A lot of us have stated a similar comment at one point or another.

We are effectively saying that, yes, we need a good defense but this is the HUNH Spread Big 12. A good defense may only get you so far. You gotta have offense. You need to be able to score fast for those games where the defense starts to wear out in the 4th quarter.

It's a small sample size but there have been 15 Big 12 games thus far in 2017. The average score for the LOSER is 23.7. The average score for the WINNER is 41.3.

30 points in the 15 games would give you a record of 8-7. There is a selection bias to this process as the losing teams tend to be Baylor and Kansas (40% of the losses). Remove Baylor and Kansas and 30 points gets you a record of 4-5.

Due to the aforementioned selection bias, know that against the winners 35 points would net you a record of 5-10. Scoring 40 points instead only improves your record to 6-8-1. You aren't going bowling.

I'd personally love a mighty fine defense. One that we haven't seen in these parts in years. But even with a really good defense we will still need a pretty good offense.

Great analysis.

Even Alabama has gone this route. Patterson went this route. Only Rhule hasn't figured it out yet, and one of the teams most responsible for making that trend happened hired the guy. It's mind boggling.

Stanford tries this in the PAC 12 which has similar offenses. They've yet to win a conference title lately even though they have good recruiting, a good coach and a well run team. They just can't make it through the gauntlet of touchdown happy teams.

hodedofome said:

---

Stanford tries this in the PAC 12 which has similar offenses. They've yet to win a conference title lately even though they have good recruiting, a good coach and a well run team. They just can't make it through the gauntlet of touchdown happy teams.

---

They're not tough enough yet so they're losing more to fix that problem, then they'll win it all.

Not sure what your definition of lately is....but Stanford was conference champs in 2015, 2013 and 2012. That's pretty impessive to me.

stillwaiting said:

---

Not sure what your definition of lately is....but Stanford was conference champs in 2015, 2013 and 2012. That's pretty impessive to me.

---

Shows you what I know. Thanks for the correction.

stillwaiting said:

---

Not sure what your definition of lately is....but Stanford was conference champs in 2015, 2013 and 2012. That's pretty impessive to me.

---

Yeah, Stanford is a great example that you can win in an offensive conference playing a physical, defense-minded style. So is Washington.

Neither of those programs was built overnight.

Jim Harbaugh, who built the program David Shaw inherited, went 4-8 and 5-7 in his first two seasons at Stanford.

Chris Petersen lost six games and had losing conference records in each of his first two seasons at Washington.

Building teams in this mold takes time, particularly when you're starting with talent built for a completely different playing style. Will Matt Rhule be able to do it here? Who knows? But it's going to take years, not games, to find out.

Quote:

---

Jim Harbaugh, who built the program David Shaw inherited, went 4-8 and 5-7 in his first two seasons at Stanford.

Chris Petersen lost six games and had losing conference records in each of his first two seasons at Washington.

---

None of those went 0-12 or 1-11. If Petersen lost six games each of his first two years, he was still bowl eligible each year. 4-8 and 5-7 are a looooong way from 0-12 or 1-11. I know we haven't played 6 of our games yet, but do your really expect we can/will beat anyone but (possibly) KU?

Its not that CMR had, or will have a down year his first year or two, its how bad it looks like its going to be. That and how truly, inexcusably awful the start was.

If he wins 4 of the last 6, I will probably change my mind. But the odds are really low.

Not just the big 12. I hate the myth that scoring only happens in the big 12.

Check out the scores from all the conferences any given saturday. They look very similar.

Just last weekend 2 SEC teams scored 50+ points. Georgia has done it like 2 or 3 times this year.

I think most see this it is just the analysts that continue to spread this myth while ignoring SEC, PAC, ACC, and B1G games that are shoot outs

bear2be2 said:

---

stillwaiting said:

---

Not sure what your definition of lately is....but Stanford was conference champs in 2015, 2013 and 2012. That's pretty impessive to me.

---

Yeah, Stanford is a great example that you can win in an offensive conference playing a physical, defense-minded style. So is Washington.

Neither of those programs was built overnight.

Jim Harbaugh, who built the program David Shaw inherited, went 4-8 and 5-7 in his first two seasons at Stanford.

