That decision was precisely the kind of meathead coaching that we should see absolutely none of this year if the staff has matured.Ugh.
Our offense with Drew Allen was truly inept.
I had forgotten what a difference Terrel Hunt made last year - even when he was throwing poorly.
Ugh.
Our offense with Drew Allen was truly inept.
I had forgotten what a difference Terrel Hunt made last year - even when he was throwing poorly.
I may not agree with some of the things you say (and likewise), but without question, you, Sir, are a FAN.
Precisely why I think the DBs are the most concerning unit on this team and have the most to prove.Our secondary got smoked once Robinson came into the game. It was a man amongst boys out there.
Our secondary got smoked once Robinson came into the game. It was a man amongst boys out there.
That decision was precisely the kind of meathead coaching that we should see absolutely none of this year if the staff has matured.
Wouldn't it have been simpler, and saved a lot of time and trouble, to just start Hunt in game 1?Actually, it was the exact opposite of "meatheaded." They recognized Hunt was better in second game of the season, gave him much more PT in the third, and made the switch by the fourth game. Meathead coaching would have been to stubbornly stick with Allen.
as soon as allen reached the 40 yard line, he became the worst qb ever. maybe it's just randomness but something screwy happened as soon as they hit the 40 yard line, maybe play calling?
between the 40s, 21-45, 182 yards, 0 TD, 5 INT, 58 rating
hunt had a 94 rating between the 40s. that still stinks but a 58? yeesh
those guys from ND been reinstated yet?Wouldn't it have been simpler, and saved a lot of time and trouble, to just start Hunt in game 1?
It's not game time.those guys from ND been reinstated yet?
I think sometimes things play out the way they do for a reason. I recall that Hunt hadn't instilled much confidence leading up to the season.Wouldn't it have been simpler, and saved a lot of time and trouble, to just start Hunt in game 1?
OttoinGrotto said:I think sometimes things play out the way they do for a reason. I recall that Hunt hadn't instilled much confidence leading up to the season.
Wouldn't it have been simpler, and saved a lot of time and trouble, to just start Hunt in game 1?
hunt was so terrible in his first couple BCS opponent games, he would've ended up benched had he been the one to start the year. good chance they end up losing the first two games with him looking terrible, then bring in allen to look terrible against NC St and WFHindsight is always 20/20.
The competition was close, we were playing a tough opponent on the "road" [basically], and Hunt was completely unproven. It isn't that hard to see why they erred on the guy who supposedly was a better passer, who'd played at Oklahoma versus a kid who hadn't seen the field.
I think there's something to that.hunt was so terrible in his first couple BCS opponent games, he would've ended up benched had he been the one to start the year. good chance they end up losing the first two games with him looking terrible, then bring in allen to look terrible against NC St and WF
getting the allen experiment out of the way early allowed them to take their lumps with hunt.
it's all just a big accident but i'm glad it worked out how it did
Our secondary got smoked once Robinson came into the game. It was a man amongst boys out there.