http://texastech.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=964&tid=55200819&sid=&style=2

My IQ dropped 130 points just clicking that link.

whats that now.... a -50 IQ?



sorry

I was thinking I may be setting myself up for that response.

Still smart enough to be a technological valedictorian, narrowly beating out a pine tree and a cigar smoking chimp.

burntorangehouse has some serious issues. Anytime A&M is mentioned (even in a non-Big 12 teams forums) he pops up to talk smack. He is utterly obsessed. Sad really. Poor little guy.

Do those people not realize that A&M held Tech to 294 yards passing (extremely well below their average) in ouur 2004 game? Yes Cumbie sucked, and they will be deeper at WR depth. However, our defensive front will be stacked, our LB Corps will be the same if not better, and Gorrer & Newton/Carpenter should easily be better than Jonte Buhl and Byron Jones (decent in run support and blitzing off the corner, but severely lacking in pass coverage). In addition Japhous Brown and Jackson Appel will have Jordan Chambless helping them out in the nickel & dime packages.

unfit mother...

quote:

---

Do those people not realize that A&M held Tech to 294 yards passing (extremely well below their average) in ouur 2004 game?

---

Yes, we get it. We also realized that it took that effort, along with a crap performance from our QB, and at Kyle Field, to earn a win in overtime.

Had our QB even been average on that night, the game *probably* would have turned out differently. Granted, A&M had something to do with his poor performance, and that can't be diminished. A&M won, it was a great game, and your boys deserved the win.

The deal is that just as it is a specious claim for me to suggest Tech's QB will perform better this year than last, it's also specious to assume that your DB performance will be as good as it was last year.

Both Tech and A&M should be improved teams from last year. A&M could well beat Tech this year, but it will take a similar performance from your defense and our offense to make it happen.

As loaded as A&M's offense is this year, it's my opinion that they cannot win in a track meet against Tech's offense - because as loaded as your offense is, ours is at the very least equally loaded.

Game's in Lubbock, our defense should be better than last year's, and if we get just serviceable performance from our QB, it's not even a slight reach to suggest that Tech could win this game.

If you were an oddsmaker for the Las Vegas Hilton, and you had to stake your job on setting a line for that game right now, where would you put the line?

I'd put it at about Tech -4.

-td

Does it amuse anyone else that they have taken to referring to their QB simply as the "Tceh QB"? Even they have started to realize that it doesn't matter who the guy is or how bad he actually sucks. At some point that system is going to get beat down and get beat down bad.

I do appreciate a reasonable assessment though that doesn't involve suggesting that tech is going to put up 500 points or some other absurd predictions for this game.

Lucius, we have a pretty solid stable of QB's, some of which were highly regarded recruits.

To say we don't have talent at QB would be a mistake.

The reason I refer to our QB as "our QB", rather than by name, is that to my knowledge Coach Leach hasn't named a starter yet.

As a fan of the school, rather than of a player, I find some comfort in the idea that our whole season doesn't hinge on the performance of an individual.

As many threads as there are comparing Reggie to Vince, and threads wondering what happens if Reggie or Vince get hurt, I can tell you that I am VERY pleased with the idea that with our stable of QB's we're not so concerned about losing one particular player as either the Horns or the Ags are.

Seems like good coaching to me, don't you think?

-td

quote:

---

If you were an oddsmaker for the Las Vegas Hilton, and you had to stake your job on setting a line for that game right now, where would you put the line?

I'd put it at about Tech -4.

---

Its -3 right now

You can't tell me that in the grand scheme of things it actually matters on a yearly basis whether or not one of your QBs goes down. My God, Cumbie looked good in that offense.

Of course the QB matters....it's absolutely crucial. It's true that whoever is back there will throw for a lot of yards because of the attempts. But you've still got to be smart, make plays, and keep the turnovers down. Cumbie looked extremely average in Tech's offense. He had 2 or 3 games all year where he looked great. It should be fun to watch when one of our highly touted recruits comes in a starts for 2 or 3 years.

Cumbie did not look good at all in most of his games.

It's funny how tech fans are so quick to point out that Cumbie sucks. Never mind that he led them to their best season in recent memory and a Holiday Bowl victory. He lost to A&M, and that, to tech fans, is unforgiveable. Therefore, tech fans everywhere throw the guy under the bus. This proves, once again, that the A&M game is everything to these people.

Cumbie sucked

quote:

---

He lost to A&M, and that, to tech fans, is unforgiveable. Therefore, tech fans everywhere throw the guy under the bus. This proves, once again, that the A&M game is everything to these people.

---

Yeah, atm was a very winnable game had the QB even had an average day. But he also lost to f'n New Mexico and sucked against UT and OU.

