(05-19-2017 02:48 PM)T.I.G.E.R.S Wrote:  TBH we should have been ranked #1, OU lost 95% of their RB productivity and like 75% of their WR productivity when Perine, Mixon, and Westbrook left, starting RB is still up in the air and not sure who will step in to take over as top WR. That ranking just shows how good Baker Mayfield really is. Btw OU is my other favorite team so i see them just add much as the Tigers.

We were among the worst in FBS when it came to protecting the QB. We were man handled on both lines in our bowl last year. We can only assume that we have corrected these issues until we actually take the field. So a rating of 2 is far and above anything we could expect.

(05-19-2017 05:19 PM)holyterror Wrote:  Not sold that dorceus will be our best running back.
Henderson, for my money.

Patrick Taylor, Jr.

The man.

(05-19-2017 06:14 PM)TG4 Wrote:  

(05-19-2017 05:19 PM)holyterror Wrote:  Not sold that dorceus will be our best running back.
Henderson, for my money.

Patrick Taylor, Jr.

The man.

You beat me to it, TG4. I think Taylor becomes the every-down back sometime during the season.

Good to have nice options.

Henderson is fantastic but I've got to go with Dorian's.

Fun to think how good they might be....O-line in tact......Riley, Dorceus, Taylor, Henderson, Miller, and freaking Phil Mayhue! Love that under the radar guy. If Riley can stay healthy and they don't fall in love with their press clippings....should be a fun ride.

(05-19-2017 06:07 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(05-19-2017 02:48 PM)T.I.G.E.R.S Wrote:  TBH we should have been ranked #1, OU lost 95% of their RB productivity and like 75% of their WR productivity when Perine, Mixon, and Westbrook left, starting RB is still up in the air and not sure who will step in to take over as top WR. That ranking just shows how good Baker Mayfield really is. Btw OU is my other favorite team so i see them just add much as the Tigers.

We were among the worst in FBS when it came to protecting the QB. We were man handled on both lines in our bowl last year. We can only assume that we have corrected these issues until we actually take the field. So a rating of 2 is far and above anything we could expect.

Sorry but this is the same ignorant drivel I expect out of ill-informed, pot stirring, nobody.

We return 9 starters from an offense that finished ranked 28th in the nation. NOBODY comes close to returning as much production as we do. The fact that we are top 5 is ABSOLUTELY expected from anybody that knows football. The fact that you obviously don't is shown by your ridiculous post!!!

(05-20-2017 01:03 AM)tigernole79 Wrote:  

(05-19-2017 06:07 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(05-19-2017 02:48 PM)T.I.G.E.R.S Wrote:  TBH we should have been ranked #1, OU lost 95% of their RB productivity and like 75% of their WR productivity when Perine, Mixon, and Westbrook left, starting RB is still up in the air and not sure who will step in to take over as top WR. That ranking just shows how good Baker Mayfield really is. Btw OU is my other favorite team so i see them just add much as the Tigers.

We were among the worst in FBS when it came to protecting the QB. We were man handled on both lines in our bowl last year. We can only assume that we have corrected these issues until we actually take the field. So a rating of 2 is far and above anything we could expect.

Sorry but this is the same ignorant drivel I expect out of ill-informed, pot stirring, nobody.

We return 9 starters from an offense that finished ranked 28th in the nation. NOBODY comes close to returning as much production as we do. The fact that we are top 5 is ABSOLUTELY expected from anybody that knows football. The fact that you obviously don't is shown by your ridiculous post!!!

We may return 9 players but they are the same 9 players who finished 103rd out of 128 in sacks allowed and 109th in tackles for loss allowed.

Stop to think where we would have been without those sacks and tackles for losses.

Just returning these players is not enough if they have not shown improvement. And that is still a question mark until they are able to prove that they have improved.

And before you start with the "they improved as year went along" argument do not forget WKU totally dominated us on BOTH sides of the line in the bowl game.

YES they may be improved. But it is still an unproven variable until they hit the field and prove themselves.

(05-19-2017 06:16 PM)Tigx Wrote:  

(05-19-2017 06:14 PM)TG4 Wrote:  

(05-19-2017 05:19 PM)holyterror Wrote:  Not sold that dorceus will be our best running back.
Henderson, for my money.

Patrick Taylor, Jr.

The man.

You beat me to it, TG4. I think Taylor becomes the every-down back sometime during the season.

Good to have nice options.

PT Jr. is my favorite back as well. Always gets positive yardage. He reminds me of Eddie George

(05-20-2017 01:40 AM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(05-20-2017 01:03 AM)tigernole79 Wrote:  

(05-19-2017 06:07 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(05-19-2017 02:48 PM)T.I.G.E.R.S Wrote:  TBH we should have been ranked #1, OU lost 95% of their RB productivity and like 75% of their WR productivity when Perine, Mixon, and Westbrook left, starting RB is still up in the air and not sure who will step in to take over as top WR. That ranking just shows how good Baker Mayfield really is. Btw OU is my other favorite team so i see them just add much as the Tigers.

We were among the worst in FBS when it came to protecting the QB. We were man handled on both lines in our bowl last year. We can only assume that we have corrected these issues until we actually take the field. So a rating of 2 is far and above anything we could expect.

Sorry but this is the same ignorant drivel I expect out of ill-informed, pot stirring, nobody.

We return 9 starters from an offense that finished ranked 28th in the nation. NOBODY comes close to returning as much production as we do. The fact that we are top 5 is ABSOLUTELY expected from anybody that knows football. The fact that you obviously don't is shown by your ridiculous post!!!

We may return 9 players but they are the same 9 players who finished 103rd out of 128 in sacks allowed and 109th in tackles for loss allowed.

Stop to think where we would have been without those sacks and tackles for losses.

Just returning these players is not enough if they have not shown improvement. And that is still a question mark until they are able to prove that they have improved.

And before you start with the "they improved as year went along" argument do not forget WKU totally dominated us on BOTH sides of the line in the bowl game.

YES they may be improved. But it is still an unproven variable until they hit the field and prove themselves.

Good points. In sum, we were a powerful offense last season despite the O Line issues. We lost five games last season. Line of scrimmage improvement should help us win more games.

(05-20-2017 01:40 AM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(05-20-2017 01:03 AM)tigernole79 Wrote:  

(05-19-2017 06:07 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(05-19-2017 02:48 PM)T.I.G.E.R.S Wrote:  TBH we should have been ranked #1, OU lost 95% of their RB productivity and like 75% of their WR productivity when Perine, Mixon, and Westbrook left, starting RB is still up in the air and not sure who will step in to take over as top WR. That ranking just shows how good Baker Mayfield really is. Btw OU is my other favorite team so i see them just add much as the Tigers.

We were among the worst in FBS when it came to protecting the QB. We were man handled on both lines in our bowl last year. We can only assume that we have corrected these issues until we actually take the field. So a rating of 2 is far and above anything we could expect.

Sorry but this is the same ignorant drivel I expect out of ill-informed, pot stirring, nobody.

We return 9 starters from an offense that finished ranked 28th in the nation. NOBODY comes close to returning as much production as we do. The fact that we are top 5 is ABSOLUTELY expected from anybody that knows football. The fact that you obviously don't is shown by your ridiculous post!!!

We may return 9 players but they are the same 9 players who finished 103rd out of 128 in sacks allowed and 109th in tackles for loss allowed.

Stop to think where we would have been without those sacks and tackles for losses.

Just returning these players is not enough if they have not shown improvement. And that is still a question mark until they are able to prove that they have improved.

And before you start with the "they improved as year went along" argument do not forget WKU totally dominated us on BOTH sides of the line in the bowl game.

YES they may be improved. But it is still an unproven variable until they hit the field and prove themselves.

