.
The juice curve wasn't added in to that grade.
6-6 would probably get him ACC COY. No question we have performed at the bottom end of expectations, so you can't really justify anything higher. Of course, it's also totally irrelevant. Signing day grade is all that matters at this point.
Looks like he sees it as a huge transition AND Geoff is sucking at it. He'd be considered a moderate on Stingtalk.
D is for Diploma.
I gave your mom a D in the A.
Too many injuries and he doesn’t have the players.
He will be an “A” when he’s winning 9-10 games a year in 3-4 yrs.
Except for Citadel, nothing unexpected as happened. So it likely deserves a D but that is basically because the program is the equivalent of a Business major that has to take Dynamics for some reason: D is about as good as he can do, so he would be happy with the D and move on to what he does well.
D is about right but Mack Brown is graded waaaaay to high. I think this regime needs at least a break even record next year & in year 3 at least 8 wins. Year 4 we should be at 10 wins minimum.
Citadel was an enormous clusterfuck.
Not scoring an offensive point against Temple was a generational low.
Being 0-6 ATS is bad.
Considering the injuries I would say a D is fair or a little generous but not far off.
We are likely going 1-11 this year. We are 18 point underdogs to Miami, a team I thought we might beat before the season began. There were people on this board talking about going to a bowl game, so I would say we are far, far below even the realistic expectations. I felt 6-6 was possible. It is a tough situation. The staff has to look the older players on team straight in the face and say we need you guys now, but as soon as we can, we are definitely going to replace you. Keeping morale up is difficult. I am sure that get tired of hearing or reading about how undersized and slow they are.
Fan expectations and reality are two totally different things. Those were possible expectations for this year, but highly unlikely.
For sure. I’m optimistic, and thought that 6-6 was an outside possibility, due primarily to there not being any outstanding teams in the Coastal. However, once the season started and I saw our OL DL play, as well as attrition, I soon realized 6-6 was unrealistic and that 3-9 was more likely a peak expectation.
I agree. People have to learn how to adjust expectations. Our OL is worse than I thought, mainly because of the injuries and inexperience. DL lacks experience and depth and it shows more than I thought it would also. I also thought we would run a lot more option-type stuff that we "should" be able to run well, but it's apparent that the staff has decided to "rip the bandaid off" and move the transition along as fast as possible. This is detrimental to immediate success, but will help in the long run. Our guys are drinking from a fire-hose right now. It will get better.
OL injuries put us in a hurt. And I agree the staff has decided to transition the offense without trying to match it to our personnel. That is why it is a generationally bad offense. Maybe worse. I have only been a Tech fan since 1992 and this is the worst offense I’ve seen.
I still have hope the staff is building for year 3.