What's going on?

[anthonyk2]

Please explain why our strategy has failed so far. All I see are our good players like Cruz, Kibble and now Bo Barnes leaving and UT getting pedestrian players incoming.

[Bonaparte]

19 minutes ago, anthonyk2 said:

Please explain why our strategy has failed so far. All I see are our good players like Cruz, Kibble and now Bo Barnes leaving and UT getting pedestrian players incoming.

Who’s pedestrian here? We’ll only know if the strategy has failed once the transfer portal closes.

[drag worm]

We didn't lock anyone down before the portal window opened.

Then when we got our primary targets onto campus we didn't close the deal before they all headed off back to their comfort zones.

There's still time, it's just hard to believe we've moved on to Oklahoma State edges and Vanderbilt WRs from what we thought "All in for Arch's last season" was going to be like.

[Tommy]

Texas may actually be following the salary cap, and therefore can't afford even the current players. Checks out as to having Livingstone, Barnes, Arch allegedly offered to take pay cuts. 

As of now, replacing Tre w Raleek is a loss. And Raleek is now costing more than Tre, presumably. Some arguement over this, but B12 stats didn't look too hot for Tech v Oregon. 

Replacing Lefau/Barnes w Wisconsin LB and OU LB also seems to be a loss too.

Replacing Moore w Richardson seems to be another loss as well. 

 

This "All In" talk, even if true, is misguided if Texas has less chips than anyone they're competing with. Texas still has a strong base of players, but as of now, it's weaker than when portal season started, even if we get all the supposed targets above, outside of Coleman and the Michigan OL. 

[Battrayal]

3 minutes ago, Tommy said:

Texas may actually be following the salary cap, and therefore can't afford even the current players. Checks out as to having Livingstone, Barnes, Arch allegedly offered to take pay cuts. 

As of now, replacing Tre w Raleek is a loss. And Raleek is now costing more than Tre, presumably. Some arguement over this, but B12 stats didn't look too hot for Tech v Oregon. 

Replacing Lefau/Barnes w Wisconsin LB and OU LB also seems to be a loss too.

Replacing Moore w Richardson seems to be another loss as well. 

 

This "All In" talk, even if true, is misguided if Texas has less chips than anyone they're competing with. Texas still has a strong base of players, but as of now, it's weaker than when portal season started, even if we get all the supposed targets above, outside of Coleman and the Michigan OL. 

Livingstone and Barnes did not offer to take pay cuts. they both wanted way more than their current deal and we said no thanks, thinking we could replace their production for less. We will see if they can

[Tommy]

Meant Texas having offered Livingstone, Arch, and Barnes all pay cuts. Arch agreed and Livingstone/Barnes portaled

[NothinButDaHorns34]

Oooooh nooooo, The sky is falling 

[Robbin Antono]

1 hour ago, anthonyk2 said:

Please explain why our strategy has failed so far. All I see are our good players like Cruz, Kibble and now Bo Barnes leaving and UT getting pedestrian players incoming.

We paid these highschoolers too much and now we take them pay cut, and they do not want.

[HornsUpThumbsDown]

Barnes is a loss anyway you slice it— spin it if you want, just facts 

[Roy Hinojosa]

1 hour ago, drag worm said:

We didn't lock anyone down before the portal window opened.

Then when we got our primary targets onto campus we didn't close the deal before they all headed off back to their comfort zones.

There's still time, it's just hard to believe we've moved on to Oklahoma State edges and Vanderbilt WRs from what we thought "All in for Arch's last season" was going to be like.

Don't you know all in means getting the guys on campus and not signing them? 😮‍💨