Regarding the Holliday Bowl, props to Cumbie. He saved his best for last.


[This message has been edited by ttechguy (edited 8/1/2005 1:56p).]

PBA, are you really that stupid or blind? Cumbie was terrible. The reason we had a decent season last year was that we finally started building something resembling a football defense.

Cumbie was serviceable in the games we won (except Kansas, as I recall). He was terrible in the games we lost. He wasn't especially good in any game except Cal, in my opinion.

Surely you recognize that if we'd had Kingsbury or Symons last year instead of Cumbie, we would have had a better season.

I'm making the assumption that Cumbie graduating wasn't a loss, and that we've got at least 2 players - probably 3 - that will be able to perform as well as he did.

Yeah, there's gonna be a break-in period for a new starter. Good thing we've got a bunch of tin cans lined up.

That said, if our QB this year is no better than our QB last year, I'm in for a big disappointment.

-td

quote:

---

Yeah, atm was a very winnable game had the QB even had an average day. But he also lost to f'n New Mexico and sucked against UT and OU

---

That's because your team wasn't that good. Football is a team sport partner. None of your players looked that good against A&M that day. Your best reciever had to commit blatant offensive pass interference to GET the game to go to OT. Plus, our offense didn't play that well that day either.

Face it. Tech has never been anything other than a mediocre team.

Great points.

quote:

---

That said, if our QB this year is no better than our QB last year, I'm in for a big disappointment.

---

I'm still not sure what makes Tech fans so sure this year's Qb will be any better than Cumbie. Hodges was there last year, and had been for the previous three. He knew the offense just as well as Cumbie. Additionally, that offense isn't supposed to be that difficult to learn, per the words of your demi-God Qb from 2003, BJ Symons, who claimed it was the easiest offense he'd ever been in at any level. Leach gave Cumbie the nod last year, because he gave Tech the better chance to win. Why do you think that if Hodges gets the nod (which all things say he will at this point), he'll even be as good, let alone BETTER, than Cumbie?

Because Cumbie was average at best last year. As pointed out above, he was serviceable in most games, downright crappy in a few, and then outstanding in the bowl game. There is no reason to think Hodges can't at least be average. And he's a lot more mobile than slow a$$ Cumbie. This is a new wrinkle that Leach hasn't had in his tenure....a QB that can go get a first down with his legs every once in a while. The receivers are more experienced this year. Hendo is a senior. Add that to the fact that the defense returns 8 or 9 and the schedule is much more favorable...this should be a better year than last.

quote:

---

Great points

---

Ditto, dude. You're essentially saying, in regards to Hodges > Cumbie...that he's going to be better because he just HAS to be better, because Cumbie was only average. That makes no sense. Fact is, Cumbie beat out Hodges last year, and Hodges is your QB this year. The only reliable evidence indicates : Cumbie > Hodges, or Hodges < Cumbie.

Also..I was at the Tech spring game. Hodges didn't look that mobile..certainly no more than Symons was.

quote:

---

he's going to be better because he just HAS to be better, because Cumbie was only average. That makes no sense.

---

No, I'm saying that, worst case scenario, I know we have somebody on the team who is better than average. If it's not Hodges, then he will not start..it would be Harrell or Todd or Daugherty.

Regarding Hodges mobility, I said he was much more mobile than Cumbie, not Symons...who was very mobile until he blew out his ACL.

Besides, I'm not the only one who thinks Tech will be better. Tech is ranked in darn near every pre-season poll...average rank is better than atm.

Actually, if you look at the preseason mags, I think all of them except 1 have A&M ranked higher.

quote:

---

Besides, I'm not the only one who thinks Tech will be better. Tech is ranked in darn near every pre-season poll...average rank is better than atm.

---

Are you done making stuff up now?

Insiders' Football
18. Texas A&M
21. Texas Tech

Lindy's
16. Texas A&M
21. Texas Tech

CBS Sportsline
17. Texas A&M
22. Texas Tech

Street & Smith's
17. Texas A&M
24. Texas Tech

Sporting News
14. Texas A&M
NR Texas Tech

Athlon
21. Texas Tech
NR Texas A&M

Phil Steele
18. Texas A&M
21. Texas Tech

http://www.statesman.com/sports/content/sports/stories/other/08/1mags.html

www.masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm

I don't know about you, but when I think college football rankings, the first names that come to mind are Gridmarks, Massey, and Billingsley. What a joke.

ttechguy, no offense there, but who in the Hell are:
Howell Moore PerformanZ
Keeper Billingsley Congrove
Claassen Dokter CSL
Massey DeSimone Solecismic
Dwiggins Gridmarks Thurman

I typically like to stick to names I've heard of when looking at preseason polls.