goemaw.com
TITLETOWN - A Decade Long Celebration Of The Greatest Achievement In College Athletics History => Kansas State Football => Topic started by: OK_Cat on November 08, 2014, 08:51:52 PM
-
:flush:
Athletes vs Kansas kids
-
we need to reduce our enrollment standards.
-
Sick of the media and powertards talking about the walk ons like its a good thing
-
Until we change the narrative that we're walk on U and five heart talent this kind of crap will continue to propagate at purple qhatz U.
-
I am tired of this coaching staff failing to prepare the big 12 athletes we do recruit to actually play
-
20 rushing yards? No worries, d Scott will write a jerkoff piece about heart and the powertards will eat it up
-
It gets so bad against good teams
-
We have way too many white kids that play.
-
This is our ceiling. Occasionally be in the national conversation, but never be a real contender.
-
Okay...they're slow
-
This is our ceiling. Occasionally be in the national conversation, but never be a real contender.
This stat backs you up unfortunately
@ESPNStatsInfo: Kansas State: 0-10 all-time in games where both teams are ranked in the Top 10, and seven of the losses have come by double digits
-
This should be the only thread on this board. Required reading IMO.
-
It's rough ridin' Patterson....
-
So, should I like just stop watching games then until we change our formula? Like, if this is our ceiling and there is nothing else to look forward to should I stop going to cat games? I wish this wasn't our ceiling, but it is and it sucks.
-
So, should I like just stop watching games then until we change our formula? Like, if this is our ceiling and there is nothing else to look forward to should I stop going to cat games? I wish this wasn't our ceiling, but it is and it sucks.
No not our ceiling. We used to have athletes and play them. Biggest difference between Snyder 1.0 and 2.0 and I don't understand it. It's going to kill Juco recruiting too.
-
So, should I like just stop watching games then until we change our formula? Like, if this is our ceiling and there is nothing else to look forward to should I stop going to cat games? I wish this wasn't our ceiling, but it is and it sucks.
No not our ceiling. We used to have athletes and play them. Biggest difference between Snyder 1.0 and 2.0 and I don't understand it. It's going to kill Juco recruiting too.
We never really got past this current ceiling with the 98-03 teams either FWIW
-
So, should I like just stop watching games then until we change our formula? Like, if this is our ceiling and there is nothing else to look forward to should I stop going to cat games? I wish this wasn't our ceiling, but it is and it sucks.
No not our ceiling. We used to have athletes and play them. Biggest difference between Snyder 1.0 and 2.0 and I don't understand it. It's going to kill Juco recruiting too.
I agree we had more athletes/depth, but most JUCOs (which we recruited more of) still took time to work into the system. Bishop was an obvious exception.
-
:flush: :buh-bye:
-
'Grats, OK cat. You pathetic, dumbass.
-
So, should I like just stop watching games then until we change our formula? Like, if this is our ceiling and there is nothing else to look forward to should I stop going to cat games? I wish this wasn't our ceiling, but it is and it sucks.
No not our ceiling. We used to have athletes and play them. Biggest difference between Snyder 1.0 and 2.0 and I don't understand it. It's going to kill Juco recruiting too.
I agree we had more athletes/depth, but most JUCOs (which we recruited more of) still took time to work into the system. Bishop was an obvious exception.
We seemed to do a better job of working them in during Snyder 1.0. Especially on defense. I'm tired of seeing Truman and Will Davis when Derricott and Riddle are on the bench with no hope of playing.
-
So, should I like just stop watching games then until we change our formula? Like, if this is our ceiling and there is nothing else to look forward to should I stop going to cat games? I wish this wasn't our ceiling, but it is and it sucks.
No not our ceiling. We used to have athletes and play them. Biggest difference between Snyder 1.0 and 2.0 and I don't understand it. It's going to kill Juco recruiting too.
I agree we had more athletes/depth, but most JUCOs (which we recruited more of) still took time to work into the system. Bishop was an obvious exception.
We seemed to do a better job of working them in during Snyder 1.0. Especially on defense. I'm tired of seeing Truman and Will Davis when Derricott and Riddle are on the bench with no hope of playing.
Don't mind Truman. I was a little puzzled why Davis was in there more than Dakorey. Riddle is definitely redshirted, and I haven't seen Derricott play a down so I think it's safe to say he's redshirted too.
-
It's rough ridin' Patterson....
GMFP
-
It's amazing how many Wabash Tucks we really have on this board.
How can a staff with their so called reputation be back for round II for five years and recruit that crapfest at running back?
The same thing at LB.
The OL never, I mean never gets to the second level and against teams like TCU they repeatedly get blown up in the run game.
-
Oh and once again Dimel/Miller are completely exposed against a well prepped, athletic defense. The offensive gameplane was a joke and many won't remember that it happened a lot in similar circumstances when Dimel was the OC during Snyder I.
-
How can a staff with their so called reputation be back for round II for five years and recruit that crapfest at running back?
The same thing at LB.
It's a crime to start Davis over a partially injured Dakorey
-
I'm fine with us playing walk ons so much if their really the best option at their position. Sometimes they are, sometimes they're not. The thing is, those walk-ons/unknowns need to be giving it all every play. Watching Cook give a half assed effort on that deep ball and Shellenburger fall down every single time a player made any type of juke was infuriating.
-
We have the best in conference record since the Big 12 went to playing every team :dunno:
-
the best guys we have had in Snyder II were Klein (holdover from prince) Lockett (legacy player) and two transfers Harper and Arthur
-
#5, Daniel Thomas was a Prince holdover that had to spend Prince's last year at MCC.
-
I'm fine with us playing walk ons so much if their really the best option at their position. Sometimes they are, sometimes they're not. The thing is, those walk-ons/unknowns need to be giving it all every play. Watching Cook give a half assed effort on that deep ball and Shellenburger fall down every single time a player made any type of juke was infuriating.
I don't count Truman or Mueller as walk-ons, they deserve to have scholarships they are good players. Shelly is a "walk-on" and it is on the coaches for not having enough options ahead of him.
-
I'm fine with us playing walk ons so much if their really the best option at their position. Sometimes they are, sometimes they're not. The thing is, those walk-ons/unknowns need to be giving it all every play. Watching Cook give a half assed effort on that deep ball and Shellenburger fall down every single time a player made any type of juke was infuriating.
I don't count Truman or Mueller as walk-ons, they deserve to have scholarships they are good players. Shelly is a "walk-on" and it is on the coaches for not having enough options ahead of him.
There just can't be any way that Shelly is really better than Newlan or Prewett. It's not possible.
It has to be that he goes all out in practice or something. Has to be.
I thought Davis could have been serviceable, but the speed simply isn't there. Mea culpa on that one. I think it was Hatter that said he wasn't fit for this level, so good analysis there.
-
Who are these Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) coaches who don't have an nfl caliber player at every position and in the two deep? I mean seriously, it's completely unreasonable that we don't have 4 nfl safeties on this roster.
-
Prewett not playing is infuriating.
Not being able to recruit the skill positions is infuriating.
-
I'm fine with us playing walk ons so much if their really the best option at their position. Sometimes they are, sometimes they're not. The thing is, those walk-ons/unknowns need to be giving it all every play. Watching Cook give a half assed effort on that deep ball and Shellenburger fall down every single time a player made any type of juke was infuriating.
I don't count Truman or Mueller as walk-ons, they deserve to have scholarships they are good players. Shelly is a "walk-on" and it is on the coaches for not having enough options ahead of him.
There just can't be any way that Shelly is really better than Newlan or Prewett. It's not possible.
It has to be that he goes all out in practice or something. Has to be.
I thought Davis could have been serviceable, but the speed simply isn't there. Mea culpa on that one. I think it was Hatter that said he wasn't fit for this level, so good analysis there.
Newlan and Prewett are more gifted athletes but their aren't ready to play within the system. But I don't think that is the point. There are positions on the roster that are weak with scholarship worthy upper class-men. Offensive tackle and safety are a joke, wide receiver and defensive end leaves something to be desired.
-
Yes, never ask why walk-ons apparently regularly beat out guys we offered rides to right out of the gate.
K-State tucks (of which we have many around here) eat up a good story about a Western Kansas kid walking on and beating out a full ride guy. Thus, they don't ask why this is happening, regularly.
-
Yes, never ask why walk-ons apparently regularly beat out guys we offered rides to right out of the gate.
K-State tucks (of which we have many around here) eat up a good story about a Western Kansas kid walking on and beating out a full ride guy. Thus, they don't ask why this is happening, regularly.
Randall Evans should be the model for our Walk-on program.
-
Yes, never ask why walk-ons apparently regularly beat out guys we offered rides to right out of the gate.