Chris Petersen lost six games and had losing conference records in each of his first two seasons at Washington.

Building teams in this mold takes time, particularly when you're starting with talent built for a completely different playing style. Will Matt Rhule be able to do it here? Who knows? But it's going to take years, not games, to find out.

---

And therein lies the problem - it will take years to build it and there is only a small chance it will work. Two teams have run it in perhaps the weakest or 2nd weakest P5 conference and have had limited success. Stanford's offense is nothing special. They've won with defense for years. Yet, they're never really in contention for a playoff spot. They have a couple of bad losses every year. They benefited from a great RB last year. And the vaunted Washington offense was shut out in the first half last week by a Phil Bennett led defense that is one of the worst in the nation. Scored 7 points. They were also shut down by Alabama in the playoffs. When is the last time a Briles offense was held to 7 points? 2008 perhaps?

Itr's a terrible gamble, IMO, when there is a system that is much easier, more prolific, is run by most Texas high schools and doesn't need the same level of talent to be successful. This is a stupid gamble.

CorsicanaBear said:

---

]None of those went 0-12 or 1-11. If Petersen lost six games each of his first two years, he was still bowl eligible each year. 4-8 and 5-7 are a looooong way from 0-12 or 1-11. I know we haven't played 6 of our games yet, but do your really expect we can/will beat anyone but (possibly) KU?

---

The optimist in me says 3-3, the realist says 2 - 4.

0xdeadbeef said:

---

CorsicanaBear said:

---

]None of those went 0-12 or 1-11. If Petersen lost six games each of his first two years, he was still bowl eligible each year. 4-8 and 5-7 are a looooong way from 0-12 or 1-11. I know we haven't played 6 of our games yet, but do your really expect we can/will beat anyone but (possibly) KU?

---

The optimist in me says 3-3, the realist says 2 - 4.

---

Kansas and Iowa State? Tech?

0xdeadbeef said:

---

CorsicanaBear said:

---

]None of those went 0-12 or 1-11. If Petersen lost six games each of his first two years, he was still bowl eligible each year. 4-8 and 5-7 are a looooong way from 0-12 or 1-11. I know we haven't played 6 of our games yet, but do your really expect we can/will beat anyone but (possibly) KU?

---

The optimist in me says 3-3, the realist says 2 - 4.

---

The optimist in me says 1-5, the realist says 1-5.
If we go 3-3 over the last half of the season, it will be cause for huge optimism.

D. C. Bear said:

---

0xdeadbeef said:

---

CorsicanaBear said:

---

]None of those went 0-12 or 1-11. If Petersen lost six games each of his first two years, he was still bowl eligible each year. 4-8 and 5-7 are a looooong way from 0-12 or 1-11. I know we haven't played 6 of our games yet, but do your really expect we can/will beat anyone but (possibly) KU?

---

The optimist in me says 3-3, the realist says 2 - 4.

---

The optimist in me says 1-5, the realist says 1-5.
If we go 3-3 over the last half of the season, it will be cause for huge optimism.

---

Yup. 1 win is about as much as I believe we can hope for, barring some huge upset.

Mothra said:

---

0xdeadbeef said:

---

CorsicanaBear said:

---

]None of those went 0-12 or 1-11. If Petersen lost six games each of his first two years, he was still bowl eligible each year. 4-8 and 5-7 are a looooong way from 0-12 or 1-11. I know we haven't played 6 of our games yet, but do your really expect we can/will beat anyone but (possibly) KU?

---

The optimist in me says 3-3, the realist says 2 - 4.

---

Kansas and Iowa State? Tech?

---

Why, given the performances of all the teams above, would anyone expect to beat Iowa State or Tech? I can see Kansas, but we will not be favored in any other game the rest of the season, and maybe not that one.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

0xdeadbeef said:

---

CorsicanaBear said:

---

]None of those went 0-12 or 1-11. If Petersen lost six games each of his first two years, he was still bowl eligible each year. 4-8 and 5-7 are a looooong way from 0-12 or 1-11. I know we haven't played 6 of our games yet, but do your really expect we can/will beat anyone but (possibly) KU?

---

The optimist in me says 3-3, the realist says 2 - 4.

---

Kansas and Iowa State? Tech?

