Okay, this is getting off topic. Y'all have your freaking racial argument somewhere else (Horns and Ags both).

The important question is, why did Vince get so much better this year, while Reggie started great, then spent most of November and Jan 1 curled up in the fetal position?

And how did A&M magically turn into Baylor coming up out of the halftime lockerrooms for two straight T+1's?

Answer to question #1 - O-line. They were just not a very good unit for the past several years. Perhaps most obvious was the Tennessee game, where they flat got out-athleted.

Question #2 - also related to #1...conditioning. This was becoming a major problem in RC's last few years, and continues to linger. That affects both second half performance, and performance as the season wears on.

So your line blocked fine in the 1st halves, but fell apart in the 2nd halves for those reasons?

Must be, cause any other possible reason (like say...halftime adjustments) would indicate poor coaching by the current staff.

This whole "we didn't lose, we ran out of time" thing y'all claim needs to change to "we didn't lose, they just made us play the 2nd half."

No. If you are only conditioned well enough to play 24 minutes instead of 48, that makes the second half more difficult. Take a look at Jorrie Adams. He looks like a fat tub of goo, while Tennessee's O and D-lines (and Texas' by the way) are much better conditioned athletes.

And I am not saying we ran out of time. If there had been 5 quarters, it would get nothing but worse.

Meanwhile ..... back to the 810 SAT. I believe NCAA D1 schools require a 900 now unless VY was a PQ. A cabbage can make a 900. B-1 83 Daughter made over a 900 in the 7th grade while in the Duke University program.

quote:

---

Vince is rather bright by any standards.

---

That is an exponentially stupid statement.

Sarge-

I thought Fran brought conditioning to this team. It doesn't take over 2 years to do it.

I'm still waiting for the proof that vince is smart.

I'm still waiting for proof he got an 810 on his SAT

quote:

---

quote:
No, but keeping his cool and conjuring up spectacular drives late in games does


Missouri and OU were laughing at hime.....

---

I don't get it. Does the fact that Vince struggled in a couple of games during his sophomore year make him a bad quarterback? I wonder if Bishop or Reggie struggled in any games during their sophomore year?

Bishop won a NC in his sophomore year, so I'm guessing he didn't struggle too much.

quote:

---

No. If you are only conditioned well enough to play 24 minutes instead of 48,

---

Conditioning is the single easiest thing to improve as a coach. If you're players aren't conditioned, I would say that directly falls on the shoulders of the coaching staff.

Are you trying to denigate Vince by comparing him to Bishop and Crouch?

Bishop finished second in Heisman voting and Crouch won it. And they both won significantly more games than Reggie McNeal. So I don't get it.

True JTaylor, but they also got embarrassed (well, their team mostly) in their final bowl game.

So again, a comparison to Reggie is more relevant in that sense.

Bishop won a JC national championship- wow, Vince must be worse then ..

At least the above referenced party at UT didn't hire young African Americas to pick cotton in the front yard. (pot meet kettle) Both party examples are disgusting and don't portray either university accurately.

quote:

---

Conditioning is the single easiest thing to improve as a coach.

---

This is one of the single most idiotic posts I think I have ever read from someone who is attempting to make a serious analytical point.

Conditioing is the single easiest thing to improve as a player. A coach can set up the mechanisms and programs, but he can't do the work for the kids. This is why it typically takes 3 years to turn a program around....to allow a new coaches' own recruits, who share his work ethic, to red-shirt, eat chow, lift weights and make it to the line-up.

I am not ripping on individual athletes, but the fact of the matter is the under RC, we had developed into a complacent head coach, which breeds a lazy coaching staff, which leads to lazy players. Evidence that by a member of the old coaching staff who interviewed with Fran, then said he wasn't going to stay because he "didn't wan't to work that hard".

Running a few team wind sprints does not miraculously "fix" conditioning problems, geniuis. It is a mental frame of mind and a work ethic that must be changed.

A QB's job is to put points on the board. If I were putting money on who would lead their team to more points it would go in this order.

1.Vince
2.Bishop
3.McNeal

Yes, a lot of that has to do with surrounding talent, but I don't know any other way to compare them. Points and Wins are all that matter for a QB.

I think I found the problem.


We need to be conditioned to play a full 60 minutes and not 48.


I can't believe this is still at the top of page 1. I never said Radio wasn't an exceptional athlete, just he wasn't as good of an all around QB as Bishop or McNeal

If you choose to still use last years team achievment as a measuring stick for Radio success, then you might want to not forget a couple of things.


The planets seemed to align just right for y'all in three of the games where one play in each could have turned a 'W' into a 'L'.

1. A stupid fumble by Jones cost the piggies a relatively short FG for a chance to win.

2. The 'phantom' offensive pass interference call vs. Kansas which allowed Radio an additional chance to pull it out.

3. Finally, the tipped FG in the Rose Bowl. If the corner for Michigan hadn't trimmed his fingernails for a week, he blocks it enough to win instead of it fluttering just over the corner of the uprights from what was it?...38 yards?

Cus the 'moral victory' all you want, but the facts are you were three plays away from 4 losses.

2004 For The Beer Champion
http://www.forthebeer.com/standings.php

quote:

---

but the facts are you were three plays away from 4 losses.

---

Well, isn't that an obvious? Football games are made up of lots of plays that could have changed the outcome of the game. For every play you just mentioned, there are several in the respective games we could point to had we lost and said "if that play had been differently, we could have won, so we were only one play away from a ____ win season." A&M was a play away from beating OU. They were also a play away from losing to Colorado and Tech. I honestly don't understand why you think that saying we almost lost cheapens the fact that we won those games.

quote:

---

This is one of the single most idiotic posts I think I have ever read from someone who is attempting to make a serious analytical point.

Conditioing is the single easiest thing to improve as a player. A coach can set up the mechanisms and programs, but he can't do the work for the kids. This is why it typically takes 3 years to turn a program around....to allow a new coaches' own recruits, who share his work ethic, to red-shirt, eat chow, lift weights and make it to the line-up.

I am not ripping on individual athletes, but the fact of the matter is the under RC, we had developed into a complacent head coach, which breeds a lazy coaching staff, which leads to lazy players. Evidence that by a member of the old coaching staff who interviewed with Fran, then said he wasn't going to stay because he "didn't wan't to work that hard".

Running a few team wind sprints does not miraculously "fix" conditioning problems, geniuis. It is a mental frame of mind and a work ethic that must be changed.

---

Bear Bryant would have disagreed with you, but what did he know about coaching football? The reason he took those boys out to Junction was to instill that mental toughness in them. The coaches decide what drills are run and how many reps are done, etc. You can force players to become better conditioned athletes by making them tougher. If players are sluffing off, then the coach isn't doing his job as a motivator.

USC was one play away from losing to Cal.
UT was 1 play away from beating OU.
So if those 2 plays didn't happen then UT plays Auburn for the National Championship.

A&M was one play away from beating Baylor.

[This message has been edited by '98 Horn (edited 7/13/2005 3:37p).]

quote:

---

Bear Bryant would have disagreed with you, but what did he know about coaching football? The reason he took those boys out to Junction was to instill that mental toughness in them.

---

If you're trying to prove Sarge's point for him, you're doing a masterful job.

The fact of the matter is, Bear Bryant took more than one hundred men out to Junction and brought back fewer than thirty. The guys who couldn't hack it quit the team. Bryant lost more than 2/3 of his players, not because he quit but becuase they quit. So it was up to them.

. . . Fast forward 50 years . . .

Off-campus, pre-season training is illegal. Cameras -- from local sports desks to ESPN -- chronicle every minute of practice. The amount of time alloted to practice is mandated by the NCAA -- as are water breaks, practice in full pads and other particulars. Bear Bryant knew that he had time to forge a team and take it to the brink of disaster before bringing it to prominence. Modern-day coaches have one year . . . two if they're lucky . . . to meet booster expectations. The Junction Boys were farmers, ranchers and roughnecks from the hardscrabble towns of rural Texas. Modern players are coddled urbanites who grow up thinking their ability to carry a football entitles them to godliness. Running off players in the past got a coach a pat on the back for culling the herd. Now, leads to recriminations by boosters and rivals alike.

