When a guy has over a dozen starts under his belt and his best performance is 250 yards against New Mexico State, no one would predict three straight 340+ yard games.
More importantly, they have started to use the middle of the field, which is the great separator of all QB play. No offense can be consistent if they don't attack the middle. I have no idea what made them change, but I'm glad they did. [Reply]
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
I'll gladly eat it. Him playing like this against P5 teams after being inaccurate on almost all deep shots the first two games and hammered ass against MTSU came out of nowhere. Anyone saying they predicted he'd be more than a middling P5 starter is 100 percent full of shit.
I don’t think there was anyone here that predicted he’d perform at his current level, but there were a few that said he gave the team the best chance to win and be able to be at least an average college starter with some room for improvement from last season. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Titty Meat:
Was Grinch as bad at MU as he was at OU/USC?
He was a position coach on some good defensive units the credit I largely give to Steckel, a DL guy running a unit that was strongest up front but obviously Grinch contributed tu that success. He was only here 3 years. [Reply]
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
When a guy has over a dozen starts under his belt and his best performance is 250 yards against New Mexico State, no one would predict three straight 340+ yard games.
More importantly, they have started to use the middle of the field, which is the great separator of all QB play. No offense can be consistent if they don't attack the middle. I have no idea what made them change, but I'm glad they did.
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
When a guy has over a dozen starts under his belt and his best performance is 250 yards against New Mexico State, no one would predict three straight 340+ yard games.
More importantly, they have started to use the middle of the field, which is the great separator of all QB play. No offense can be consistent if they don't attack the middle. I have no idea what made them change, but I'm glad they did.
I don't know what people were and were not predicting, nor do I care. What I did understand was that Drink was going to play the guy that gave us the best chance to win and he very clearly did that.
Of course, it also happens to be the kid with the C on his chest that the rest of the team loves and rallies around while he continues to play through injuries.
I'm simply trying to understand why one would suggest Drink somehow negligent for playing the best players. I assume it's simply lazy, entitled Mizzou Fan nonsense, but who knows. [Reply]
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
When a guy has over a dozen starts under his belt and his best performance is 250 yards against New Mexico State, no one would predict three straight 340+ yard games.
More importantly, they have started to use the middle of the field, which is the great separator of all QB play. No offense can be consistent if they don't attack the middle. I have no idea what made them change, but I'm glad they did.
Maybe the guy that saw them all practice every day saw something that you didn't. Maybe he wasn't just putting his livelihood in the hands of some kid he wanted to fuck his daughter.
"I didn't realize he could be this good" is no sort of excuse when you simply foreclosed the mere possibility when Drinkwitz named him the starter and started assigning malevolent motives. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Maybe the guy that saw them all practice every day saw something that you didn't. Maybe he wasn't just putting his livelihood in the hands of some kid he wanted to fuck his daughter.
"I didn't realize he could be this good" is no sort of excuse when you simply foreclosed the mere possibility when Drinkwitz named him the starter and started assigning malevolent motives.
He was miserable for most of the first two games and showed absolutely nothing last year other than mobility. Those aren't disputable events, nor is the fact that the coach handled the competition like a buffoon with his comments toward the media, or by ripping up slips of paper in an effort to appear profound.
It wasn't that long ago that blind loyalty to another QB who had produced very little but earned a rope's length measured in light years helped torpedo the franchise this board is named after. Given Bazelak's regression and Cook's absence of any visible improvement prior to the K-State game, a little skepticism was more than warranted. [Reply]
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
He was miserable for most of the first two games and showed absolutely nothing last year other than mobility. Those aren't disputable events, nor is the fact that the coach handled the competition like a buffoon with his comments toward the media, or by ripping up slips of paper in an effort to appear profound.
It wasn't that long ago that blind loyalty to another QB who had produced very little but earned a rope's length measured in light years helped torpedo the franchise this board is named after. Given Bazelak's regression and Cook's absence of any visible improvement prior to the K-State game, a little skepticism was more than warranted.
He was good in the first game - I said it then. You just refused to acknowledge it. You decided he sucked before the game started so you just ignored the fact that the played well.
The Chiefs 'blind loyalty' to a QB had a franchise that refused to bring anyone in to challenge him. That's not been the case here - Drink has CONTINUOUSLY brought in high pedigree challengers, including a transfer. How is that similar to the story with Pioli/Cassel?
That suggests a guy who obviously recognizes how important the position is. It's not the same scenario at all.
You're essentially claiming that no matter what happens - you were right. If Cook was bad, duh - he's bad and everyone should've known that. If he's good - well everyone should've expected him to be bad so you're STILL right because you did. It's nonsense.
What you did wasn't 'skepticism' - you decided before the season started what the right answer was. And continued to insist on it. I was skeptical but open to the possibility that Cook was the right choice at this time. And in the end, he very clearly has been. There's a difference between skepticism and...whatever it is you fellas have been doing. [Reply]
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
He was miserable for most of the first two games and showed absolutely nothing last year other than mobility. Those aren't disputable events, nor is the fact that the coach handled the competition like a buffoon with his comments toward the media, or by ripping up slips of paper in an effort to appear profound.
It wasn't that long ago that blind loyalty to another QB who had produced very little but earned a rope's length measured in light years helped torpedo the franchise this board is named after. Given Bazelak's regression and Cook's absence of any visible improvement prior to the K-State game, a little skepticism was more than warranted.
He played with a torn labrum behind an atrocious OL and played average as a first time starter for a full season.
I don't know what more you could expect or ask for given the circumstances mentioned above. [Reply]
Cook wasn't bad whatsoever in the 1st game. They just didn't let him do much. The only game that you can complain about is that second game, but that's in the past. He's playing better than he ever has and I'm all for it! [Reply]
Originally Posted by dlphg9:
Cook wasn't bad whatsoever in the 1st game. They just didn't let him do much. The only game that you can complain about is that second game, but that's in the past. He's playing better than he ever has and I'm all for it!
The 2nd game was so uniformly uninspired that it made me thing they were sitting on stuff and expected to just win with bully ball.
By the time they realized they may not be good enough in the trenches to do that (and that's still a real concern), the gameplan was set and they didn't really have a 'gear up' level to turn to.
That game was just one of those survive and advance games and it kinda felt that way at the time. They just weren't showing anything at all. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
The 2nd game was so uniformly uninspired that it made me thing they were sitting on stuff and expected to just win with bully ball.
By the time they realized they may not be good enough in the trenches to do that (and that's still a real concern), the gameplan was set and they didn't really have a 'gear up' level to turn to.
That game was just one of those survive and advance games and it kinda felt that way at the time. They just weren't showing anything at all.