K-State tucks (of which we have many around here) eat up a good story about a Western Kansas kid walking on and beating out a full ride guy. Thus, they don't ask why this is happening, regularly.
Randall Evans should be the model for our Walk-on program.
Evans sucked last night. Too soon to use him as an example.
-
Yes, never ask why walk-ons apparently regularly beat out guys we offered rides to right out of the gate.
K-State tucks (of which we have many around here) eat up a good story about a Western Kansas kid walking on and beating out a full ride guy. Thus, they don't ask why this is happening, regularly.
Aside from Schelly, what walk on is starting that you have a problem with?
-
Yes, never ask why walk-ons apparently regularly beat out guys we offered rides to right out of the gate.
K-State tucks (of which we have many around here) eat up a good story about a Western Kansas kid walking on and beating out a full ride guy. Thus, they don't ask why this is happening, regularly.
And then these dumbass coaches and writers put them on the all conference team. It's ridiculous
-
Having a problem with with a player is not the point. It's the fact that walk-ons end up regularly beating out schollie offer players. Why is that so hard to understand?
What good did all conference guys do us last night FSD? The only guy who even remotely looked like an all conference player was a scholarship offer out of high school guy. The rest pretty much got clown suited.
-
Yes, never ask why walk-ons apparently regularly beat out guys we offered rides to right out of the gate.
K-State tucks (of which we have many around here) eat up a good story about a Western Kansas kid walking on and beating out a full ride guy. Thus, they don't ask why this is happening, regularly.
And then these dumbass coaches and writers put them on the all conference team. It's ridiculous
You're so rough ridin' dumb. None of our walk-ons are good players and that include mueller or any of our dogshit o-lineman.
-
Having a problem with with a player is not the point. It's the fact that walk-ons end up regularly beating out schollie offer players. Why is that so hard to understand?
What good did all conference guys do us last night FSD? The only guy who even remotely looked like an all conference player was a scholarship offer out of high school guy. The rest pretty much got clown suited.
Well, the players that have been mentioned are a backup safety and the team's fourth or fifth receiver. Those guys suck on most teams. I wouldn't blame that on the walk on culture.
-
Yes, never ask why walk-ons apparently regularly beat out guys we offered rides to right out of the gate.
K-State tucks (of which we have many around here) eat up a good story about a Western Kansas kid walking on and beating out a full ride guy. Thus, they don't ask why this is happening, regularly.
And then these dumbass coaches and writers put them on the all conference team. It's ridiculous
You're so rough ridin' dumb. None of our walk-ons are good players and that include mueller or any of our dogshit o-lineman.
Ya, because this team needs less players capable of playing on Sunday.
-
Yes, never ask why walk-ons apparently regularly beat out guys we offered rides to right out of the gate.
K-State tucks (of which we have many around here) eat up a good story about a Western Kansas kid walking on and beating out a full ride guy. Thus, they don't ask why this is happening, regularly.
And then these dumbass coaches and writers put them on the all conference team. It's ridiculous
You're so rough ridin' dumb. None of our walk-ons are good players and that include mueller or any of our dogshit o-lineman.
Ya, because this team needs less players capable of playing on Sunday.
Which players are you referring to?
-
Having a problem with with a player is not the point. It's the fact that walk-ons end up regularly beating out schollie offer players. Why is that so hard to understand?
What good did all conference guys do us last night FSD? The only guy who even remotely looked like an all conference player was a scholarship offer out of high school guy. The rest pretty much got clown suited.
Well, the players that have been mentioned are a backup safety and the team's fourth or fifth receiver. Those guys suck on most teams. I wouldn't blame that on the walk on culture.
Walk-on culture/DITR is a nice story but you might as well wipe-out all thoughts of a natty. Which is a pipe dream anyway. Because better athletes, better prepared and playing at a high level are going to beat walk-on culture/DITR about 90% of the time.
-
Stop responding to Carnes, dumbasses.
-
Yes, never ask why walk-ons apparently regularly beat out guys we offered rides to right out of the gate.
K-State tucks (of which we have many around here) eat up a good story about a Western Kansas kid walking on and beating out a full ride guy. Thus, they don't ask why this is happening, regularly.
And then these dumbass coaches and writers put them on the all conference team. It's ridiculous
You're so rough ridin' dumb. None of our walk-ons are good players and that include mueller or any of our dogshit o-lineman.
Ya, because this team needs less players capable of playing on Sunday.
Which players are you referring to?
Mueller, Finney, and maybe Sexton(his uncle is a GM)
-
Yes, never ask why walk-ons apparently regularly beat out guys we offered rides to right out of the gate.
K-State tucks (of which we have many around here) eat up a good story about a Western Kansas kid walking on and beating out a full ride guy. Thus, they don't ask why this is happening, regularly.
And then these dumbass coaches and writers put them on the all conference team. It's ridiculous
You're so rough ridin' dumb. None of our walk-ons are good players and that include mueller or any of our dogshit o-lineman.
Ya, because this team needs less players capable of playing on Sunday.
Which players are you referring to?
Mueller, Finney, and maybe Sexton(his uncle is a GM)
0% chance mueller plays in the nfl
-
Yes, never ask why walk-ons apparently regularly beat out guys we offered rides to right out of the gate.
K-State tucks (of which we have many around here) eat up a good story about a Western Kansas kid walking on and beating out a full ride guy. Thus, they don't ask why this is happening, regularly.
And then these dumbass coaches and writers put them on the all conference team. It's ridiculous
You're so rough ridin' dumb. None of our walk-ons are good players and that include mueller or any of our dogshit o-lineman.
Ya, because this team needs less players capable of playing on Sunday.
Which players are you referring to?
Mueller, Finney, and maybe Sexton(his uncle is a GM)
0% chance mueller plays in the nfl
You're right. Guys that scouts compare to Tedy Bruschi rarely get a shot in the NFL.
-
Yes, never ask why walk-ons apparently regularly beat out guys we offered rides to right out of the gate.
K-State tucks (of which we have many around here) eat up a good story about a Western Kansas kid walking on and beating out a full ride guy. Thus, they don't ask why this is happening, regularly.
And then these dumbass coaches and writers put them on the all conference team. It's ridiculous
You're so rough ridin' dumb. None of our walk-ons are good players and that include mueller or any of our dogshit o-lineman.
Ya, because this team needs less players capable of playing on Sunday.
Which players are you referring to?
Mueller, Finney, and maybe Sexton(his uncle is a GM)
0% chance mueller plays in the nfl
You're right. Guys that scouts compare to Tedy Bruschi rarely get a shot in the NFL.
To be fair, Mueller has been very underwhelming so far this year.
-
Agreed. Mueller has underwhelmed. Doesn't change the fact that he'll be in an NFL training camp next summer.
-
Mueller is a UDFA. May catch on to a practice squad roster but that's a stretch.
-
Mueller is a UDFA. May catch on to a practice squad roster but that's a stretch.
I hate it when that's all you can get out of a walk on! :curse:
-
Meuller won't play in the nfl.
I do think that his lack of stats is scheme related and the absence of another pass rusher.
-
Meuller won't play in the nfl.
I do think that his lack of stats is scheme related and the absence of another pass rusher.
If William Powell can make a roster so can Mueller.
-
Yes, never ask why walk-ons apparently regularly beat out guys we offered rides to right out of the gate.
K-State tucks (of which we have many around here) eat up a good story about a Western Kansas kid walking on and beating out a full ride guy. Thus, they don't ask why this is happening, regularly.
Any school which have walk-ons go to NFL and regularly beat out the targeted scholarship players isn't very good at judging talent.
-
Yes, never ask why walk-ons apparently regularly beat out guys we offered rides to right out of the gate.
K-State tucks (of which we have many around here) eat up a good story about a Western Kansas kid walking on and beating out a full ride guy. Thus, they don't ask why this is happening, regularly.
And then these dumbass coaches and writers put them on the all conference team. It's ridiculous
You're so rough ridin' dumb. None of our walk-ons are good players and that include mueller or any of our dogshit o-lineman.
Ya, because this team needs less players capable of playing on Sunday.
Which players are you referring to?
Oh crap, I just read this post as I watched Jordy Nelson run in another TD for the Packers.
-
Having a problem with with a player is not the point. It's the fact that walk-ons end up regularly beating out schollie offer players. Why is that so hard to understand?
What good did all conference guys do us last night FSD? The only guy who even remotely looked like an all conference player was a scholarship offer out of high school guy. The rest pretty much got clown suited.
Agree 100%, our scholarship players should be better than all conference, pro bowlers. It's inexcusable that we have so many walk-ons that develop into all conference players. Those spots are reserved for high school kids who get multiple high major offers. Dumbass coaches. No wonder we never win any games.
-
Any coach with a modicum of common sense would just recruit enough nfl talent to fill out his 2 deep, then win the natty every season. What are these morons doing?
