If ended up 5-7 it'd be a huge disappointment
We'll be 5-7 if Kempt is the starter the rest of the year.
If ended up 5-7 it'd be a huge disappointment
How do you figure? You really think we're going to end the year 1-5? Kempt will probably be the starter for the rest of the year, I doubt Park will be back this season.We'll be 5-7 if Kempt is the starter the rest of the year.
We'll be 5-7 if Kempt is the starter the rest of the year.
The same argument could be made if park starts the rest of the games. Getting to 5 wins is going to be tough.
Sure it could.
But I like our chances better with a 100% healthy Park.
I can understand that (although I’m not sure if I agree).
We'll be 5-7 if Kempt is the starter the rest of the year.
Is that really any different than if Park was playing?
As I stated above to the exact same question...
Park gives us a better chance, IMO.
No he's not. He's not on the team.
If, or when, he does return... I don't think he should start right away if we keep winning with Kempt. That's all I'm saying. Don't ruin a good thing.
If Park returns and Kempt is struggling, that's a different story.
I could very well see us losing the next 4, beating Baylor, and losing to KSU.. yes.
Once these Defenses figure out what were doing and they will. We won't be able to throw it down field. Kempt's progression are nothing compared to what Parks were. Park would sit back there and go through a 4 WR progression before coming back to option 1 and hitting for 15 yards. Kempt isn't going to do that.
Guys can say what they want about him going to OSU and playing for a HS team that won 9 state titles.. blah blah blah. It doesn't mean anything.
Will he progress through the rest of the year? I would assume so. But right now his reads aren't anything compared to Park.
Our playbook is still very limited with Kempt behind center. It will continue to be limited as well. He's a Pro Style quarterback.
I don't believe we beat Oklahoma with him so I'd be interested to know where 3 more wins come from.
You have no clue what you're talking about. You're just repeating things you've heard guys say on TV before. He hasn't had to go through progressions. You also would know what a progression looks like.
Your last point is very incriminating evidence that you're talking out of your ass. Kempt has done more in the designed running game than Park has. Park had no desire to keep the ball in any sort of run design. Second, there isn't much in designed QB run game in this offense right now unless Lanning is in. The running game is dynamic in different ways.
You're right.. I would know!
But you seem to know my background better than I do, so please continue to tell me things that I supposedly do and do not know!
He hasn't had to go through progressions? Your right, because the plays are designed for him to throw the ball 5 yards and don't require him to go through an extensive progression. Manning clearly knows his reads aren't what Parks are. You don't know that, though.
You clearly don't know what your watching.
you're*
Yeah, Parks progression was so awesome against Texas. I mean, how can you argue against that? The whole argument that because someone hasn't proven to be able to do something means they can't do it is ridiculous. At what point in either of Kempt's starts would it have been appropriate to start running a bunch of route trees requiring more blocking, time and risk? Never. There was never a need.
you're*
Yeah, Parks progression was so awesome against Texas. I mean, how can you argue against that? The whole argument that because someone hasn't proven to be able to do something means they can't do it is ridiculous. At what point in either of Kempt's starts would it have been appropriate to start running a bunch of route trees requiring more blocking, time and risk? Never. There was never a need.