"Conditioning," as someone said earlier, isn't about the body, it's about the mind. If you don't have it in you to put in the work, you're not going to be worth a damn in the 4th quarter. You can't be "coached" into a willingness to put forth that effort -- to endure that pain -- if you don't have it in you to begin with. Anyone who has ever participated in any athletic event of any consequence knows this.

quote:

---

"Conditioning," as someone said earlier, isn't about the body, it's about the mind. If you don't have it in you to put in the work, you're not going to be worth a damn in the 4th quarter. You can't be "coached" into a willingness to put forth that effort -- to endure that pain -- if you don't have it in you to begin with. Anyone who has ever participated in any athletic event of any consequence knows this.

---

I will just have to dissagree with you then. I think a coach should have standards that should be met. Anyone not meeting the standards should be kicked off the team. Coaching includes the ability to motivate your players to go beyond what they think is possible. I may not have participated in an athletic event "of consequence" due to my own cancer story (I wasn't as lucky in my treatment as Lance... it's only because God saved me that I'm even able to get out of bed), but I learned at an early age that you give it all when you play or you don't play.

Thanks, Col. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Discussion over....let this thread die. Nothing more intelligent can be added.

Especially by sodium....

Who is on the box of NCAA 2006? Hint. It's not Reggie McKneal.

Maybe McNeal is in the background in the pic of Vince striking the heisman pose at kyle field.

Man, you guys really shouldn't talk abour Reggie like this.

After all, he is YOUR quarterback.

Peace out.

Bishop > VY
The main difference is Bishop won his division. VY can't even do that, much less win the conference.

Face it horns, it takes a passing game to win a title in this era of college football and that sip can't throw.

I want proof he got 810 also. Did he take the test blindfolded? Or screw up on his name?

Reggie McNeal >>>>> Radio

Just wait 'til they get into the NFL where the talent is more spread out overall and it will be crystal clear that Reggie is better. Radio will be a draft bust bc he can't pass. Vince is as good as yalls OL...which happens to be pretty damn good. Any QB could put up ridiculous #'s behind a line that can manhandle 90+% of the teams yall play. Look at how radio performs when the opposing teams DL that is just as good as t.u.'s OL. It isn't pretty (ie OU...and that Michigan defense this year was a very mediocre. Look at their stats. 78th in pts allowed compared to OU being 9th in that category. Not to mention 92nd in rushing TD's...pretty mediocre. OU was 9th this year against the run.)

The #'s Reggie puts up are with an average at best OL in front of him. Had Reggie gone to t.u., y'all would probably have another MNC by now.

[This message has been edited by CStewTAMU (edited 7/14/2005 12:54a).]

quote:

---

Yes, a lot of that has to do with surrounding talent

---

BINGO!

quote:

---

Just wait 'til they get into the NFL where the talent is more spread out overall and it will be crystal clear that Reggie is better. Radio will be a draft bust bc he can't pass.

---

It's almost sad to see Aggies giving up on their college careers (which is about 99% of what I personally care about) to compare them. Especially since half of Vince's career at The University (and pretty surely the better half, based on his development so far) is still ahead of him.

Actually, no...I take that back. It's more funny than sad.

[This message has been edited by tmr (edited 7/14/2005 1:52a).]

quote:

---

Had Reggie gone to t.u., y'all would probably have another MNC by now.

---

so you are saying that recruits should go to Texas? Thanks for the support. I agree, Reggie made a bad decision.

quote:

---

Bishop > VY
The main difference is Bishop won his division.

---

So by this logic, VY>RM because Reggie could never finish higher than 3rd in the South. Also don't forget the hundreds of QB's over the last decade that are better than RM because they won their own conference. Didn't Dustin Long win his conference last year? Man another one better than Reggie. Wow, he's not very good.

I think that the true measure of how good VY is will come this season when he is THE MAN on his team. That is a role that he has never had to fill before because of Benson in the backfield.

Last year, even during his stellar performance in the Rose Bowl, opposing DCs have prepped their defenses for the bruising between the tackles running game that Texas' stellar running backs and O-line have made so successful. I think that this year before any team goes up against Texas, they will be paying the most attention to VY as a run threat.

Now that VY is getting all the attention, how do you think that he will fare? Do you think that he will step up to the challenge of being the #1 weapon on the offense?

Let's discuss.