-
Jordy is the worst thing that ever happened to kstate. Now the katdaddy's and fsd's of our fanbase think every walk on will start in the nfl. Our culture will never change, because they are happy with 'being in the conversation' even though we have never had a legit chance at winning something of importance
-
Jordy is the worst thing that ever happened to kstate. Now the katdaddy's and fsd's of our fanbase think every walk on will start in the nfl. Our culture will never change, because they are happy with 'being in the conversation' even though we have never had a legit chance at winning something of importance
Take Jordy out of the equation. Walk ons still contribute in a big way. You float around two scholly's to 20 walk ons and good players emerge. Ala Sexton, Finney, Mueller, and all of those guys from the past.
Poked a hole in your rant. Find something else to bitch about.
-
Add bucket to the list (ha!) of people who are cool with this being our ceiling as long as we get a warm fuzzy story
-
Jordy is the worst thing that ever happened to kstate. Now the katdaddy's and fsd's of our fanbase think every walk on will start in the nfl. Our culture will never change, because they are happy with 'being in the conversation' even though we have never had a legit chance at winning something of importance
Seems like a lot of our fans think like this; is it 18 straight sell outs and close to 200 mil and counting for BSFS improvements... I blame it on rough ridin' shitty coaches and shitty Kansas kids. :runaway:
-
Katdaddy would rather have sell outs than national championships
-
Katdaddy would rather have sell outs than national championships
The stadium improvements are nice.
-
OK_Cat you put out a lot of fluff and little substance. Tell us how you really feel. We're here for you.
-
We had crap tons of nfl talent on our late 90s and early 00s teams. Winning a championship is hard. Nebraska won a handful of championships with a stout walk on program. Everyone else seems to pay players.
-
Bucket loves warm fuzzy stories
-
Bucket loves warm fuzzy stories
You justified your position just like I thought you would. Score one for OK_Cat :thumbsup:
-
Who was the last team to win a championship with less than a 60 thousand seat stadium? The problem isn't walkons, it's ain't no seats.
-
walk-on, scholarship athlete......I don't give a eff. make a goddamn tackle. make the goddamn block. make the goddamn throw. make the goddamn run. make the goddamn catch. whether it's shelly or Rashaad Washington, or Mueller or Darren Howard, make the rough ridin' play or get the eff out.
-
Who was the last team to win a championship with less than a 60 thousand seat stadium? The problem isn't walkons, it's ain't no seats.
1990, both teams claiming a natty (Colorado and Georgia State) had around 50k at the time... so yeah, been a while.
For the record i don't think building a big Iowa Statey crap stadium would fix our woes getting more talented athletes.
-
Who was the last team to win a championship with less than a 60 thousand seat stadium? The problem isn't walkons, it's ain't no seats.
1990, both teams claiming a natty (Colorado and Georgia State) had around 50k at the time... so yeah, been a while.
For the record i don't think building a big Iowa Statey crap stadium would fix our woes getting more talented athletes.
Wow. What? You think K-State is building an "Iowa Statey crap stadium?" GTFO
-
Who was the last team to win a championship with less than a 60 thousand seat stadium? The problem isn't walkons, it's ain't no seats.
1990, both teams claiming a natty (Colorado and Georgia State) had around 50k at the time... so yeah, been a while.
For the record i don't think building a big Iowa Statey crap stadium would fix our woes getting more talented athletes.
I bet 200 mil will.
-
Who was the last team to win a championship with less than a 60 thousand seat stadium? The problem isn't walkons, it's ain't no seats.
1990, both teams claiming a natty (Colorado and Georgia State) had around 50k at the time... so yeah, been a while.
For the record i don't think building a big Iowa Statey crap stadium would fix our woes getting more talented athletes.
Georgia State claims a natty? :surprised:
I was being facetious. Stadium size and walkons are not relevant at all, and nothing but low hanging bbs fodder.
-
Who was the last team to win a championship with less than a 60 thousand seat stadium? The problem isn't walkons, it's ain't no seats.
1990, both teams claiming a natty (Colorado and Georgia State) had around 50k at the time... so yeah, been a while.
For the record i don't think building a big Iowa Statey crap stadium would fix our woes getting more talented athletes.
Georgia State claims a natty? :surprised:
I was being facetious. Stadium size and walkons are not relevant at all, and nothing but low hanging bbs fodder.
I figured as much, but i thought it'd be fun to look up that particular stat.
-
high floor, low ceiling
this keeps you from being the iowa states of the world as well as keeps you from being the Auburns of the world
-
Who was the last team to win a championship with less than a 60 thousand seat stadium? The problem isn't walkons, it's ain't no seats.
1990, both teams claiming a natty (Colorado and Georgia State) had around 50k at the time... so yeah, been a while.
For the record i don't think building a big Iowa Statey crap stadium would fix our woes getting more talented athletes.
Georgia State claims a natty? :surprised:
I was being facetious. Stadium size and walkons are not relevant at all, and nothing but low hanging bbs fodder.
I figured as much, but i thought it'd be fun to look up that particular stat.
It's a good stat
-
Mueller has been the biggest flop. He's decent on guaranteed pass plays, but dude just gets blown up too often. Love his motor, but sheesh. How he had so many sacks last year, we'll never know...
-
maybe it's because he's getting doubled more this year since people are game planning for him different. just spit balling here.
-
I had no idea you guys had such a walk on problem.
I don't think TCU has had a walk on do something significant in over a decade.
-
maybe it's because he's getting doubled more this year since people are game planning for him different. just spit balling here.
I rarely see him doubled, but I'm also hammered watching games, so.... :dunno:
-
maybe it's because he's getting doubled more this year since people are game planning for him different. just spit balling here.
I rarely see him doubled, but I'm also hammered watching games, so.... :dunno:
I notice he was getting doubled, and held, on the play where he got flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct.
-
maybe it's because he's getting doubled more this year since people are game planning for him different. just spit balling here.
I rarely see him doubled, but I'm also hammered watching games, so.... :dunno:
I notice he was getting doubled, and held, on the play where he got flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct.
Yeah, he got tackled and then he lost his mind and got flagged.
-
Meuller won't play in the nfl.
I do think that his lack of stats is scheme related and the absence of another pass rusher.
If William Powell can make a roster so can Mueller.
Nice logic (you dumbass). I liked Meshak a lot more than mueller and he couldn't make an NFL roster. Ian Campbell won big xii defensive poy and couldn't make an NFL roster. Maybe he can play special teams but he'll never be a good pass rusher in the NFL. He isn't strong or fast.
-
With chum. Who cares, just play the players and not some kid who works hard and isn't as good.
-
maybe it's because he's getting doubled more this year since people are game planning for him different. just spit balling here.
Yeah, they probably didn't do that to him after he started getting all those sacks last year.
-
We have the best walk ons in America. Our scholarship athletes need to improve, but there isn't anything wrong with landing the occasional walk on that ends up being all conference.
-
maybe it's because he's getting doubled more this year since people are game planning for him different. just spit balling here.
Yeah, they probably didn't do that to him after he started getting all those sacks last year.
yeah, he probably just got lazy this year and decided not to defend his 12 DPOY or All Big 12 or whatever he got
-
maybe it's because he's getting doubled more this year since people are game planning for him different. just spit balling here.
Yeah, they probably didn't do that to him after he started getting all those sacks last year.
yeah, he probably just got lazy this year and decided not to defend his 12 DPOY or All Big 12 or whatever he got
Getting lazy in the offseason sounds much more likely than teams not double teaming him last year when he was a Big 12 DPOY candidate for almost all of conference play.
-
maybe it's because he's getting doubled more this year since people are game planning for him different. just spit balling here.
Yeah, they probably didn't do that to him after he started getting all those sacks last year.
yeah, he probably just got lazy this year and decided not to defend his 12 DPOY or All Big 12 or whatever he got
Getting lazy in the offseason sounds much more likely than teams not double teaming him last year when he was a Big 12 DPOY candidate for almost all of conference play.
maybe _Fan can shed some light on this whole did he or did he not get double teamed as often last year. guess my point is, if we want to criticize playing Schellenberg, Cook, Kleinsorge, etc. I'm all for it, just seems dumb to lump Mueller in there.
-
Meshak was absolutely amazing at getting sacks, I miss him :bawl:
-
I'm pretty OK with where our program is at.
:dunno:
-
I'm pretty OK with where our program is at.
:dunno:
yeah
-
Meuller won't play in the nfl.
I do think that his lack of stats is scheme related and the absence of another pass rusher.
If William Powell can make a roster so can Mueller.
