I agree with others that a lot of people are looking too much into who we beat this game and lost to in another game. You should only look at the full body of work of 7-6 4-4 and a bowl game and not try and over analyze every game. The record is good considering where we were at and I think that is what he should be judged on.
Actually you should look at the full body of work and consider not only the W/L record but how the team played in those games. The team, particularly on defense and particularly in the last half of the season, really played very poorly. I really didn't like what I saw happening on the field and my thoughts about Prince's likely success going forward are based almost entirely on that.
By last half of the season, I'm assuming you mean the last two games. That is hardly half the season. ku was a terribly coached game injuries or not. This was the only game that really raised any red flags. Rutgers was way too good for us and a terrible match-up at the same time. That was all there was to it. We didn't stand a chance, IMO, unless we could have played it at home. But again, the 7-6 4-4 in year one with what he inherited was very good I think. I would probably be more analytical into each and every game as his tenure progresses and he gets his guys in that really want to play in his system.
IMO the d was bad after the louiseville game but we're changing systems so it should be better now
Agreed. The offense was spotty but the defense fell apart early in the season and never really recovered. I'm not sure how much of that was coaching, how much talent (or lack thereof), how much injuries, etc. I was on the Tibesar bandwagon very early so I do expect some improvement this year but I don't think we're recruiting at a level that will allow the program to move beyond mediocrity.
I don't think it was so much the defense that was bad as it was the offense in a lot of these games.
Baylor - they scored 17 points and it was the stagnant offense that lost the game. A lot of offensive players got fired from their starting roles. We were a team in complete transition half way through it.
Okla St. - defense was pretty good considering OSUs offensive weapons, especially late when it counted. 24 pts
Nebraska - we held Nebraska to 21 points and they didn't have much success throwing the ball. Offense was completely out manned up front that caused the lopsided loss.
Missouri - not very good defense but it was multiple offensive turnovers to start the second half that led to 3? easy gimme scores on way to give up 41 pts.
Iowa St. - 10 pts, solid defense
Colorado - defense did well for the entire game except for a lapse in the 2nd half. 21 pts, not too bad on the road
Texas - defense did good outside the first drive of the game(Colt wasn't even in). Again, Texas received 2 breakdowns from the special teams and a Freeman INT to set up 3? very short scoring drives. 42 pts
Kansas - awful defense, awful offense 39? pts
Rutgers - awfule defense, awful offense 35 pts
What I see is a terrible offense way more than a terrible defense. It mostly comes back to a poor Oline and poor QB decision making. What really stood out on defense was people flying toward the ball and creating a lot of turnovers, something we never saw a lick of in 04 and 05. The point totals are a little higher than what you would like but Prince inherited no lynch mob. I'm not trying to paint a picture that the defense was awesome, because they have a long way to go(rush defense), but we were better defensively than you are giving them credit for. If you really analyze it, it was almost always on the offense in our losses.
