|
|
Post by steveaztec on Jul 2, 2010 9:08:07 GMT -8
I posted this on another thread, but I thought they made decent improvements throughout the year running the ball, at times, off-tackle, and particularly pulling a la student body left, and the other pulling derivations of the sweep. Can they, and let us not totally dismiss the importance of the running backs in hitting holes quick and aggressively, run the ball inbetween the tackles? Pass protection was adequate to pretty good last year, of course some improvement could be made. They need to get a little meaner and be able to control the middle of the line, but I do think they'll be better this year. Hillman sounds like he'll be good, kazee hopefully will show some consistency and sullivan will continue to be solid, and then the big fullback, the kid from NAU/Juco, a frosh like Muema, etc need to improve as a unit too Agree with all of this. And on the JC players. If just 2 of the 3 JC Olineman are as advertised and can contribute as starters or in the two deep, I feel the Oline will get that running game going enough to give Lindley time to throw. |
|
|
|
Post by Fred Noonan on Jul 2, 2010 9:12:39 GMT -8
With no "facts" to base this on I will commit to saying I hope Steve is right. But, until such time as I actually see it I remain the steadfast Aztec from Missouri (the "Show Me" State). The Fred Noonan School of Navigation.  |
|
|
|
Post by ron on Jul 2, 2010 9:37:07 GMT -8
To me it's pretty simple: If we don't go at least 3-1 OOC, then the O-line is bad no matter who is manning it. So, if we don't go at least 3-1 they are bad, but if we get the 3 wins they aren't necessarily good? Did I get that straight? BTW, Lindley has to stay healthy for us to expect any wins aside from the opener. |
|
|
|
Post by ron on Jul 2, 2010 17:22:10 GMT -8
What if the offense plays well but we lose because the D stinks? You're being a bit simplistic.
|
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jul 2, 2010 18:21:59 GMT -8
What if the offense plays well but we lose because the D stinks? You're being a bit simplistic. I agree. I think the defense and it's inability to stop either the run or the pass killed us at times last year - they played well at times (like the Air Force game) but they also had some really bad games - just like the Oline. Secondary and dline were as bad as units as the oline, maybe worse. |
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jul 2, 2010 20:21:41 GMT -8
What if the offense plays well but we lose because the D stinks? You're being a bit simplistic. Well that would mean we'd have a coaching problem (which we would anyway if we lose any of those three games). Teams that can't 't win more than a 1/3 of their games for half a dozen years have talent problems |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2010 23:02:02 GMT -8
They will be decent they have had two solid years in the weight room with a good coach.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecx on Jul 3, 2010 9:26:51 GMT -8
If we go 3-1 that does not automatically make them a good O-line, but if we don't it shows for sure that they aren't a good O-line. I agree, but I think it would make them an average Oline. And that is what I am saying in this thread. We are going to go from a bad (inexperienced) Oline to an average (experienced) Oline and should be good enough to get us 6 wins. Steve, I gotta say, they looked horrific last year. Watch the AFA game again. They were bad last year. The 3 jucos are the key. They need to step up. The O line needs to be better than avg. for the team to succeed |
|
|
|
Post by aztech on Jul 3, 2010 9:48:52 GMT -8
They will be decent they have had two solid years in the weight room with a good coach. Like they say in the military. "Your men look pretty, but can they fight?" |
|
|
|
Post by aztech on Jul 3, 2010 10:32:09 GMT -8
I posted this on another thread, but I thought they made decent improvements throughout the year running the ball, at times, off-tackle, and particularly pulling a la student body left, and the other pulling derivations of the sweep. Can they, and let us not totally dismiss the importance of the running backs in hitting holes quick and aggressively, run the ball inbetween the tackles? Pass protection was adequate to pretty good last year, of course some improvement could be made. They need to get a little meaner and be able to control the middle of the line, but I do think they'll be better this year. Hillman sounds like he'll be good, kazee hopefully will show some consistency and sullivan will continue to be solid, and then the big fullback, the kid from NAU/Juco, a frosh like Muema, etc need to improve as a unit too Agree, those runs between the tackles have to be effective this year. Getting positive yards up the middle is the difference between a first down or 3 and out. I've seen our RBs look like they hit a wall at the LOS and get shoved backwards, way too many times. I could understand Borges' trying to make a statement, but it was laughable. |
|
|
|
Post by steveaztec on Jul 3, 2010 11:40:46 GMT -8
I agree, but I think it would make them an average Oline. And that is what I am saying in this thread. We are going to go from a bad (inexperienced) Oline to an average (experienced) Oline and should be good enough to get us 6 wins. Steve, I gotta say, they looked horrific last year. Watch the AFA game again. They were bad last year. The 3 jucos are the key. They need to step up. The O line needs to be better than avg. for the team to succeed But not to go 6-6 with this schedule. |