---

Why, given the performances of all the teams above, would anyone expect to beat Iowa State or Tech? I can see Kansas, but we will not be favored in any other game the rest of the season, and maybe not that one.

---

Beats me. Quite frankly, I think even a win at Kansas is unlikely. They're playing at home. I would say the chances of going 0-12 are greater than 1-11.

We have a better chance of beating UT than we do Iowa State or TT, IMO.

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

stillwaiting said:

---

Not sure what your definition of lately is....but Stanford was conference champs in 2015, 2013 and 2012. That's pretty impessive to me.

---

Yeah, Stanford is a great example that you can win in an offensive conference playing a physical, defense-minded style. So is Washington.

Neither of those programs was built overnight.

Jim Harbaugh, who built the program David Shaw inherited, went 4-8 and 5-7 in his first two seasons at Stanford.

Chris Petersen lost six games and had losing conference records in each of his first two seasons at Washington.

Building teams in this mold takes time, particularly when you're starting with talent built for a completely different playing style. Will Matt Rhule be able to do it here? Who knows? But it's going to take years, not games, to find out.

---

And therein lies the problem - it will take years to build it and there is only a small chance it will work. Two teams have run it in perhaps the weakest or 2nd weakest P5 conference and have had limited success. Stanford's offense is nothing special. They've won with defense for years. Yet, they're never really in contention for a playoff spot. They have a couple of bad losses every year. They benefited from a great RB last year. And the vaunted Washington offense was shut out in the first half last week by a Phil Bennett led defense that is one of the worst in the nation. Scored 7 points. They were also shut down by Alabama in the playoffs. When is the last time a Briles offense was held to 7 points? 2008 perhaps?

Itr's a terrible gamble, IMO, when there is a system that is much easier, more prolific, is run by most Texas high schools and doesn't need the same level of talent to be successful. This is a stupid gamble.

---

Rhule may be an arrogant and ignorant coach who thinks he can change the game of football in this part of the country. It's a little insane to try to fight the waves coming in. With a little humility and some ingenuity you can grab a surfboard and look good riding the waves instead.

The sweaty whiner up north finally came around.

Mothra said:

---

0xdeadbeef said:

---

CorsicanaBear said:

---

]None of those went 0-12 or 1-11. If Petersen lost six games each of his first two years, he was still bowl eligible each year. 4-8 and 5-7 are a looooong way from 0-12 or 1-11. I know we haven't played 6 of our games yet, but do your really expect we can/will beat anyone but (possibly) KU?

---

The optimist in me says 3-3, the realist says 2 - 4.

---

Kansas and Iowa State? Tech?

---

WVU is a good matchup for Baylor. Given the improvements we saw on the OL against OSU, I think they have enough to hold their own against that WVU Front 7. Schematically, the defensive system they ran that gave fits to the Briles scheme in a few games is something Baylor should be able to score points on. Defensively it should be in improvement as well. OSU had an elite set of WRs that WVU can't come close to matching. Safety play is still a problem, but WVU doesn't stress to the point of breaking schematically so it's an easier matchup.

Iowa State doesn't have the athletes to overwhelm Baylor in the defensive secondary, nor the front 7 and the physicality to overwhelm the Baylor OL like OU or K-State did.

Texas still has massive issues on offense that makes them very hit or miss and while they haven't made the mental errors Baylor has defensively, they still aren't elite defensively. Baylor's defense out performed Texas against K-State on a yards per drive metric.

I think it's realistic that Baylor wins at least 1 of those games, possibly 2. I expect Baylor to beat Kansas and play a close, but tough loss to Tech. TCU will be a 20 point blowout.

Offense is your best defense.

FACT.

The hand which strikes also blocks.

0xdeadbeef said:

---

TCU will be a 20 point blowout.

---

It's Patterson. He'll be up by 20 and the end of the first. He'll blow us out by 60 but lose two starters to injuries because he keeps them in all game, then claim it was cheap shots by Baylor.

It's what he does.

0xdeadbeef said:

---

Mothra said:

---

0xdeadbeef said:

---

CorsicanaBear said:

---

]None of those went 0-12 or 1-11. If Petersen lost six games each of his first two years, he was still bowl eligible each year. 4-8 and 5-7 are a looooong way from 0-12 or 1-11. I know we haven't played 6 of our games yet, but do your really expect we can/will beat anyone but (possibly) KU?

