• The KillerFrogs

Your TCU football Mt. Rushmore

Frog-in-law1995

Active Member
Frog DJ said:
 
Agree with Punter - the penultimate...
 
Go Frogs!
8ccac8ddb7f929cdb566c94b832bc745.jpg
 

EdKamen

Active Member
The tough call is Swink or Lilly.
 
If you have O'Brien, Baugh and LT, then ...
 
I'd have to go with Swink in TCU lore.
 
Lilly was a great Frog but his Cowboy career made him a legend.
 

Leap Frog

Full Member
CountryFrog said:
He certainly deserves credit for what he did as coach, and he did a fantastic job. I don't think there's any way you can say that anything anyone did back in the 30's and 40's somehow set the tone for everything that's happened at TCU over the last 20 years.
 
I can say it because Dutch set the standard with two NC's-- we have been chasing it (and will most likely get it under G.P's leadership) ever since. Today is the best and the sky's the limit.
 
Not going to pick for the Rushmore-- have to leave too many greats off. But, any selection that leaves Swink off is overlooking the fact that he may be the only student-athlete to be two-time first team A.A, plus two-time academic A.A. Yes, the books count for something in college.                                                                              
 

West Texas Frog

Active Member
Swink would be my alternate choice because he was a stud in the 1950's. Runner-up to the Heisman Trophy his junior year I believe. He is revered by the older generation of Frogs and I understand why. He chose to go to medical school instead of playing in the NFL and was a highly respected doctor.
 

SwissArmyFrog

Active Member
"I don't think there's any way you can say that anything anyone did back in the 30's and 40's somehow set the tone for everything that's happened at TCU over the last 20 years."
 
Disagree, to some extent.  I think that the championships and great teams of the 30's & 40's (and 50's, as well) set both a high bar that many at TCU wanted to return to, and a knowledge and confidence that "it could/should happen again at TCU".
 
It seems (to me) that it is harder to attain the highest goals when there are few/no championships or winning tradition in your past.
 
There are other factors, naturally.  But I think the above plays a not insignificant role in helping the right kind of mind-set to gel.
 

CountryFrog

Active Member
SwissArmyFrog said:
"I don't think there's any way you can say that anything anyone did back in the 30's and 40's somehow set the tone for everything that's happened at TCU over the last 20 years."
 
Disagree, to some extent.  I think that the championships and great teams of the 30's & 40's (and 50's, as well) set both a high bar that many at TCU wanted to return to, and a knowledge and confidence that "it could/should happen again at TCU".
 
It seems (to me) that it is harder to attain the highest goals when there are few/no championships or winning tradition in your past.
 
There are other factors, naturally.  But I think the above plays a not insignificant role in helping the right kind of mind-set to gel.
I don't think the kids of today are motivated in any way by what happened 10 years ago, much less 80. Minnesota had a heck of a lot of championships back then but it's doing very little to help them now. Oregon has little to no history of success prior to 2000 but is now a top program. What today's players and coaches are accomplishing are their own accomplishments just like what guys like Baugh and Obrien did were their own accomplishments.
 

CountryFrog

Active Member
Leap Frog said:
 
I can say it because Dutch set the standard with two NC's-- we have been chasing it (and will most likely get it under G.P's leadership) ever since. Today is the best and the sky's the limit.
 
Not going to pick for the Rushmore-- have to leave too many greats off. But, any selection that leaves Swink off is overlooking the fact that he may be the only student-athlete to be two-time first team A.A, plus two-time academic A.A. Yes, the books count for something in college.                                                                              
Swink was great for sure. No telling what he could've done in the NFL if he'd tried. Pro football wasn't as big of a deal back then as it is now.

I disagree that books count for anything in a football conversation just as I'm sure football counts for nothing once you decide to become a doctor. I don't think Dr Swink got any extra credit thrown at him in the medical field for his fast 40 time nor would he have wanted that.
 

SwissArmyFrog

Active Member
I wasn't speaking of the kids of today.  At all, really.  Rather, a mind-set that permeates the program - coaches, alumni, etc...  I think all of that trickles down to the kids and makes them proud to be part of a program. 
 
Oregon's achievement was all the greater because their more recent success didn't come on the shoulders of past success (that I'm aware of).  Kudos to them.  That doesn't happen very often.
 
Minnesota?  You're misunderstanding what I'm saying, I think.  I'm saying it is more difficult to achieve tremendous success  without having had it associated with the program before.  It will be easier for Minnesota to go back to greatness, if it ever happens, than it would if they had not ever experienced success.  I'm not saying past success = never having periods of low success, or even that past success always = future success.  I said past success makes future success a more favorable prospect than a program that had experienced no consistent, high level success in it's past.  
 
You could have said past success didn't do much to help the 60's - 80's TCU - that wasn't the point.  The point was that (returning to) success is an easier prospect if you have had real high-level success and a championship tradition, over a good period of time, in your past.  No guarantees, though.  And it takes WORK, and a lot of things falling into place, no doubt.
 
And, I do think that there are some kids - maybe not a great deal - who are interested in the history of their chosen school and its program, and are at least somewhat motivated, or at least, proud, of what went on before them, and look forward to being a part of it all.
 