Nice logic (you dumbass). I liked Meshak a lot more than mueller and he couldn't make an NFL roster. Ian Campbell won big xii defensive poy and couldn't make an NFL roster. Maybe he can play special teams but he'll never be a good pass rusher in the NFL. He isn't strong or fast.
Carnes you do realize there's a position in the NFL for undersized defensive ends right? It's linebacker. Draft analyst envision him at middle linebacker.
-
Some ppl don't like happy stories about a kids success defining the odds. Sad. :frown:
-
I bet ok cat watched Rudy and was super pissed at the end. :frown:
-
Everyone likes it just fine. Its just the odds usually win and KSU FB's main goal should be getting as good as possible, not making something out of relatively nothing.
-
Everyone likes it just fine. Its just the odds usually win and KSU FB's main goal should be getting as good as possible, not making something out of relatively nothing.
Fwiw, I don't think Bill plays those guys to be shitty. I think he's around all those practices and he thinks to himself: "This guy might be a shitty walk-on, but he's better than this rough ridin' bust, so here you go Shellenberger". :dunno:
-
Maybe ok cat should start watching the games on mute if the announcers make him that mad. :dunno: Sounds like a personal problem. :dunno:
-
I'm pretty OK with where our program is at.
:dunno:
I'm with you Dlew.
-
Who was the last team to win a championship with less than a 60 thousand seat stadium? The problem isn't walkons, it's ain't no seats.
1990, both teams claiming a natty (Colorado and Georgia State) had around 50k at the time... so yeah, been a while.
For the record i don't think building a big Iowa Statey crap stadium would fix our woes getting more talented athletes.
*Georgia Tech btw. but the stadium was 46k so your point still stands.
-
I'm pretty OK with where our program is at.
:dunno:
I'm with you Dlew.
Likewise... It also seems like the ones bitching the loudest are also the ones who expected/predicted an 8-4 or 7-5 season before it began.
-
I'm pretty OK with where our program is at.
:dunno:
I'm with you Dlew.
It's definitely fine. I'll speak for myself, but if we are winning 7 games on a rebuild year (last year) and winning 9 or so games a season I can't complain.
As for competing for the playoff, I expect to do that maybe something like 2 times every 10 years. The reason getting there is so tough for a team like KSU is because realistically you have to be a top 15 type team 2 years in a row just to start off the season not too far behind everyone else in the polls.
While I will admit I had my hopes high for a playoff team this year, I can't deny that going 9-3 or 10-2 would be a great season. And neither should anyone else.
-
TCU clown suited all our scholarship players and people are complaining about the walkons. Seems backwards.
-
TCU clown suited all our scholarship players and people are complaining about the walkons. Seems backwards.
They clown suited our entire team except for one guy who happens to be a scholly recipient. The two glaring weaknesses on defense are walk ons. We know we have better talent riding the pines that are scholly recipients (including Clinks over my guy Geary). The walk ons are fair game here. If Bill plays the scholly guys over walk ons and the result is the same, those guys would be the cannon fodder.
-
TCU clown suited all our scholarship players and people are complaining about the walkons. Seems backwards.
They clown suited our entire team except for one guy who happens to be a scholly recipient. The two glaring weaknesses on defense are walk ons. We know we have better talent riding the pines that are scholly recipients (including Clinks over my guy Geary). The walk ons are fair game here. If Bill plays the scholly guys over walk ons and the result is the same, those guys would be the cannon fodder.
What have you seen or heard to suggest Clinks would be a better option than Geary?
-
TCU clown suited all our scholarship players and people are complaining about the walkons. Seems backwards.
They clown suited our entire team except for one guy who happens to be a scholly recipient. The two glaring weaknesses on defense are walk ons. We know we have better talent riding the pines that are scholly recipients (including Clinks over my guy Geary). The walk ons are fair game here. If Bill plays the scholly guys over walk ons and the result is the same, those guys would be the cannon fodder.
What have you seen or heard to suggest Clinks would be a better option than Geary?
WWW.rivals.com- That's about as far as some of these guys thought process goes. :frown:
-
TCU clown suited all our scholarship players and people are complaining about the walkons. Seems backwards.
They clown suited our entire team except for one guy who happens to be a scholly recipient. The two glaring weaknesses on defense are walk ons. We know we have better talent riding the pines that are scholly recipients (including Clinks over my guy Geary). The walk ons are fair game here. If Bill plays the scholly guys over walk ons and the result is the same, those guys would be the cannon fodder.
What have you seen or heard to suggest Clinks would be a better option than Geary?
Clinks was solid in his last two games but didn't play at all on Saturday. Geary, along with the rest of the defensive line, was ineffective. Seems like he should have been given the chance to come in and show what he could do.
-
TCU clown suited all our scholarship players and people are complaining about the walkons. Seems backwards.
They clown suited our entire team except for one guy who happens to be a scholly recipient. The two glaring weaknesses on defense are walk ons. We know we have better talent riding the pines that are scholly recipients (including Clinks over my guy Geary). The walk ons are fair game here. If Bill plays the scholly guys over walk ons and the result is the same, those guys would be the cannon fodder.
What have you seen or heard to suggest Clinks would be a better option than Geary?
WWW.rivals.com- That's about as far as some of these guys thought process goes. :frown:
Try again..http://www.chatsports.com/kansas-state-wildcats/a/Clinkscales-adding-depth-to-Cats-DLine-0-10668251
-
I haven't seen Clinks do anything yet. He doesn't look like he knows any pass rush moves. He doesn't use his hands at all and only bull rushes. Geary doesn't offer a pass rush, but it looks like he is immovable and holds his position well.
-
TCU clown suited all our scholarship players and people are complaining about the walkons. Seems backwards.
They clown suited our entire team except for one guy who happens to be a scholly recipient. The two glaring weaknesses on defense are walk ons. We know we have better talent riding the pines that are scholly recipients (including Clinks over my guy Geary). The walk ons are fair game here. If Bill plays the scholly guys over walk ons and the result is the same, those guys would be the cannon fodder.
What have you seen or heard to suggest Clinks would be a better option than Geary?
WWW.rivals.com- That's about as far as some of these guys thought process goes. :frown:
The unintentional humor of this post is amazing.
-
Kim Carnes really brings the zeal as a sports enthusiast/analyst. He wanted waters over sams, then retracted, and picked up on the Chargers when he moved into his trailer out in San Diego. Said the chiefs would suck and here we are. Kim Carnes, #1 sports analyst on this board. :ROFL:
-
Kim Carnes really brings the zeal as a sports enthusiast/analyst. He wanted waters over sams, then retracted, and picked up on the Chargers when he moved into his trailer out in San Diego. Said the chiefs would suck and here we are. Kim Carnes, #1 sports analyst on this board. :ROFL:
What is this post?
-
Kim Carnes really brings the zeal as a sports enthusiast/analyst. He wanted waters over sams, then retracted, and picked up on the Chargers when he moved into his trailer out in San Diego. Said the chiefs would suck and here we are. Kim Carnes, #1 sports analyst on this board. :ROFL:
What is this post?
Are you going to rejoin the chiefs thread or just be a waste of breath? :confused:
-
I used to wonder whether kim was a wacky sock, or vice versa. Not anymore. This rivalry is for real. :popcorn:
-
This is an asinine thread.
-
realistically you have to be a top 15 type team 2 years in a row just to start off the season not too far behind everyone else in the polls.
That sucks for Mississippi State and TCU.
-
realistically you have to be a top 15 type team 2 years in a row just to start off the season not too far behind everyone else in the polls.
That sucks for Mississippi State and TCU.
Yeah. I think the preseason rank thing mattered more during the BCS, when you had to count on AP voters not being dingbats. So far, (with the exception of Alabama's conspicuously high ranking) the committee has done a pretty good evaluating the total body of work.
-
TCU clown suited all our scholarship players and people are complaining about the walkons. Seems backwards.
They clown suited our entire team except for one guy who happens to be a scholly recipient. The two glaring weaknesses on defense are walk ons. We know we have better talent riding the pines that are scholly recipients (including Clinks over my guy Geary). The walk ons are fair game here. If Bill plays the scholly guys over walk ons and the result is the same, those guys would be the cannon fodder.
What have you seen or heard to suggest Clinks would be a better option than Geary?
That he gets double-teamed within a play or two during basically every game he plays, after sitting on the sideline for most of the season tells me a lot. Should he be getting all the snaps over Geary? :dunno:, the defense is not made better by leaving him on the sidelines.
-
realistically you have to be a top 15 type team 2 years in a row just to start off the season not too far behind everyone else in the polls.
That sucks for Mississippi State and TCU.
Yeah. I think the preseason rank thing mattered more during the BCS, when you had to count on AP voters not being dingbats. So far, (with the exception of Alabama's conspicuously high ranking) the committee has done a pretty good evaluating the total body of work.