---

The optimist in me says 3-3, the realist says 2 - 4.

---

Kansas and Iowa State? Tech?

---

WVU is a good matchup for Baylor. Given the improvements we saw on the OL against OSU, I think they have enough to hold their own against that WVU Front 7. Schematically, the defensive system they ran that gave fits to the Briles scheme in a few games is something Baylor should be able to score points on. Defensively it should be in improvement as well. OSU had an elite set of WRs that WVU can't come close to matching. Safety play is still a problem, but WVU doesn't stress to the point of breaking schematically so it's an easier matchup.

Iowa State doesn't have the athletes to overwhelm Baylor in the defensive secondary, nor the front 7 and the physicality to overwhelm the Baylor OL like OU or K-State did.

Texas still has massive issues on offense that makes them very hit or miss and while they haven't made the mental errors Baylor has defensively, they still aren't elite defensively. Baylor's defense out performed Texas against K-State on a yards per drive metric.

I think it's realistic that Baylor wins at least 1 of those games, possibly 2. I expect Baylor to beat Kansas and play a close, but tough loss to Tech. TCU will be a 20 point blowout.

---

Thanks. Can't say I agree with anything you said, but here's hoping you are right.

Oldbear83 said:

---

0xdeadbeef said:

---

TCU will be a 20 point blowout.

---

It's Patterson. He'll be up by 20 and the end of the first. He'll blow us out by 60 but lose two starters to injuries because he keeps them in all game, then claim it was cheap shots by Baylor.

It's what he does.

---

Yup. I suspect TCU will hang 70 on us. Bigger blowout than OSU.

0xdeadbeef said:

---

CorsicanaBear said:

---

]None of those went 0-12 or 1-11. If Petersen lost six games each of his first two years, he was still bowl eligible each year. 4-8 and 5-7 are a looooong way from 0-12 or 1-11. I know we haven't played 6 of our games yet, but do your really expect we can/will beat anyone but (possibly) KU?

---

The optimist in me says 3-3, the realist says 2 - 4.

---

I hope your realist isn't being overly optimistic.

bear2be2 said:

---

stillwaiting said:

---

Not sure what your definition of lately is....but Stanford was conference champs in 2015, 2013 and 2012. That's pretty impessive to me.

---

Yeah, Stanford is a great example that you can win in an offensive conference playing a physical, defense-minded style. So is Washington.

Neither of those programs was built overnight.

Jim Harbaugh, who built the program David Shaw inherited, went 4-8 and 5-7 in his first two seasons at Stanford.

Chris Petersen lost six games and had losing conference records in each of his first two seasons at Washington.

Building teams in this mold takes time, particularly when you're starting with talent built for a completely different playing style. Will Matt Rhule be able to do it here? Who knows? But it's going to take years, not games, to find out.

---

Extremely worthy post. One that should be read every week for the next three months.

Mothra said:

---

0xdeadbeef said:

---

CorsicanaBear said:

---

]None of those went 0-12 or 1-11. If Petersen lost six games each of his first two years, he was still bowl eligible each year. 4-8 and 5-7 are a looooong way from 0-12 or 1-11. I know we haven't played 6 of our games yet, but do your really expect we can/will beat anyone but (possibly) KU?

---

The optimist in me says 3-3, the realist says 2 - 4.

---

Kansas and Iowa State? Tech?

---

We will not beat Tech unless we can greatly improve our pass rush; and we probably won't beat Iowa State.

D. C. Bear said:

---

0xdeadbeef said:

---

CorsicanaBear said:

---

]None of those went 0-12 or 1-11. If Petersen lost six games each of his first two years, he was still bowl eligible each year. 4-8 and 5-7 are a looooong way from 0-12 or 1-11. I know we haven't played 6 of our games yet, but do your really expect we can/will beat anyone but (possibly) KU?

---

The optimist in me says 3-3, the realist says 2 - 4.

---

The optimist in me says 1-5, the realist says 1-5.
If we go 3-3 over the last half of the season, it will be cause for huge optimism.

