Aldo

In Articles of Secession from the states, it says (I am paraphrasing) "We want to be able to have slaves, and get them back if they escape to anti-slave states. You can't make them free." The Missouri Compromise and 3/5th Compromise were all devised to keep slaveholding states in power. After the South lost the war, there were many freedmen that were voted in to seats at various levels of government. In 1868, former slaveholders were no happy, and so they basically went around and started murdering freedmen in the thousands to suppress voter turnout, and to remove them from office (look it up). Then Jim Crowe. Then the reaction to Brown v Board of Education (that's where all the confederate flags started showing up that weren't even the well-known confederate flags). This ain't about fighting to preserve state identity. It's a different fight to preserve identity we're talking about.

And enough with the "color blind" stupidity. I'm brown and I will take you on a damn taco tour. Embrace that I love my culture, and it could potentially be different than yours.

Yes! Thank you! This is a fantastic question and I think our discussion needs to be focused here moving forward. As someone who is ethnically ambiguous, and who some people couldn't figure out which slur to throw at me, I can give a little perspective here. Other people of color please chime in. I was afraid to. I wanted to fit in to middle-class, white culture. Laugh off the stereotypes and the slurs so I could exist in that lifestyle. Why is it different now? Well, I'm no longer a kid, we're all comparing notes and saying, hey that happened to me too! We are coming together and saying, enough. This America shouldn't be glorifying the homogenous of old, violently grasping at the ways things were. We just want representation, and a voice, and not just in sports. We are tired of getting dismissed. "It's just a joke! If you don't like it, just leave!" No, you leave, hombre. I can have my taco and eat it too.

My coworkers haven't appreciated all the clapping I've been doing with soapy hands. Also I get carried away and flap my wings. Also tried Glory to the Green and that made an even bigger mess.

Not necessarily one and done. 3-4 years a possibility, given that NCAA could potentially allow one-time transfer for immediate eligibility (per that thread in my OP). Does that change your opinion going into 2020? If not, edge rusher or run stopper a priority for you?

This is exactly my motivation for a stud WR. A stud D-Line can get you the stop you need when you're down 3, but the best they can do is get you better field position. While that is a very necessary part of the game (increases points probability), you still need someone to get it to the end zone to win it.

I hear you. But I need me some points. I can definitely see a case for QB, since it really changes a team, but even with a guy like Mason, receivers not being able to get open within 3-5 seconds got him killed too often with that OL. Next year, I'm not sure the o-line is going to make that huge of a leap, and Bean has some legs. The outside receivers are still young. Put a stud outside and it relieves some pressure off the inside guys. Add a big body like Christian Lee for the ensuing mismatches. Profit.

The conversations happening in the thread below had me thinking about a hypothetical: What if you could pick one game-changing, day 1-starting, rolex-wearing, transfer stud? Given our current roster going into 2020 Which position would that be Are you picking for need, or are you picking for overall impact? Fight! I'm going with WR for impact. The drop-off after Rico went down was huge. Yes we had production in that group - so there's not exactly a need like OLine - but when it counted, there were dropped passes and missed opportunities that contributed to L's (Cal?). In many games, there was enough defense to give the offense a chance, but it never happened. Granted, there was a lot of inexperience there, but there wasn't one guy that elevated the entire offense quite like Bussey/Guyton did when they were healthy. "But who's going to pass it to them?" you may ask. I point you to the McNulty and Harris connection. You can call it chicken or the egg situation, but Harris was fed. Watching him play, Bean is a better, more accurate, and more mobile QB than McNulty already. Imagine a star WR with an accurate QB?

It's that top-heavy, administrative bloat. Too many overpaid VPs. I recall mid-recession hiring and raise freezes, while VPs were getting bonuses and stipends (some, not all).

Holy crap he has left a trail of awesomeness.

*Googles for 10 seconds* He was getting paid $30K to be on our staff. Opportunity to be OC at a very wealthy school that churns out QBs?

Nice area, nice student-run restaurant, and that stadium esta pretty nice. Not Apogee nice obviously, but nice.

That is true for any scheme, player, coach, team. If your QB sucks, your team sucks.

These are two different statements. Passing does not need a run game. I've run the numbers on NFL play by play data. Taking a look at sequence, there is no difference between passing success after successful/non-successful rushes. Passing brings more yards, and more successful plays, and higher probability of points on each attempt. Successful rushing has a smaller impact on both points scored and win % than passing does. By a lot. Teams can use the run game in more creative ways, throwing defenses off balance. Down and distance, position of the field, score differential, all that matters. But like you imply, having a good rush or pass game won't help if your playcaller is plain bad at their job, no matter the scheme.

Right. (Stoops OC and Fry player, too, for the 1985 #1 ranked Iowa team). Point is, he likes to chuck it. Pun motherloving intended. Passing is better than running. Play action is better than running. Don't get me wrong, smashmouth football gets me up in the morning, in that special way. But passing wins games, and both Mumme and Long are aware.

For anyone wondering, the St Louis OC is Chuck Long who is known for *checks notes* running the air raid Please correct me if I am wrong

*logs back into gmg*

@outoftown I wonder if the "in kind" equates to wifi in the dorms or some such?

Hey. Don't you stop the incoming 10 pages of Kansas, Tennessee, loyalties, bowl games, and a sprinkling of UTSA derision.

Three disjointed thoughts: College teams put plenty of resources into analytics, and have for years. It brings an added advantage to situational football. I do lean towards what Billy said. Dunno if Walsh is still the coach there, but I got a weird vibe from him during the Kevin Dillman deal. Agree that we have more holes in other position groups. I'm sure there's an o-line pun there, but they may be saving the last scholarships on someone we don't know about yet to keep from getting sniped.

I may be remembering incorrectly but does that mean we can't recruit from Argyle HS for 2 years? Or does that only apply to high school HC

Reeder had some good concepts. Ultimately I think they waited too long to adjust the play-calling to the inexperience on offense. Game-planning I felt improved. They attacked opposing defenses' weaknesses well, even if poor execution limited exploits. But in the end Took too long for the offense to get a handle on the new scheme, even if some passing concepts carried over Defenses picked up on it quickly in game, and we didn't adjust. Eg, too many screens, RB passes early on in the season, reducing yards per play Not enough vertical passing until later in the season which could be due to Too much youth and inexperience on the outside with Guyton and Bussey gone.

Agree about Deonte. Lots of contribution for a freshman receiver. Darden was the last freshman receiver to produce as much, iirc. Kevin Wood was a productive guy in limited time, too.