It's fine so long as you admit your opinion is terrible. Wingo is the big play threat in this offense. Getting rid of our explosiveness, the only real trait we can rely on right now, is stupid. We should look to utilize him differently maybe. Take him off the field? Fuck no.
Don't be an ass. Your argument was that we had no plays demonstrating that. You were wrong. Limited evidence is still some evidence. I think the reality is that the more experienced QB is going to be better at that part of the game. Arch has other attributes that he has demonstrated recently that will be very tough to match.
I don't think you understand what the NFL is looking for. They aren't killing their draft stocks at all. They are demonstrating other skill sets that the NFL will value and showing they can be complete every down players. While I personally think we are a little too conservative at times on defenses, especially in teams that should be overmatched by our line, Simmons learning to drop into coverage isn't a bad thing for his NFL future.
I think I also saw you (or maybe it was someone else) complaining that Hill's stats are way down this year. I think people forget we played 16 games last year. He had 113 total tackles (59 solo) or 7 tackles per game (3.6 solo). This year he is averaging... 7.5 tackles per game (3.8 solo). He has lower sack numbers (but those tend to come in bunches), but has already matched his interception total (1) and nearly matched his FF total (4 last year, 3 this year) in 8 fewer games. Simmons is averaging .8 sacks per game vs .56 last year. His total tackles per game is about the same as last year (3).
While your overall point about limited evidence is correct, the Florida throw was not a one-read quick action pass play. It was his second or third read in a standard drop back on 2nd and 22. He got the ball at 35 seconds left and the ball was out at 32 seconds left. This came directly after Arch on first and 10 got the ball with 55 seconds left and took a sack at 51 seconds left.
Yup. I'll also add, I see her response as more of a protective move for her sources that may be upset if the reporting has a negative effect on any potential deal.
I think she is saying her source is legitimate. It wasn't Sark or Sexton. She understands why Steve is mad, but also she is pointing out that he isn't saying "I'm staying at Texas". That seems pretty fair to me.
OU also got so much penetration that it created lanes for him to run in at different levels. Against a more disciplined or even just slower/less dominant front, that space isn't going to exist.
I just don't think the OU gameplan was ever going to be repeatable against other opponents. The run blocking was still bad. Wisner just had himself a game. We've tried more outside zone since then, and we haven't been able to generate anything against teams not named OU. The MSU 4th quarter game plan may be more repeatable.