Why Boise st losing starters doesn't really matter
Comments
-
blockquote>
go ahead and add altitude to that list. Doogs use that one a lot as well
Staff, TRUE?!!! -
Staff, TRUE?!!!CaptainPJ said:blockquote>
go ahead and add altitude to that list. Doogs use that one a lot as well
There is no staff. HTH. -
Youth is never a good fucking thing. And isn't a lame excuse. Especially on the oline. Teams win with youth yes, but those teams recruit top5 classes, or elite players at skill positions (Oregon), or just good at developing players for a system (Boise st)He_Needs_More_Time said:
You want to talk young go look up that 1990 team that won a Rose Bowl. Mostly sophomores and juniors.RaceBannon said:I saw some fuck from Stanford saying they don't rebuild they reload. They said that about the recently retired Don James. Now we have eternal youth
Fuck Oregon was young the last few years too.
Youth argument might be the lamest excuse in college sports. TUFF schedule is up there too I can't decide which one is worse. Doogs use them both way too much.
Sark does none of the above!
-
Certain positions like RB/WR/K/P are fine with a younger players. OL and and defense is where you NEED experience while feeding the younger players into the games slowly and at smart times. So when those guys are gone the players who were young are now RS SO/Jr./Sr. and replacing them.
Of course you will always have some studs who defy these normal circumstances (Shaq Thompson) or you just do a super shitty job at recruitng and one of your positions are so incredibly thin you are forced to use the younger players (Sark's OL last year). -
Am I getting Whooshed or did you just make a post that made sense?CuntWaffle said:Certain positions like RB/WR/K/P are fine with a younger players. OL and and defense is where you NEED experience while feeding the younger players into the games slowly and at smart times. So when those guys are gone the players who were young are now RS SO/Jr./Sr. and replacing them.
Of course you will always have some studs who defy these normal circumstances (Shaq Thompson) or you just do a super shitty job at recruitng and one of your positions are so incredibly thin you are forced to use the younger players (Sark's OL last year).
-
Neither. You are just terrible at the Internet.IrishDawg22 said:
Am I getting Whooshed or did you just make a post that made sense?CuntWaffle said:Certain positions like RB/WR/K/P are fine with a younger players. OL and and defense is where you NEED experience while feeding the younger players into the games slowly and at smart times. So when those guys are gone the players who were young are now RS SO/Jr./Sr. and replacing them.
Of course you will always have some studs who defy these normal circumstances (Shaq Thompson) or you just do a super shitty job at recruitng and one of your positions are so incredibly thin you are forced to use the younger players (Sark's OL last year).
HTH. -
Burn...that one never gets old.CuntWaffle said:
Neither. You are just terrible at the Internet.IrishDawg22 said:
Am I getting Whooshed or did you just make a post that made sense?CuntWaffle said:Certain positions like RB/WR/K/P are fine with a younger players. OL and and defense is where you NEED experience while feeding the younger players into the games slowly and at smart times. So when those guys are gone the players who were young are now RS SO/Jr./Sr. and replacing them.
Of course you will always have some studs who defy these normal circumstances (Shaq Thompson) or you just do a super shitty job at recruitng and one of your positions are so incredibly thin you are forced to use the younger players (Sark's OL last year).
HTH.
Glad to see you are back to your normal programming.