Alabama is ranked No. 4 or better in 87 of the 96 rating systems listed on the Massey composite. Their average rating is 1.64 better than the next best team (Mississippi State) and at least two full points/ spots better than every other team. It gets old seeing Alabama hanging around, but they deserve it.
-
THE problem is that K-State pee's down their leg EVERY time they are presented with a chance to really succeed. It is the same whether it's football (1998, 2012, 2014), basketball (2010, 2013), or baseball (2013). It has been this way since 1950's MBB, and countless times in between. We're great if we're the underdog or overachieving, but the minute people take notice and expect us to perform we fail.
We compete with and beat far superior athletes every single year. We just find a way to melt when the lights get bright. Whether it's dropping passes, fumbling, kickoff returns, sketti-brains, scared play calling, going ice cold from 3 point range, fouling with 5 seconds left to force a draining double OT game, dead bats, etc. It's as predictable as sunrise and sunset.
However, I LOVE even being in contention to compete for championships. Can you really imagine how bad it must suck to be a fan of Houston, UNT, Wyoming, Troy, UAB, CSU, or even Iowa State?
I don't have any idea how to change it. Hire a coach with swag, who recruits players with swag? These small-time, overachievers are great, but the cream eventually rises to the top. I can't bring myself to call for outright cheating, although there doesn't seem to be much downside as far as the ncaa or society are concerned.
TL;DNR: We never go home and "have relations" with the prom queen.
-
Wacky is probably the best fit for the Wabash out of anyone on this board.
Sad, but true.
-
Just saw Lefty's "ksu can't win the must win game" thread. I see all the valid arguments. For me, it's not that we can't beat a team ranked 10 spots above us on the road so much as we often play like crap. We tend to display an inability to dictate game tempo, style, etc., or adjust to what the other team is exploiting. I'm talking "0-10 when both teams ranked in top 10, and 7 times by double digits" type stuff. These aren't exactly David/Goliath type odds. Our 5 hearts and lack of depth are what got us there, and what eventually get us killed.
-
Just saw Lefty's "ksu can't win the must win game" thread. I see all the valid arguments. For me, it's not that we can't beat a team ranked 10 spots above us on the road so much as we often play like crap. We tend to display an inability to dictate game tempo, style, etc., or adjust to what the other team is exploiting. I'm talking "0-10 when both teams ranked in top 10, and 7 times by double digits" type stuff. These aren't exactly David/Goliath type odds. Our 5 hearts and lack of depth are what got us there, and what eventually get us killed.
and gE'ers have the nerve to call other schools small timey.
-
does TCU even have enough fans to have a message board? small timey.
-
does TCU even have enough fans to have a message board? small timey.
I don't apologize for my school having decent admission standards.
-
lack of depth. we are beat up and worn out.
-
lack of depth. we are beat up and worn out.
This is the biggest issue with Snyder 2. And it was highlighted this past Saturday.
But overall I can't complain. This staff has put together teams that have finished 2nd, 1st, 5th, and (at worst) 3rd over the last 4 seasons. We have been in the national conversation for 3 of the past 4 seasons. We are back to the mid-90s style team, one that beats almost every team we "should" and occasionally gets whipped by teams with superior talent.
Yes, having so many walk ons and grey shirts that become major contributors is a mixed bag; it highlights the ability of this staff to find and develop players no one else wants (especially local/KS talent). But it also shows that recruiting isn't great and even among what "should" be decent 3 star talent, we are missing often. JUCOs are a mixed bag, and often guys we hope to be stars take a year to develop, or they never develop at all. That said, I think the mentality that we are playing inferior players to teach more talented guys lessons is stupid at best. This staff is paid to win games and they are flat out playing the best possibly 22 guys they can. If guys that recruiting services (and our fans) think are super talented really were better options, they would be on the field.
IMO this staff has done a fantastic job putting together game plans and personnel to compete at a very high level, but when a guy goes down or can't play (see Dakorey) or gets dinged (see Waters) it shows up in how we play and our ability to compete. We simply don't have a 2nd guy at most positions that can step in and make up the difference and often there is a pretty big gap. Still, we keep plugging away and winning games at a high rate (75% the last 4 seasons) and this is what K-State football is right now. As long as Snyder is here, this will continue to be what K-State football is. Perhaps some day we'll have a dynamic staff that is better at recruiting (I have no delusions that we'll ever be Texas or Oklahoma) and still manage to win games at a high rate, but I'll gladly take what we have right now. In fact, I'm sure there will be a point in the next 10-15 years where I'll want to go back to this era of football for K-State.
-
It would be really cool if we could at least be Oklahoma State, recruiting-wise
-
lack of depth. we are beat up and worn out.
This is the biggest issue with Snyder 2. And it was highlighted this past Saturday.
But overall I can't complain. This staff has put together teams that have finished 2nd, 1st, 5th, and (at worst) 3rd over the last 4 seasons. We have been in the national conversation for 3 of the past 4 seasons. We are back to the mid-90s style team, one that beats almost every team we "should" and occasionally gets whipped by teams with superior talent.
Yes, having so many walk ons and grey shirts that become major contributors is a mixed bag; it highlights the ability of this staff to find and develop players no one else wants (especially local/KS talent). But it also shows that recruiting isn't great and even among what "should" be decent 3 star talent, we are missing often. JUCOs are a mixed bag, and often guys we hope to be stars take a year to develop, or they never develop at all. That said, I think the mentality that we are playing inferior players to teach more talented guys lessons is stupid at best. This staff is paid to win games and they are flat out playing the best possibly 22 guys they can. If guys that recruiting services (and our fans) think are super talented really were better options, they would be on the field.
IMO this staff has done a fantastic job putting together game plans and personnel to compete at a very high level, but when a guy goes down or can't play (see Dakorey) or gets dinged (see Waters) it shows up in how we play and our ability to compete. We simply don't have a 2nd guy at most positions that can step in and make up the difference and often there is a pretty big gap. Still, we keep plugging away and winning games at a high rate (75% the last 4 seasons) and this is what K-State football is right now. As long as Snyder is here, this will continue to be what K-State football is. Perhaps some day we'll have a dynamic staff that is better at recruiting (I have no delusions that we'll ever be Texas or Oklahoma) and still manage to win games at a high rate, but I'll gladly take what we have right now. In fact, I'm sure there will be a point in the next 10-15 years where I'll want to go back to this era of football for K-State.
Do you think that our team is more physical on a day to day practice basis than other programs?
Are there new rules about how much/often guys can do full contact in college?
-
I think a lot of schools don't go full contact everyday, and K-State does, or I remember reading/hearing something to that effect a few years ago.
-
Do you think that our team is more physical on a day to day practice basis than other programs?
I know for a fact that they do, especially in the preseason. I don't think its that much different during the season than most teams, but there is certainly a mentality from the top that being physical is conditioned. I think there are some benefits to the mentality that this creates in most of our players, but it also leads to guys getting more beat up as the season goes along.
-
lack of depth. we are beat up and worn out.
This is the biggest issue with Snyder 2. And it was highlighted this past Saturday.
But overall I can't complain. This staff has put together teams that have finished 2nd, 1st, 5th, and (at worst) 3rd over the last 4 seasons. We have been in the national conversation for 3 of the past 4 seasons. We are back to the mid-90s style team, one that beats almost every team we "should" and occasionally gets whipped by teams with superior talent.
Yes, having so many walk ons and grey shirts that become major contributors is a mixed bag; it highlights the ability of this staff to find and develop players no one else wants (especially local/KS talent). But it also shows that recruiting isn't great and even among what "should" be decent 3 star talent, we are missing often. JUCOs are a mixed bag, and often guys we hope to be stars take a year to develop, or they never develop at all. That said, I think the mentality that we are playing inferior players to teach more talented guys lessons is stupid at best. This staff is paid to win games and they are flat out playing the best possibly 22 guys they can. If guys that recruiting services (and our fans) think are super talented really were better options, they would be on the field.
IMO this staff has done a fantastic job putting together game plans and personnel to compete at a very high level, but when a guy goes down or can't play (see Dakorey) or gets dinged (see Waters) it shows up in how we play and our ability to compete. We simply don't have a 2nd guy at most positions that can step in and make up the difference and often there is a pretty big gap. Still, we keep plugging away and winning games at a high rate (75% the last 4 seasons) and this is what K-State football is right now. As long as Snyder is here, this will continue to be what K-State football is. Perhaps some day we'll have a dynamic staff that is better at recruiting (I have no delusions that we'll ever be Texas or Oklahoma) and still manage to win games at a high rate, but I'll gladly take what we have right now. In fact, I'm sure there will be a point in the next 10-15 years where I'll want to go back to this era of football for K-State.