Somehow it seems that if you won the lottery, your first reaction would be, "oh no! All my family is going to be hitting me up for money, and I'm going to have to hire an investment advisor."

(05-20-2017 11:11 AM)mphsfan Wrote:  

(05-20-2017 01:40 AM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(05-20-2017 01:03 AM)tigernole79 Wrote:  

(05-19-2017 06:07 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(05-19-2017 02:48 PM)T.I.G.E.R.S Wrote:  TBH we should have been ranked #1, OU lost 95% of their RB productivity and like 75% of their WR productivity when Perine, Mixon, and Westbrook left, starting RB is still up in the air and not sure who will step in to take over as top WR. That ranking just shows how good Baker Mayfield really is. Btw OU is my other favorite team so i see them just add much as the Tigers.

We were among the worst in FBS when it came to protecting the QB. We were man handled on both lines in our bowl last year. We can only assume that we have corrected these issues until we actually take the field. So a rating of 2 is far and above anything we could expect.

Sorry but this is the same ignorant drivel I expect out of ill-informed, pot stirring, nobody.

We return 9 starters from an offense that finished ranked 28th in the nation. NOBODY comes close to returning as much production as we do. The fact that we are top 5 is ABSOLUTELY expected from anybody that knows football. The fact that you obviously don't is shown by your ridiculous post!!!

We may return 9 players but they are the same 9 players who finished 103rd out of 128 in sacks allowed and 109th in tackles for loss allowed.

Stop to think where we would have been without those sacks and tackles for losses.

Just returning these players is not enough if they have not shown improvement. And that is still a question mark until they are able to prove that they have improved.

And before you start with the "they improved as year went along" argument do not forget WKU totally dominated us on BOTH sides of the line in the bowl game.

YES they may be improved. But it is still an unproven variable until they hit the field and prove themselves.

Somehow it seems that if you won the lottery, your first reaction would be, "oh no! All my family is going to be hitting me up for money, and I'm going to have to hire an investment advisor."

Nope it would be my entire immediate family is now potential crime victims and how do i protect them.

(05-20-2017 01:40 AM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(05-20-2017 01:03 AM)tigernole79 Wrote:  

(05-19-2017 06:07 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(05-19-2017 02:48 PM)T.I.G.E.R.S Wrote:  TBH we should have been ranked #1, OU lost 95% of their RB productivity and like 75% of their WR productivity when Perine, Mixon, and Westbrook left, starting RB is still up in the air and not sure who will step in to take over as top WR. That ranking just shows how good Baker Mayfield really is. Btw OU is my other favorite team so i see them just add much as the Tigers.

We were among the worst in FBS when it came to protecting the QB. We were man handled on both lines in our bowl last year. We can only assume that we have corrected these issues until we actually take the field. So a rating of 2 is far and above anything we could expect.

Sorry but this is the same ignorant drivel I expect out of ill-informed, pot stirring, nobody.

We return 9 starters from an offense that finished ranked 28th in the nation. NOBODY comes close to returning as much production as we do. The fact that we are top 5 is ABSOLUTELY expected from anybody that knows football. The fact that you obviously don't is shown by your ridiculous post!!!

We may return 9 players but they are the same 9 players who finished 103rd out of 128 in sacks allowed and 109th in tackles for loss allowed.

Stop to think where we would have been without those sacks and tackles for losses.

Just returning these players is not enough if they have not shown improvement. And that is still a question mark until they are able to prove that they have improved.

And before you start with the "they improved as year went along" argument do not forget WKU totally dominated us on BOTH sides of the line in the bowl game.

YES they may be improved. But it is still an unproven variable until they hit the field and prove themselves.

Forest, trees. The offense's top priority is to score points. We were #15 in scoring offense. Sure, you can say "but what would we have been if...". Problem is, it's not a lab environment where you can just change one aspect (sacks) and expect everything else to remain constant.

Generally speaking though, I think it's very reasonable to expect this area to improve.