Allezchat said:bgbigdog said:Griz!ron said:Didn't Stitt create this offense to succeed when he didn't have any superior athletes at any position?
Nobody said that. There are weaknesses, but Jones, Hendu, Roberts et.al, aren't close to middling or inferior. Did you expect Stitt to abandon his philosophy just because he didn't have the right horses up front? We haven't seen Lwood, Favors or Calhoun (he's been in the game book @least two of three weeks this fall) as yet so am not calling the running backs a bust as yet. Nguyen was caught from behind returning were he had an alley to run in, all you need to know about his ability to function in this or any offense. But teams will ignore the run and blitz most downs, as Liberty did, until they show they can put a hat on a hat and secure the line of scrimmage.
I think he's trying to argue that if inferior athletes at Mines were able to have success agains supposedly better athletes at the schools they faced at that level, why does it matter who the offensive line is at um. If the o-line at Mines were say 3/10 or 4/10 out of say an average level(5/10) for that Division and they were successful against a talent level of average and above, where do the um o-line stack up compared to the talent level that they face? Are they average? Slightly above average? Because, I think the argument that he's trying to make is that um lineman shouldn't need to be a super dominate group under our conventional definition of a dominate o-line if this system is set up to compete with superior athletes. And also, I would assume that with the recruiting tools available to um, that the o-line level of athletes are at least a 7/10 when compared to the average FCS-level o-lineman.
couldn't of said it better myself. :thumb: