cleareyesfullhearts said:
Pretty spot on. I was a Rhule critic early on in his Baylor tenure. I DO think he underachieved his first season, going 1-11, but what I realize now is that underachievement was a result of, literally, his process. He had to change the culture and did so without compromise. Some players aren't going to buy in and to really get that culture shift in place takes time. In the mean time, there's underachievement. Now with the culture in place, his teams are so freaking tough. There is no game too difficult and no moment too large for them to overcome. It's quite the difference from what we were used to with Briles. He was a schemer and found ways to get the most out of the pieces he had. His teams weren't disciplined or tough, though, and we had games where we would inexplicably fall apart - Cotton Bowl vs Mich St comes to mind. Don't get me wrong, I loved Baylor football under Briles - that offense was a joy to watch. But seeing the way Rhules teams fight is somehow more fulfilling.
Agreed - me too. In hind sight, there was probably a ton of resentment and counter-productivity among players loyal to the former staff in that first terrible year.
Having the best offense in the country was fun, but I'm not sure it is any better to win games 63-60 than 17-14.
There are very few teams in history that have been elite at both offense and defense - usually the defense inherently suffers with the fast-paced quick-score offensive schemes. The 2005 UT team with Vince Young was one of the few I recall off-hand that was probably top 10 in both.
While there is definitely room for improvement, I am coming around to the more balanced approach.
