[Goose]

Also, darnold seems to have regressed this year.  To what extent that is helton’s fault, I don’t know, but it does make one wonder what U$C would do without a first round QB.

I am not sure Darnold has regressed. Last year, he had some stellar athletes at receiver, many of whom were experienced, and a good offensive line. This year he has neither. I am not saying the receivers aren't good, but they are a notch below. The line isn't as good, and right now is injured. Last year Darnold threw many passes that he shouldn't. His receivers caught them. This year, they get intercepted. What I have been saying for some time on this board is that his team made him look better than he was, and that he sometimes made bad decisions under pressure. That is still true. I think a more valid criticism is that Darnold hasn't matured under Helton. I also think the U$C offense has lacked scheme. They rely on their athletes. Against us, they played light's out, and it worked. Against WSU they didn't/got hurt. It didn't work.

Then again, this is U$C, and they will get some darned good players.  Helton may not be a great coach, but he is better than his two predecessors, i’m afraid (low bar, to be fair).  I expect U$C to contend for the pac-12 south every year, even if they are not routinely competing for the CF playoff, which is good enough to make them a threat to us.

BC

Sadly, you are probably correct. Helton can be just "average" and U$C will be a threat. However, average probably won't cut it with the alumni after a couple of years, so it won't be a problem for long. We can then hope they screw up the next hire. Perhaps they can save a few bucks by recycling the last two Dean's of the medical school?

[Goose]

Also, darnold seems to have regressed this year.  To what extent that is helton’s fault, I don’t know, but it does make one wonder what U$C would do without a first round QB.

I am not sure Darnold has regressed. Last year, he had some stellar athletes at receiver, many of whom were experienced, and a good offensive line. This year he has neither. I am not saying the receivers aren't good, but they are a notch below. The line isn't as good, and right now is injured. Last year Darnold threw many passes that he shouldn't. His receivers caught them. This year, they get intercepted. What I have been saying for some time on this board is that his team made him look better than he was, and that he sometimes made bad decisions under pressure. That is still true. I think a more valid criticism is that Darnold hasn't matured under Helton. I also think the U$C offense has lacked scheme. They rely on their athletes. Against us, they played light's out, and it worked. Against WSU they didn't/got hurt. It didn't work.

Then again, this is U$C, and they will get some darned good players.  Helton may not be a great coach, but he is better than his two predecessors, i’m afraid (low bar, to be fair).  I expect U$C to contend for the pac-12 south every year, even if they are not routinely competing for the CF playoff, which is good enough to make them a threat to us.

BC

Sadly, you are probably correct. Helton can be just "average" and U$C will be a threat. However, average probably won't cut it with the alumni after a couple of years, so it won't be a problem for long. We can then hope they screw up the next hire. Perhaps they can save a few bucks by recycling the last two Dean's of the medical school?