2006 or 2007?

by owenh on Apr 30, 2008 11:51 PM CDT

The better team is....

2006 offered a surprisingly efficient offense through most of the season. However there were several stalled 3rd downs and enough goalline frustration to last a lifetime, (and cost us 1, maybe 2 games). The 2006 defense was top 5 against the run and decent through the air except for a tendency to get burned deep or on trick plays.

2007 offered a wildly inconsistent team on offense, yet notably more explosive than in 2006. The run game steadily improved, QB play stayed about the same except for more turnovers. The defense remained strong against the run, top 15-ish, and Texas didnt improve upon last year's pass defense, but it also wasn't horrible.

Now obviously, on talent alone, 2006 takes this one easily, but the talent didn't seem to make a huge difference. 10-3 in 2006, 10-3 in 2007.

What do you think, now that both seasons are in the rearview mirror?

All comments, FanPosts, and FanShots are the views of the reader-authors who create them.

Tweet Comment 4 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Actually

This is a great question. Which I’ll ponder a bit before weighing in on. (Study for finals, PB. STUDY!)

Personnel-wise, there were different advantages. (Or should have been, based on roster and experience):

OL – 2006
WR – 2007
RB: 2007
QB: 2007

DE: 2006
DT: 2007
LB: 2007
DB: 2006

That’s simplistic, but Texas had enough returning players in ‘07 that it should have been better than it was. We should have improved at LB and the DE’s were more than adequate to replace Crowder and Robison. Pretty sure we underperformed more in ‘07 than ‘06.

But I’ll have to save further thought for post-finals.

--PB--

by Peter Bean on May 1, 2008 12:43 AM CDT reply actions

This is very tough

(Study for finals, PB. STUDY!)

I am trying to tell my self the same thing

When you look at these two teams schedules….both teams lose to not very good K-state and A&M teams (both games we should have won)

But one of those teams beat OU and on that note i say 2006

I think if the 06 team played the 07 team 10 times the 06 team wins 6-4 (hope that made since)

by blazzinken on May 1, 2008 12:59 AM CDT reply actions

Probably 2006

The graduation- and injury-depleted O-line accounts for more of the disparity than any other position.

by a0nyme on May 1, 2008 1:55 AM CDT reply actions

I think both years were defined by injuries.

Prior to Colt dropping in the Kstate game, we were in position for a possible return to the title game. A little help would still have been necessary, but the way the BCS was shaping up, we were more or less in control of our destiny.

The offense was working, and the defense, despite its weakness against the long ball, was stout in QB pressure, and against the run.

The 10-3 final record in my mind, will always be attributed to Colt going down. With him there I think we beat K-State, and with a fully healthy Colt, I dont see us losing to Aggie that year either.

2007 the injury stories are Limas and the O-line. I think much of the expectation of our offensive production came from the assumption that these two would be able to produce. Limas was a non-factor even when he was playing, and our O-line was porous at best, and hobbled at the worst. But the defense was all around bad.

2006 was the better team. If everyone was healthy, imo, 2006 had a shot at the MNC game, 2007 would still have had a tough time winning the Big 12.

by BoddickerIsClutch on May 2, 2008 10:40 AM CDT reply actions