A lot of people jumped off the Patterson bandwagon here with the results of his first few years in the Big 12 falling flat. Your points about depth are something which he has addressed specifically for his failures to maintain a BCS bowl program transitioning to the Big 12. Its a shame that we don't have a coaching staff that has figured out the aspects which Patterson has learned so quickly. Its obvious they don't want to or don't care to create a team with long term (season level and program level) success.
-
A lot of people jumped off the Patterson bandwagon here with the results of his first few years in the Big 12 falling flat. Your points about depth are something which he has addressed specifically for his failures to maintain a BCS bowl program transitioning to the Big 12. Its a shame that we don't have a coaching staff that has figured out the aspects which Patterson has learned so quickly. Its obvious they don't want to or don't care to create a team with long term (season level and program level) success.
Patterson's biggest lesson was that he had to change to an offense that could compete in this league, it had very little to do with recruiting or creating depth in his program. The talent was there; he didn't all of a sudden learn that he was in one of the most talent rich cities in one of the most talent rich states in the country. I mean anyone who knew football could see that his 12 and 13 teams had plenty of talent and that showed up on defense, he just was way too conservative on offense and this year he changed that.
-
A lot of people jumped off the Patterson bandwagon here with the results of his first few years in the Big 12 falling flat. Your points about depth are something which he has addressed specifically for his failures to maintain a BCS bowl program transitioning to the Big 12. Its a shame that we don't have a coaching staff that has figured out the aspects which Patterson has learned so quickly. Its obvious they don't want to or don't care to create a team with long term (season level and program level) success.
Patterson prepared TCU fans pretty well. He said the biggest change in jumping to the Big 12 would be that we needed more size and depth and that it would take at least 2-3 years to develop that and return the team to the competitive level that TCU fans had grown accustomed to.
-
Patterson's biggest lesson was that he had to change to an offense that could compete in this league, it had very little to do with recruiting or creating depth in his program. The talent was there; he didn't all of a sudden learn that he was in one of the most talent rich cities in one of the most talent rich states in the country. I mean anyone who knew football could see that his 12 and 13 teams had plenty of talent and that showed up on defense, he just was way too conservative on offense and this year he changed that.
There is definitely an element of this as well. But, he has slightly altered his team's approach respective of the conference that we've played in over the years.
That being said, our depth and size (in particular OL) was not up to par when we joined the Big 12 and we suffered during the first two years as a result.
-
Patterson's biggest lesson was that he had to change to an offense that could compete in this league, it had very little to do with recruiting or creating depth in his program. The talent was there; he didn't all of a sudden learn that he was in one of the most talent rich cities in one of the most talent rich states in the country. I mean anyone who knew football could see that his 12 and 13 teams had plenty of talent and that showed up on defense, he just was way too conservative on offense and this year he changed that.
There is definitely an element of this as well. But, he has slightly altered his team's approach respective of the conference that we've played in over the years.
That being said, our depth and size (in particular OL) was not up to par when we joined the Big 12 and we suffered during the first two years as a result.
Yes, but its clear the new offense has helped. Granted, I'm not sure they would've been as effective as this year, but last year your offense was #95 (nationally) and the year before it was #71 while this year it is #19. Meanwhile your defense this year is #6 after being #12 and #11 the first two years in this league. The biggest change here is hiring Meachum and Cumbie while having a guy with experience at QB that earned his spot back.
-
Wacky is probably the best fit for the Wabash out of anyone on this board.
Sad, but true.
Says the butthurt old man who lives on the phog cause they're making fun of his school. :frown:
-
Our program is in a great position. I think we all agree we don't care how it happens we just want the best team out there. Historically speaking, talented HS kids get you more long-term success than say Walk-ons probably do. If K-State could somehow win with deaf kids, I wouldn't care.
-
Wacky is probably the best fit for the Wabash out of anyone on this board.
Sad, but true.
Says the butthurt old man who lives on the phog cause they're making fun of his school. :frown:
Lives on the phog? LOL, the only reason I occassionally look at the phog is to see what dumbass K-State fans like you are posting over there and read what the usual suspect Phogistians have to say.
-
Wacky is probably the best fit for the Wabash out of anyone on this board.
Sad, but true.
Says the butthurt old man who lives on the phog cause they're making fun of his school. :frown:
you sure that's the argument you want to make?
-
Swing your sword wacky haters gonna hate.
-
Yes, but its clear the new offense has helped. Granted, I'm not sure they would've been as effective as this year, but last year your offense was #95 (nationally) and the year before it was #71 while this year it is #19. Meanwhile your defense this year is #6 after being #12 and #11 the first two years in this league. The biggest change here is hiring Meachum and Cumbie while having a guy with experience at QB that earned his spot back.
Yes, our offense the last two years had been a train wreck. You had the Casey Pachall crap in the first year of Big 12 membership. Boykin stepped up and played well during that year. The following year Boykin played like absolute ass.
I think we would have seen improvement regardless but Meachum and Cumbie have made a huge impact.
-
Wacky is probably the best fit for the Wabash out of anyone on this board.
Sad, but true.
Says the butthurt old man who lives on the phog cause they're making fun of his school. :frown:
Lives on the phog? LOL, the only reason I occassionally look at the phog is to see what dumbass K-State fans like you are posting over there and read what the usual suspect Phogistians have to say.
Lol. You have real estate there, dumb eff. What? Since Beems is gone, you're coming after me now? Are you that rough ridin' bored?
-
Wacky is probably the best fit for the Wabash out of anyone on this board.
Sad, but true.
Says the butthurt old man who lives on the phog cause they're making fun of his school. :frown:
Lives on the phog? LOL, the only reason I occassionally look at the phog is to see what dumbass K-State fans like you are posting over there and read what the usual suspect Phogistians have to say.
Lol. You have real estate there, dumb eff. What? Since Beems is gone, you're coming after me now? Are you that rough ridin' bored?
I haven't posted there in years. Yeah, is this really the angle you want to take? Let's just say I am bit surprised how much inner tuck you have. You really would be a great fit for the 'bash.
-
Wacky is probably the best fit for the Wabash out of anyone on this board.
Sad, but true.
Says the butthurt old man who lives on the phog cause they're making fun of his school. :frown:
Lives on the phog? LOL, the only reason I occassionally look at the phog is to see what dumbass K-State fans like you are posting over there and read what the usual suspect Phogistians have to say.
Lol. You have real estate there, dumb eff. What? Since Beems is gone, you're coming after me now? Are you that rough ridin' bored?
I haven't posted there in years. Yeah, is this really the angle you want to take? Let's just say I am bit surprised how much inner tuck you have. You really would be a great fit for the 'bash.
It would take a lifetime of posting for me to equal the amount of time you've spent over there. I've never seen Beems live inside someone's dome as much as yours. The amount of small dick syndrome you have is appalling. "Stop being mean about K-state! We've got this and this and this and we're doing this and this and this". eff off old timer.
-
:bwpopcorn:
-
I'll just consider the source on "living inside somone's dome" and get back to why you're such a tuck when it comes to most if not all perceived criticism of K-State.
That's okay though, don't be mad.
-
Wow, this seems like the bbs fight we've all been waiting for
-
Patterson's biggest lesson was that he had to change to an offense that could compete in this league, it had very little to do with recruiting or creating depth in his program. The talent was there; he didn't all of a sudden learn that he was in one of the most talent rich cities in one of the most talent rich states in the country. I mean anyone who knew football could see that his 12 and 13 teams had plenty of talent and that showed up on defense, he just was way too conservative on offense and this year he changed that.
There is definitely an element of this as well. But, he has slightly altered his team's approach respective of the conference that we've played in over the years.
That being said, our depth and size (in particular OL) was not up to par when we joined the Big 12 and we suffered during the first two years as a result.
Yes, but its clear the new offense has helped. Granted, I'm not sure they would've been as effective as this year, but last year your offense was #95 (nationally) and the year before it was #71 while this year it is #19. Meanwhile your defense this year is #6 after being #12 and #11 the first two years in this league. The biggest change here is hiring Meachum and Cumbie while having a guy with experience at QB that earned his spot back.
I really think you're under playing Patterson's comments. Changing offenses is one thing, but having quality depth is something Patterson specifically pointed out for underwhelming performances. Noting that they could win in the Mountain West and they thought even in the Big East with fewer guys in the 2nd and 3rd spots. Similarly look at K-State where we are down to Schellenberg at safety instead of having a credible back up last year. We both recognize that K-State's depth has destroyed our hopes at long term success in season. I don't think the argument about recruiting liabilities holds much water when you look at how quickly energetic staffs, like Patterson, have been able to fill in talent.
-
THIS!
lack of depth. we are beat up and worn out.
This is the biggest issue with Snyder 2. And it was highlighted this past Saturday.
But overall I can't complain. This staff has put together teams that have finished 2nd, 1st, 5th, and (at worst) 3rd over the last 4 seasons. We have been in the national conversation for 3 of the past 4 seasons. We are back to the mid-90s style team, one that beats almost every team we "should" and occasionally gets whipped by teams with superior talent.
Yes, having so many walk ons and grey shirts that become major contributors is a mixed bag; it highlights the ability of this staff to find and develop players no one else wants (especially local/KS talent). But it also shows that recruiting isn't great and even among what "should" be decent 3 star talent, we are missing often. JUCOs are a mixed bag, and often guys we hope to be stars take a year to develop, or they never develop at all. That said, I think the mentality that we are playing inferior players to teach more talented guys lessons is stupid at best. This staff is paid to win games and they are flat out playing the best possibly 22 guys they can. If guys that recruiting services (and our fans) think are super talented really were better options, they would be on the field.
IMO this staff has done a fantastic job putting together game plans and personnel to compete at a very high level, but when a guy goes down or can't play (see Dakorey) or gets dinged (see Waters) it shows up in how we play and our ability to compete. We simply don't have a 2nd guy at most positions that can step in and make up the difference and often there is a pretty big gap. Still, we keep plugging away and winning games at a high rate (75% the last 4 seasons) and this is what K-State football is right now. As long as Snyder is here, this will continue to be what K-State football is. Perhaps some day we'll have a dynamic staff that is better at recruiting (I have no delusions that we'll ever be Texas or Oklahoma) and still manage to win games at a high rate, but I'll gladly take what we have right now. In fact, I'm sure there will be a point in the next 10-15 years where I'll want to go back to this era of football for K-State.
For real though, I've been saying this for years. I love KSU and think they're the greatest thing since sliced bread. However, the reality is, KSU is a Midwestern 3-Star Tech School, 10 miles north of the interstate. If KSU was in the heart of Dallas, you bet your ass Snyder would have at least 10 championship rings. It's all about perspective IMO.
-
THIS!
lack of depth. we are beat up and worn out.
This is the biggest issue with Snyder 2. And it was highlighted this past Saturday.
But overall I can't complain. This staff has put together teams that have finished 2nd, 1st, 5th, and (at worst) 3rd over the last 4 seasons. We have been in the national conversation for 3 of the past 4 seasons. We are back to the mid-90s style team, one that beats almost every team we "should" and occasionally gets whipped by teams with superior talent.
Yes, having so many walk ons and grey shirts that become major contributors is a mixed bag; it highlights the ability of this staff to find and develop players no one else wants (especially local/KS talent). But it also shows that recruiting isn't great and even among what "should" be decent 3 star talent, we are missing often. JUCOs are a mixed bag, and often guys we hope to be stars take a year to develop, or they never develop at all. That said, I think the mentality that we are playing inferior players to teach more talented guys lessons is stupid at best. This staff is paid to win games and they are flat out playing the best possibly 22 guys they can. If guys that recruiting services (and our fans) think are super talented really were better options, they would be on the field.
IMO this staff has done a fantastic job putting together game plans and personnel to compete at a very high level, but when a guy goes down or can't play (see Dakorey) or gets dinged (see Waters) it shows up in how we play and our ability to compete. We simply don't have a 2nd guy at most positions that can step in and make up the difference and often there is a pretty big gap. Still, we keep plugging away and winning games at a high rate (75% the last 4 seasons) and this is what K-State football is right now. As long as Snyder is here, this will continue to be what K-State football is. Perhaps some day we'll have a dynamic staff that is better at recruiting (I have no delusions that we'll ever be Texas or Oklahoma) and still manage to win games at a high rate, but I'll gladly take what we have right now. In fact, I'm sure there will be a point in the next 10-15 years where I'll want to go back to this era of football for K-State.
For real though, I've been saying this for years. I love KSU and think they're the greatest thing since sliced bread. However, the reality is, KSU is a Midwestern 3-Star Tech School, 10 miles north of the interstate. If KSU was in the heart of Dallas, you bet your ass Snyder would have at least 10 championship rings. It's all about perspective IMO.
you've never said it once
-
I really think you're under playing Patterson's comments. Changing offenses is one thing, but having quality depth is something Patterson specifically pointed out for underwhelming performances. Noting that they could win in the Mountain West and they thought even in the Big East with fewer guys in the 2nd and 3rd spots. Similarly look at K-State where we are down to Schellenberg at safety instead of having a credible back up last year. We both recognize that K-State's depth has destroyed our hopes at long term success in season. I don't think the argument about recruiting liabilities holds much water when you look at how quickly energetic staffs, like Patterson, have been able to fill in talent.
You really don't think proximity to talent makes a difference? Maybe their "energetic staff" is helping, but having talent literally in your backyard helps a lot. That combined with moving to the Big 12 makes it hard to believe they aren't recruiting even better. Even when they were in the Mountain West, they were outrecruiting us.
Recruiting rankings the past 6 years:
KSU: 47, 66, 59, 69, 63, 93
TCU: 50, 30, 37, 26, 46, 46
If anything, its nice to see K-State finally recruit at the same level as TCU last year for the first time in the last 6 years.
-
I really think you're under playing Patterson's comments. Changing offenses is one thing, but having quality depth is something Patterson specifically pointed out for underwhelming performances. Noting that they could win in the Mountain West and they thought even in the Big East with fewer guys in the 2nd and 3rd spots. Similarly look at K-State where we are down to Schellenberg at safety instead of having a credible back up last year. We both recognize that K-State's depth has destroyed our hopes at long term success in season. I don't think the argument about recruiting liabilities holds much water when you look at how quickly energetic staffs, like Patterson, have been able to fill in talent.
You really don't think proximity to talent makes a difference? Maybe their "energetic staff" is helping, but having talent literally in your backyard helps a lot. That combined with moving to the Big 12 makes it hard to believe they aren't recruiting even better. Even when they were in the Mountain West, they were outrecruiting us.
Recruiting rankings the past 6 years:
KSU: 47, 66, 59, 69, 63, 93
TCU: 50, 30, 37, 26, 46, 46
If anything, its nice to see K-State finally recruit at the same level as TCU last year for the first time in the last 6 years.
Should compare players drafted (rounds) and players that signed with NFL teams to compare talent levels, but that is a lot more work.
-
Should compare players drafted (rounds) and players that signed with NFL teams to compare talent levels, but that is a lot more work.
I agree, but lots of people put a lot of stock into recruiting rankings. That's not necessarily a bad thing, 4 and 5 star players are a lot more likely to end up being really good college players, but I think it has some limitations too.
-
Should compare players drafted (rounds) and players that signed with NFL teams to compare talent levels, but that is a lot more work.
I agree, but lots of people put a lot of stock into recruiting rankings. That's not necessarily a bad thing, 4 and 5 star players are a lot more likely to end up being really good college players, but I think it has some limitations too.
Gets really muddy with 3 stars and 2 stars can be code for incomplete evaluation. Also you get points for number of players signed and in the long run that can be a bad sign because it can signal a lot of roster turnover. Rivals isn't designed to rank classes for non traditional powerhouse schools, imo.
-
Gets really muddy with 3 stars and 2 stars can be code for incomplete evaluation. Also you get points for number of players signed and in the long run that can be a bad sign because it can signal a lot of roster turnover. Rivals isn't designed to rank classes for non traditional powerhouse schools, imo.
Good points and that's where most of our and TCU's recruits are rated.
-
Should compare players drafted (rounds) and players that signed with NFL teams to compare talent levels, but that is a lot more work.
I agree, but lots of people put a lot of stock into recruiting rankings. That's not necessarily a bad thing, 4 and 5 star players are a lot more likely to end up being really good college players, but I think it has some limitations too.
Gets really muddy with 3 stars and 2 stars can be code for incomplete evaluation. Also you get points for number of players signed and in the long run that can be a bad sign because it can signal a lot of roster turnover. Rivals isn't designed to rank classes for non traditional powerhouse schools, imo.
Yes, GMFP and company have been excellent at recruiting 3 star kids at one position, changing their position, and making them impactful college players.
-
I really think you're under playing Patterson's comments. Changing offenses is one thing, but having quality depth is something Patterson specifically pointed out for underwhelming performances. Noting that they could win in the Mountain West and they thought even in the Big East with fewer guys in the 2nd and 3rd spots. Similarly look at K-State where we are down to Schellenberg at safety instead of having a credible back up last year. We both recognize that K-State's depth has destroyed our hopes at long term success in season. I don't think the argument about recruiting liabilities holds much water when you look at how quickly energetic staffs, like Patterson, have been able to fill in talent.