CountryFrog

Active Member
SwissArmyFrog said:
I wasn't speaking of the kids of today.  At all, really.  Rather, a mind-set that permeates the program - coaches, alumni, etc...  I think all of that trickles down to the kids and makes them proud to be part of a program. 
 
And, I do think that there are some kids - maybe not a great deal - who are interested in the history of the school and its program, and are at least somewhat motivated, or at least, proud, of what went on before them, and look forward to being a part of it all.
The history is a point of pride for alumni and a talking point for coaches and ADs but ultimately it's the kids on the field that do the winning and losing so they are the most important factor in my mind. I don't think guys like LT, Dalton, Boykin, or GP came to TCU because of anything Dutch Meyer did. I also don't think any of the money flowing into the program now is because of him. That was the whole premise I was originally arguing was that somehow Dutch Meyer specifically should be at least partially credited with everything that's happened at TCU since 1998.
 

TopFrog

Lifelong Frog
I wasn't around for Dutch or Abe. GP is today's Dutch Martin for me and young fans who when they are in their 70s and 80s will talk of GP the way those like Leap talk about Dutch and Abe. Not that Leap doesn't love and appreciate GP. But Dutch and Abe set a standard that we wanted to get back to. GP has and is doing that. Thanks to a lot of others as well.
 

SwissArmyFrog

Active Member
CountryFrog said:
The history is a point of pride for alumni and a talking point for coaches and ADs but ultimately it's the kids on the field that do the winning and losing so they are the most important factor in my mind. I don't think guys like LT, Dalton, Boykin, or GP came to TCU because of anything Dutch Meyer did. I also don't think any of the money flowing into the program now is because of him. That was the whole premise I was originally arguing was that somehow Dutch Meyer specifically should be at least partially credited with everything that's happened at TCU since 1998.
 
I would say it is the *coaching* of the kids on the field that does the winning and losing.  I never said Dalton, et al, came to TCU because of what Meyer did - where on earth did you get that?  But to say we are not standing, in part, on the shoulders of those who came before us, and that is meaningless...well, I disagree.  You keep focusing on the individual kids who come to TCU.  I'm focusing on the program as a whole.  That includes the kids, but also includes MUCH that *affects* the kids.
 
All that aside, my original point was only that it is easier for a program that has had past GREAT, CONSISTENT  success in the past to resurrect that success than it is for a team to get to that level when it has not had a winning/championship tradition in its past.
 

CountryFrog

Active Member
SwissArmyFrog said:
 
I would say it is the *coaching* of the kids on the field that does the winning and losing.  I never said Dalton, et al, came to TCU because of what Meyer did - where on earth did you get that?  But to say we are not standing, in part, on the shoulders of those who came before us, and that is meaningless...well, I disagree.  You keep focusing on the individual kids who come to TCU.  I'm focusing on the program as a whole.  That includes the kids, but also includes MUCH that *affects* the kids.
 
All that aside, my original point was only that it is easier for a program that has had past GREAT, CONSISTENT  success in the past to resurrect that success than it is for a team to get to that level when it has not had a winning/championship tradition in its past.
I didn't get a lot of what I'm saying from you. This all started because I was arguing someone else's point that somehow Dutch Meyer specifically should be given a certain amount of credit for things that have happened under GP. That's it. That's the point I don't agree with and what I've been arguing against. I honestly don't know what you and I are debating about.
 
WestTexasFrog said:
Since 1998:

Coach Patterson
Tomlinson
Dalton
Bo Schobel
I think you mean Aaron Scobel

Jerry Hughes was a two time consensus AA (one of only 2 in TCU history) who is having a solid pro career so far. One of only 3 first round picks under GP (Tomlinson and Verrett are the others, I think- anyone else?) Dalton and Schobel weren't even on one AA team and bothe were second rounders. I think he's got a good argument for the "since 1998" list.
 

SwissArmyFrog

Active Member
CountryFrog said:
I didn't get a lot of what I'm saying from you. This all started because I was arguing someone else's point that somehow Dutch Meyer specifically should be given a certain amount of credit for things that have happened under GP. That's it. That's the point I don't agree with and what I've been arguing against. I honestly don't know what you and I are debating about.
 
Yes, I'm seeing this now, haha. 
 
Funny how these threads take a life of their own.. Simple question about the 4 best players...not coaches...I did consider Baugh, but never Lilly... My Swink pick was easy, he put TCU in the national spotlight as he graced the cover of Sports Illustrated. He was a 2 time All American, lead the nation in rushing averaging 8.2 yds per carry ( still a TCU record) 2 time first team All SWC , was on a TCU team that won a SWC championship and 2 back to back Cotton Bowls. Runner up in the Heisman, College Football Hall of Fame, Cotton Bowl Hall of Fame, Texas Sports Hall of Fame...some of you get it.. he was THAT good!! He belongs on TCU Mt Rushmore.
 

peacock

Active Member
Actually trying to think of one for #suckstoBU ..boy this is hard

RG3
Singletary
Teaff
?!?!? (Possibly fArt? JJ Joe?)
 
Top