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jul 3, 2010 11:52:35 GMT -8
Steve, I gotta say, they looked horrific last year. Watch the AFA game again. They were bad last year. The 3 jucos are the key. They need to step up. The O line needs to be better than avg. for the team to succeed But not to go 6-6 with this schedule. The schedule has been dumbed-down for some time, and even when it wasn't we usually had a top half big10 team and a middle of the road pac10 team and a couple of cupcakes. |
|
|
|
Post by steveaztec on Jul 3, 2010 12:40:17 GMT -8
But not to go 6-6 with this schedule. The schedule has been dumbed-down for some time, and even when it wasn't we usually had a top half big10 team and a middle of the road pac10 team and a couple of cupcakes. Yes it has....but this schedule and last years schedule are the two weakest Aztec schedules I have seen in 25 years or so. We should have won 6 last year and should win 6 this year (or 7). |
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jul 3, 2010 12:46:54 GMT -8
The schedule has been dumbed-down for some time, and even when it wasn't we usually had a top half big10 team and a middle of the road pac10 team and a couple of cupcakes. Yes it has....but this schedule and last years schedule are the two weakest Aztec schedules I have seen in 25 years or so. We should have won 6 last year and should win 6 this year (or 7). If you have a habit of winning 4 games or less, and one difficult game is removed (or the schedule is basically the same), something is still missing here. We could have won 6 last year, we should win 6 this year, we must win at least 6 the year after. |
|
|
|
Post by k5james on Jul 3, 2010 14:43:06 GMT -8
The schedule has been dumbed-down for some time, and even when it wasn't we usually had a top half big10 team and a middle of the road pac10 team and a couple of cupcakes. Yes it has....but this schedule and last years schedule are the two weakest Aztec schedules I have seen in 25 years or so. We should have won 6 last year and should win 6 this year (or 7). We should have won six in '04, '05, '06, etc... All of our schedules since the late 90's have been dumbed down. |
|
|
|
Post by steveaztec on Jul 3, 2010 14:47:12 GMT -8
Yes it has....but this schedule and last years schedule are the two weakest Aztec schedules I have seen in 25 years or so. We should have won 6 last year and should win 6 this year (or 7). We should have won six in '04, '05, '06, etc... All of our schedules since the late 90's have been dumbed down. I will disagree on this. The difference is that we have easier schedules the last 2 years than the 3 years you mentioned (although yes, they were dumbed down).....And this team is much more experienced, has some upper classmen and some depth. We also have a better coaching staff now. I do agree those 3 teams should have won more than they did. |
|
|
|
Post by ron on Jul 3, 2010 14:58:27 GMT -8
Sorry, but there are too many posters that think they can predict how good the teams are that we'll be playing, when they really have no clue. How many were convinced that Idaho was a bad team and that we had no business losing to them, even though they went on to win a bowl game?
We don't know how much our guys will improve, or how much quality depth there will be. How about injuries? Let's wait and see how fall camp lays out before coming to any conclusions.
|
|
|
|
Post by ron on Jul 3, 2010 15:00:56 GMT -8
What if the offense plays well but we lose because the D stinks? You're being a bit simplistic. Well that would mean we'd have a coaching problem (which we would anyway if we lose any of those three games). Or, it could mean we don't yet have enough talent. I don't know that we have the CB's yet to be consistently good on D. You will likely blame Rocky Long, but I've seen enough of his D's to know he knows what he's doing. It may not get done as fast as you think it should, but I think he will get it done. |
|
|
|
Post by k5james on Jul 3, 2010 15:05:14 GMT -8
I will disagree on this. The difference is that we have easier schedules the last 2 years than the 3 years you mentioned (although yes, they were dumbed down).....And this team is much more experienced, has some upper classmen and some depth. We also have a better coaching staff now. I do agree those 3 teams should have won more than they did. You'd be wrong. Your boy didn't exactly have a murderer's row. The schedules during the Chuckles era were pretty much equal to what we played last year. A decent BCS team (UCLA/Notre Dame) an FCS school (Southern Utah/Cal Poly) and two WAC schools (Idaho/SJSU vs Idaho/NMSU) |
|
|
|
Post by steveaztec on Jul 3, 2010 15:18:40 GMT -8
I will disagree on this. The difference is that we have easier schedules the last 2 years than the 3 years you mentioned (although yes, they were dumbed down).....And this team is much more experienced, has some upper classmen and some depth. We also have a better coaching staff now. I do agree those 3 teams should have won more than they did. You'd be wrong. Your boy didn't exactly have a murderer's row. The schedules during the Chuckles era were pretty much equal to what we played last year. A decent BCS team (UCLA/Notre Dame) an FCS school (Southern Utah/Cal Poly) and two WAC schools (Idaho/SJSU vs Idaho/NMSU) Yes, we will just have to disagree. My boy?....My boy is Brady Hoke. |
|