You really don't think proximity to talent makes a difference? Maybe their "energetic staff" is helping, but having talent literally in your backyard helps a lot. That combined with moving to the Big 12 makes it hard to believe they aren't recruiting even better. Even when they were in the Mountain West, they were outrecruiting us.
Recruiting rankings the past 6 years:
KSU: 47, 66, 59, 69, 63, 93
TCU: 50, 30, 37, 26, 46, 46
If anything, its nice to see K-State finally recruit at the same level as TCU last year for the first time in the last 6 years.
I'm sure proximity plays a role in deciding between two like programs. To provide a counter point (which I don't think you were totally making), if proximity was a huge factor in success I'd point to SMU, FAU, FIU, and North Texas. I grant that many of them are mid major schools, but they are all "in" recruiting hot beds with terrible results. I'd also point to Tech under the Pirate, Us under the good years of Snyder 1.0 as examples where staff created an environment where depth wasn't an issue. I think Manhattan has grown enough where people can't use the negative recruiting talking points the way they were once used. I think the staff is elevating their program through their moves whereas you almost make it seem like an organic growth, I'm thinking about how Snyder 1.0 helped to push Manhattan and K-State out of the doldrums although not an extreme comparison with Patterson having it much easier than Snyder.
I think we're pretty close in ideas here, I think we'd both agree that Snyder 2.0 has done *better* in recruiting over the last few years, but they are still significantly under achieving, especially based on our success recently. But we are still lacking quality depth, especially depth generated by generational evolvement, ie freshmen developing into good upper classmen but are still serviceable if they are pressed into service. Right now we have upper classmen who are playing who aren't Big 12 caliber with no one behind them (Schellenberg is the best example).
-
Should compare players drafted (rounds) and players that signed with NFL teams to compare talent levels, but that is a lot more work.
I agree, but lots of people put a lot of stock into recruiting rankings. That's not necessarily a bad thing, 4 and 5 star players are a lot more likely to end up being really good college players, but I think it has some limitations too.
Gets really muddy with 3 stars and 2 stars can be code for incomplete evaluation. Also you get points for number of players signed and in the long run that can be a bad sign because it can signal a lot of roster turnover. Rivals isn't designed to rank classes for non traditional powerhouse schools, imo.
Yes, GMFP and company have been excellent at recruiting 3 star kids at one position, changing their position, and making them impactful college players.
Yes both KSU & TCU have demonstrated to be some of the better evaluators of talent in the country. Yet both programs are completely different. TCU recruits a small distinct area and K-State has a pretty wide spread. Both have their advantages and disadvantages.
-
Just saw Lefty's "ksu can't win the must win game" thread. I see all the valid arguments. For me, it's not that we can't beat a team ranked 10 spots above us on the road so much as we often play like crap. We tend to display an inability to dictate game tempo, style, etc., or adjust to what the other team is exploiting. I'm talking "0-10 when both teams ranked in top 10, and 7 times by double digits" type stuff. These aren't exactly David/Goliath type odds. Our 5 hearts and lack of depth are what got us there, and what eventually get us killed.
The '03 CCG is calling.
-
lack of depth. we are beat up and worn out.
This is the biggest issue with Snyder 2. And it was highlighted this past Saturday.
But overall I can't complain. This staff has put together teams that have finished 2nd, 1st, 5th, and (at worst) 3rd over the last 4 seasons. We have been in the national conversation for 3 of the past 4 seasons. We are back to the mid-90s style team, one that beats almost every team we "should" and occasionally gets whipped by teams with superior talent.
Yes, having so many walk ons and grey shirts that become major contributors is a mixed bag; it highlights the ability of this staff to find and develop players no one else wants (especially local/KS talent). But it also shows that recruiting isn't great and even among what "should" be decent 3 star talent, we are missing often. JUCOs are a mixed bag, and often guys we hope to be stars take a year to develop, or they never develop at all. That said, I think the mentality that we are playing inferior players to teach more talented guys lessons is stupid at best. This staff is paid to win games and they are flat out playing the best possibly 22 guys they can. If guys that recruiting services (and our fans) think are super talented really were better options, they would be on the field.
IMO this staff has done a fantastic job putting together game plans and personnel to compete at a very high level, but when a guy goes down or can't play (see Dakorey) or gets dinged (see Waters) it shows up in how we play and our ability to compete. We simply don't have a 2nd guy at most positions that can step in and make up the difference and often there is a pretty big gap. Still, we keep plugging away and winning games at a high rate (75% the last 4 seasons) and this is what K-State football is right now. As long as Snyder is here, this will continue to be what K-State football is. Perhaps some day we'll have a dynamic staff that is better at recruiting (I have no delusions that we'll ever be Texas or Oklahoma) and still manage to win games at a high rate, but I'll gladly take what we have right now. In fact, I'm sure there will be a point in the next 10-15 years where I'll want to go back to this era of football for K-State.
We got to make do with what we can get. We're never going to recruit like Texas or OU. OU is spenting 370 mil on improvements after this season and Texas already said they are willing to pay scholarship recruits $10,000. in stipends.
-
20 rushing yards? No worries, d Scott will write a jerkoff piece about heart and the powertards will eat it up
:lol:
And right on cue, D Scott delivers!
d__scott
Post #11006
Jonathan Truman chimes in on team speed, etc
K-State moves on. Enjoy.
Link: Moving forward
To the concern expressed by a segment of K-State loyalists suggesting the Wildcats lack the speed necessary to hang with Top 10 squads, Truman replied, "I read all the time that Kansas State is just a disciplined team with no athleticism and stuff. We all believe we're athletic enough to play with anybody. Every team in this day in age can compete with any other team. It doesn't have anything to do with athleticism and things like that. It goes down to all the little things people consider as little things, and hard work, and how you prepare."
:facepalm:
-
They actually think it doesn't matter. Bill is such a boss.
-
They actually think it doesn't matter. Bill is such a boss.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.comicvine.com%2Fuploads%2Fscale_small%2F0%2F77%2F984696-gepeto.jpg&hash=8521578a7abb4177651a195f17c99a44919990e8)
-
I am glad they (the players) think that. The opposite would be worse.
-
In college it works well most of the time to have a lot of guys that are in the right position all most all of the time on defense. and on offense to have guys that all have a specific assignment that they understand and can execute to put themselves in the right place.
Bill has shown to be pretty successful with inferior athletes doing this.
Kind of the it will work on paper so it should work with the players.
and yes every team tries to do this but bill and staff have been exceptional at delivering the product on the field.
-
In college it works well most of the time to have a lot of guys that are in the right position all most all of the time on defense. and on offense to have guys that all have a specific assignment that they understand and can execute to put themselves in the right place.
Bill has shown to be pretty successful with inferior athletes doing this.
Kind of the it will work on paper so it should work with the players.
and yes every team tries to do this but bill and staff have been exceptional at delivering the product on the field.
It's Snyderball. I'm going to completely give up certain things (risky plays on offense, aggressive defense) in an attempt to not make mistakes, and I'm going to slow the game down. I'm going to bet that you aren't able to be as mistake free as we are over the course of an entire game, and we're going assume, more often than not, that your mistakes lead to our points, which will lead to us winning.
The OU game was the perfect example of Snyderball. Just give them rope. They're college kids; eventually, they'll screw up.
Will it win 13 games in a row? Probably not. Will it win 70-80% of the time with our talent level? Probably.
-
In college it works well most of the time to have a lot of guys that are in the right position all most all of the time on defense. and on offense to have guys that all have a specific assignment that they understand and can execute to put themselves in the right place.
Bill has shown to be pretty successful with inferior athletes doing this.
Kind of the it will work on paper so it should work with the players.
and yes every team tries to do this but bill and staff have been exceptional at delivering the product on the field.
It's Snyderball. I'm going to completely give up certain things (risky plays on offense, aggressive defense) in an attempt to not make mistakes, and I'm going to slow the game down. I'm going to bet that you aren't able to be as mistake free as we are over the course of an entire game, and we're going assume, more often than not, that your mistakes lead to our points, which will lead to us winning.
The OU game was the perfect example of Snyderball. Just give them rope. They're college kids; eventually, they'll screw up.
Will it win 13 games in a row? Probably not. Will it win 70-80% of the time with our talent level? Probably.
Well, it is the most frustrating rough ridin' thing in the world when you are down or a quaterback continually dances around in the pocket and takes off running for huge gains. You would think something would change, but it just doesn't seem like it does.
-
I don't think people appreciate how badly Snyder got outschemed Saturday. He's the worst coach in the world with a two score deficit.
-
I don't think people appreciate how badly Snyder got outschemed Saturday. He's the worst coach in the world with a two score deficit.
well I dunno about _worst_, but historically I imagine Bill's teams are pretty bad down two scores and pretty good up two scores. But then against most teams probably are, but I suspect Bill is more extreme in this aspect.