---

Indeed. Exactly what I think as well.

bear2be2 said:

---

stillwaiting said:

---

Not sure what your definition of lately is....but Stanford was conference champs in 2015, 2013 and 2012. That's pretty impessive to me.

---

Yeah, Stanford is a great example that you can win in an offensive conference playing a physical, defense-minded style. So is Washington.

Neither of those programs was built overnight.

Jim Harbaugh, who built the program David Shaw inherited, went 4-8 and 5-7 in his first two seasons at Stanford.

Chris Petersen lost six games and had losing conference records in each of his first two seasons at Washington.

Building teams in this mold takes time, particularly when you're starting with talent built for a completely different playing style. Will Matt Rhule be able to do it here? Who knows? But it's going to take years, not games, to find out.

---

Help me understand why we're being built. We were already built. We're being torn down

...there is one Big 12 team that you don't have to score 35 to beat.

Krieg said:

---

hodedofome said:

---

Stanford tries this in the PAC 12 which has similar offenses. They've yet to win a conference title lately even though they have good recruiting, a good coach and a well run team. They just can't make it through the gauntlet of touchdown happy teams.

---

They're not tough enough yet so they're losing more to fix that problem, then they'll win it all.

---

Losing breeds winning!!!

tommie said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

stillwaiting said:

---

Not sure what your definition of lately is....but Stanford was conference champs in 2015, 2013 and 2012. That's pretty impessive to me.

---

Yeah, Stanford is a great example that you can win in an offensive conference playing a physical, defense-minded style. So is Washington.

Neither of those programs was built overnight.

Jim Harbaugh, who built the program David Shaw inherited, went 4-8 and 5-7 in his first two seasons at Stanford.

Chris Petersen lost six games and had losing conference records in each of his first two seasons at Washington.

Building teams in this mold takes time, particularly when you're starting with talent built for a completely different playing style. Will Matt Rhule be able to do it here? Who knows? But it's going to take years, not games, to find out.

---

Help me understand why we're being built. We were already built. We're being torn down

---

Bingo. And we are being torn down to run an offense that hasn't worked in the big 12 since the late 90s.

Boatshoes said:

---

...there is one Big 12 team that you don't have to score 35 to beat.

---

A truth that even has KU feeling optimistic.

Come on "process", we are tired of playing hide and seek. You win, now come on out and let us see you....

More and more, "trust the process" sounds like ol' Clayton Williams smirk, that "it's gonna happen, so just lay back and enjoy it".

0xdeadbeef said:

---

Mothra said:

---

0xdeadbeef said:

---

CorsicanaBear said:

---

]None of those went 0-12 or 1-11. If Petersen lost six games each of his first two years, he was still bowl eligible each year. 4-8 and 5-7 are a looooong way from 0-12 or 1-11. I know we haven't played 6 of our games yet, but do your really expect we can/will beat anyone but (possibly) KU?

---

The optimist in me says 3-3, the realist says 2 - 4.

---

Kansas and Iowa State? Tech?

---

WVU is a good matchup for Baylor. Given the improvements we saw on the OL against OSU, I think they have enough to hold their own against that WVU Front 7. Schematically, the defensive system they ran that gave fits to the Briles scheme in a few games is something Baylor should be able to score points on. Defensively it should be in improvement as well. OSU had an elite set of WRs that WVU can't come close to matching. Safety play is still a problem, but WVU doesn't stress to the point of breaking schematically so it's an easier matchup.

Iowa State doesn't have the athletes to overwhelm Baylor in the defensive secondary, nor the front 7 and the physicality to overwhelm the Baylor OL like OU or K-State did.

Texas still has massive issues on offense that makes them very hit or miss and while they haven't made the mental errors Baylor has defensively, they still aren't elite defensively. Baylor's defense out performed Texas against K-State on a yards per drive metric.

I think it's realistic that Baylor wins at least 1 of those games, possibly 2. I expect Baylor to beat Kansas and play a close, but tough loss to Tech. TCU will be a 20 point blowout.

---

I appreciate your optimism. I really hope you don't gamble cause we have zero chance of winning more than one game. Baylor doesn't have any "easy" match-ups any longer.

Boatshoes said:

---

...there is one Big 12 team that you don't have to score 35 to beat.

---

Who?

Oh wait.....