• The KillerFrogs

We will win at least 7

Planks

Active Member
Dman890 said:
Everyone keeps saying that.  But who's is going to be our QB next year?  
 
Do we think Boykin year 3 is it?  
 
They haven't shown any faith in Matthews which means he must not have it.  2 good ones coming in next year, but will they be ready as true freshman?
 
I think we may still be a few years away from "contending".
 
 
Don't forget Zach Allen! 2014 season will be Allen's 4th semester in the program. And if we can get the two new quarterbacks to enroll a semester early, then they could surprise.

Next year we will have SIX scholarship players that we recruited as quarterbacks (Matt Brown, Trevone Boykin, Tyler Matthews, Zach Allen, Foster Sawyer, Grayson Muehlstein). If between those guys we can't find someone who can at least provide serviceable quarterback play, then we have some major issues when it comes to recruiting evalution at the position.
 

Dman890

Active Member
Rifram09 said:
I don't agree with the bolded part. Apparently he was about to go in. I think the coaches are trying to salvage the experience Boykin attained and not just "yank" him prematurely. Even still, they almost yanked him against Smoo.

I think the reason Mathews hasn't played has far more to do with Boykin than Mathews at this point. Let's see what happens this season and over the offseason before we write off Mathews! Geeze! (and some people say we're writing off Boykin too soon.)
 
Normally I'd agree, but he was a highly touted recruit that enrolled early to get an extra spring semester under his belt.
 
I'm not saying he's a bust, but with the time he's been able to put in thus far he's had plenty of opportunities to make waves on the depth chart.
 
With that knowledge, I'd argue that it's likely he's not living up to expectations thus far in practice.
 

rifram09

Active Member
Dman890 said:
 
Normally I'd agree, but he was a highly touted recruit that enrolled early to get an extra spring semester under his belt.
 
I'm not saying he's a bust, but with the time he's been able to put in thus far he's had plenty of opportunities to make waves on the depth chart.
 
With that knowledge, I'd argue that it's likely he's not living up to expectations thus far in practice.
I suppose I'll just agree to disagree. What you're saying is logical but it doesn't take into account the timeline of events. Mathews would have had to do something other-worldly in practice for the coaches to seriously consider starting him over Pachall this year. Boykin's experiences last year bought him his opportunity to back-up Pachall.

GMFP said he thought he had 3 good QBs this year. Mathews time just hasn't come yet. Boykin hasn't done enough just yet to make the coaches start Mathews. But he's toeing that line. As long as Boykin keeps moving the ball, I think he'll continue to start. Next time we play a bad half offensively, I expect to see Mathews.
 

steelfrog

Tier 1
Planks said:
Don't forget Zach Allen! 2014 season will be Allen's 4th semester in the program. And if we can get the two new quarterbacks to enroll a semester early, then they could surprise.

Next year we will have SIX scholarship players that we recruited as quarterbacks (Matt Brown, Trevone Boykin, Tyler Matthews, Zach Allen, Foster Sawyer, Grayson Muehlstein). If between those guys we can't find someone who can at least provide serviceable quarterback play, then we have some major issues when it comes to recruiting evalution at the position.
These guys have stars.  Could it also be we don't know jack squat about developing that position?  Or putting them in a position to be successgful in play calling, pass protection, etc?
 

steelfrog

Tier 1
Whio the hell is uor QB coach?
 
Off with his head!!
 
Seriously.
 
OC, QB coach and OL coaches may be terrific guys but they are consistently underperforming.  Time for some new blood.
 

Lone Frog

Active Member
Backup Waterboy said:
We need at least one win against UT, Baylor, OSU, or OU to make a bowl. I feel like we slip up against a bad team at some point based on what I have seen.
 
We've already done that.
 

Froginbedford

Full Member
Portland Frog:
 
"If the frogs decide to take the first half off in the rest of their games, 5-7 or 4-8 is still possible"
 
Same scenario could translate to 2-10...no one on tap is a gimme.....
 

Dman890

Active Member
Rifram09 said:
I suppose I'll just agree to disagree. What you're saying is logical but it doesn't take into account the timeline of events. Mathews would have had to do something other-worldly in practice for the coaches to seriously consider starting him over Pachall this year. Boykin's experiences last year bought him his opportunity to back-up Pachall.

GMFP said he thought he had 3 good QBs this year. Mathews time just hasn't come yet. Boykin hasn't done enough just yet to make the coaches start Mathews. But he's toeing that line. As long as Boykin keeps moving the ball, I think he'll continue to start. Next time we play a bad half offensively, I expect to see Mathews.
 
I hope you're right!
 

FrogByBirth

Ticket Exchange Pass
Opintel said:
Let's start Saturday.  I think we can run on OU, and if we can keep our turnovers down...it just might work!
LOL.....LOL.....lol.....
 
You can't run on anybody when you have the RB's carrying the scheissing ball 20 times a game!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
And why does our HC keep talking about a Rose Bowl win?  Pull your head out pal and get into the 2013 season!!!
 

steelfrog

Tier 1
Sadly, I agree with the Rose Bowl comment. That is going on 4 years ago now. If you still talking about stuff 4 years ago, must not have done much lately!
 

HoustonHornedFrog

Active Member
Dman890 said:
Everyone keeps saying that.  But who's is going to be our QB next year?  
 
Do we think Boykin year 3 is it?  
 
They haven't shown any faith in Matthews which means he must not have it.  2 good ones coming in next year, but will they be ready as true freshman?
 
I think we may still be a few years away from "contending".
 
 
 
 
Why is it that other schools can play with Freshman QBs and do quite well, but the attitude here is that we aren't going to be a contender until we have all our D back and a senior QB.  There are a lot of young guys playing well if you put them in the position to do so.  Now with what our Oline has been doing, combined with the play calling I'm not sure any QB is really in a position to win right now, but we need to start getting away from the excuse that we are too young to compete.
 

steelfrog

Tier 1
100% correct!
 
It all goes back to coaching.  Coaches coach, they don't wait for players to coach themselves or lead themselves.  be a damn leader and a damn coach--you are the one paid to do it!
 

WIN

Active Member
Whio the hell is uor QB coach?
 
Off with his head!!
 
Seriously.
 
OC, QB coach and OL coaches may be terrific guys but they are consistently underperforming.  Time for some new blood.
If we win 7 games nobody will be leaving, I suspect.
 

rifram09

Active Member
WIN said:
If we win 7 games nobody will be leaving, I suspect.
Ugh!!! I sure as heck hope you're wrong. We would have won 7 despite our offensive staff, not b/c of them.

The thought of this makes me have second thoughts about what I hope for. In other words, I naturally want to root for a miraculous turn around where we make a run at the B12 title, but part of me doesn't want that because it means the offensive staff will stick around forever.

So where is the happy median where we keep from emberassing TCU but do poorly enough that our offensive staff gets an overhaul?
 

cdsfrog

Active Member
Rifram09 said:
Ugh!!! I sure as heck hope you're wrong. We would have won 7 despite our offensive staff, not b/c of them.

The thought of this makes me have second thoughts about what I hope for. In other words, I naturally want to root for a miraculous turn around where we make a run at the B12 title, but part of me doesn't want that because it means the offensive staff will stick around forever.

So where is the happy median where we keep from emberassing TCU but do poorly enough that our offensive staff gets an overhaul?
Doubtful.
 
Top