Then why are you replying to my point/post, which was that I thought Gabe was an idiot for hyping him as a first rounder? I didn't say Gabe was an idiot for calling him a Heisman contender. He was very much a Heisman frontrunner at that point because it was early in the year, none of the preseason favorites were playing well, and we won a prime time game against a name opponent. At that point, there was definite Heisman talk. But again, that wasn't what I faulted Gabe for. My point is very simple: if you want to be a credible analyst, you need to be knowledgeable enough to evaluate talent, and impartial enough to do so even with the team you cover. If you don't, smart listeners will either stop listening, or just not take you seriously. I still listen because I like Teddy, and because every now and then Gabe will shoot straight, but it is always after the fact. I mean, I had never laid eyes on guys like Gibson and Thomas, but going into the season, I was confident they wouldn't be great players for us because I had heard the same hype a million times previously. A guy who is paid to analyze the team should eventually learn his lesson.
I don't know how they come up with the QBR number. Doesn't it take into account rushing?
Huh? You don’t think labeling someone as a first round pick after four mediocre games speaks to his credibility as an analyst? And how about all the other examples I gave of him pumping up guys as “dogs” and “difference makers?” Is Hicks our star running back yet? Is Gibson jumping over guys and coming down with 50/50 balls because of his size and athleticism? The list goes on and on. I can’t think of a single skill guy he has been right about over the past three years. He is either a terrible judge of talent, incapable of being impartial when it comes to OU, or a combination thereof.
That Bad auburn team dominated Baylor in Waco and would beat 90% of big12 teams. Same with Texas and Michigan would be a top 3 team in the big12. As you say, FFS.
Baylor is 2-3 in the Big 12, with one of those wins against OSU. Congrats, you have established that we are better than a team likely to finish 10th in the Big 12. As for basic facts, I will point to the one that matters in assessing Brent and the Big 12: 10-8, which was his record against said conference. Would that get us a league title?
What stat did I misquote? Was it not Mateer throwing those INTs?
You said his QBR was the same against Michigan as the rest of the season.
OU would dominate the Big12 and cruise to a big12 title with this team. Texas tech and Cincinnati are two of the best teams and we would kick the crap out of both and Utah and byu and everyone else. It wouldn’t be close. Then we might win a playoff game until we played an actual good team that would beat us.
If you look at the rosters of teams in this league vs big12, it’s laughable. This league has the most talented players and the most talented coaches. It’s a completely different level every week. We played south Carolina and Auburn, who aren’t great teams but they have NFL players everywhere and they play really good defense. Yet wichita thinks it’s the same as playing mid teams in the big12. It’s a joke and you can’t argue with people that refuse to acknowledge basic facts.
Their offense is great. Their defense is suspect. If you look at every top 10 team, they all have issues. Bama can’t run the ball and defense is mid. Oregon is suspect. Ohio st and Indiana could be great but it’s hard to tell when they only play Big10 teams. Nobody has really separated themselves.
