are you kidding. That article was lame, he just spent a little more time illustrating how poorly a grasp he has on the team. I don't think that qualifies as well reasoned.
Paragraph one. Most fans do not consider this year a holding pattern for a new regime in 2011. Most believe 2011 will be the make or break year for Brewster.
Paragraph two: No problemo
Paragraph three: citing 67-0 shows his negative pandering. We got blown out in one game two years ago and played a tough game with a crappy offense last year. That my friends is progress. We lost to a underachieving Illinois team by three points. But beat a decent Michigan State team a week earlier.
Paragraph 4: Stupid. We are at Mason's level, not hoping to get to that level. And all that despite a tougher schedule. Personally I think we might even be beyond Mason's level.
Paragraph 5:The most telling of all to the authors ignorance. Clearly doesn't understand where the Defense was at at the end of the season, and how seamless the turnove is.
Paragraph 6: I can't argue, although I think we're going to find out that inexperienced is not the same thing as untalented.
Paragraph 7: Is just plain wrong. This is not a rebuilding year, it is the year the pieces finally are in place. Now we just need seasoning. The staff does not need a winning season to keep their jobs, only improvment pointing to success the following year.
The analysis that follows is not terrible, but does not add up to the drivel he starts the column off with.
Another piece of trash by a clueless wanna-be.
