BCS National Championship: Longhorns or Crimson Tide?

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by ocelot_ark

You keep on bringing up Arkansas...WHY? I've never once claimed that Arkansas was a better team or program than Texas. Jesus. If it makes you feel better to blast a team full of freshmen and sophomores, have at it. Arkansas had a great season considering the mess Nutt left behind. And East Carolina is a solid, senior-laden team. They're certainly not Alabama or Texas, but neither is Arkansas.

Being that we're all Mavs fans, I kinda imagined some of you would have a little more respect for someone who roots for a team that always comes up short.

I don't "not respect" you. I just think you went too far in this thread on more than one occasion.

By the way: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/fp/fl...e?pollId=84341

[ocelot_ark]

Originally Posted by Male28Dan

I still stand by what I said, the best team wasn't decided on that day and no one can argue that. The team that won and will forever have the win and the title showed that they could beat the #2 team in the country minus their stud QB, but they know they never beat us as the team that entered the game. The team that had beat so many others. The best team was NOT decided, period.

So, Dan, was the best team decided when OU and UT played?

[ocelot_ark]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

I don't "not respect" you. I just think you went too far in this thread on more than one occasion.

By the way: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/fp/fl...e?pollId=84341

How so? Please explain to me how I've gone too far?

Oh. Congrats on the poll.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by ocelot_ark

How so? Please explain to me how I've gone too far?

Oh. Congrats on the poll.

I've already pointed out one of the ways you went too far in an earlier post. You went so far to try and make your point, in fact, that what you wrote ended up being complete nonsense.

As for the poll, nobody's looking for congrats. I don't expect the school to be mailed a trophy because of an internet poll. In fact, it's almost entirely meaningless. I bring it up only because it firmly establishes that it's not some whacko UT-homer assertion to claim that the game would have ended differently if UT had its best player, who just so happens to play the most important position on the field. The majority of every single state outside of SEC country feels the same way.

[Flacolaco]

If UT wanted to win they should have protected their QB's better.

This conversation needs to end.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

If UT wanted to win they should have protected their QB's better.

This conversation needs to end.

That's got nothing to do with it. He got hurt on a completely clean hit he's taken probably 300 or 400 times since he's been here. It was random bad luck.

[Flacolaco]

Whether the hit was clean or not, it doesn't lessen the necessity to protect your QB. Both of them. You'll recall the other QB getting hit in the 4th quarter.

Meanwhile, that Alabama douche QB should have let himself get hit a few more times. It couldn't possibly have hurt his play.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

Whether the hit was clean or not, it doesn't lessen the necessity to protect your QB. Both of them. You'll recall the other QB getting hit in the 4th quarter.

Meanwhile, that Alabama douche QB should have let himself get hit a few more times. It couldn't possibly have hurt his play.

That hit on Gilbert was the only sack Texas gave up the entire game, against the #1 or #2 D in the country, so I'd say that's about as good of QB protection as they could have expected. This was a unit that gave up 9 sacks against Nebraska in the Big XII game, so I was quite satisfied.

And I don't understand the logic of saying you need to "protect your QB" when he gets hit on an option play. The QB is going to get hit on an option play half the time or so. You could argue that the play shouldn't have been called, but Texas's best offensive gameplans always feature running Colt a fair amount. Like I said, he's taken that hit tons of times. Just bad luck.

And yes, McElroy is terrible. It's a real testament to how awesome Bama's running game is that they ran so well and won the game with such a lame duck at QB. It's too bad he beat up on my high school year after year when he was at Southlake.

[Five-ofan]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

That's got nothing to do with it. He got hurt on a completely clean hit he's taken probably 300 or 400 times since he's been here. It was random bad luck.

It actually should have been a 15 yard penalty because the alabama player clearly led with the crown of his helmet but i have no problems with the officials missing that call because i didnt see it until about the 8th replay i saw. That doesn't change anything one way or the other though. Also, the ut oline does suck but that play had little to do with the oline. It was an option not a pass.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by Five-ofan

Also, the ut oline does suck but that play had little to do with the oline. It was an option not a pass.

The O-line was subpar all year and terrible in the Nebraska game, but they didn't suck one bit on Thursday. They actually played pretty damn admirably. They gave up a sack at a really awful time, but they were by far the better of the two OL's in pass protection on the night. Not only did they only give up the one sack, but the QB's only got hit on pass plays one or two other times the entire game (and one of those 2 was the 28 yard TD to Shipley).

And you're probably right about the hit, but it was clean in my book. Although the dude did talk like a real jackass after the game about it.

[Five-ofan]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

The O-line was subpar all year and terrible in the Nebraska game, but they didn't suck one bit on Thursday. They actually played pretty damn admirably. They gave up a sack at a really awful time, but they were by far the better of the two OL's in pass protection on the night. Not only did they only give up the one sack, but the QB's only got hit on pass plays one or two other times the entire game (and one of those 2 was the 28 yard TD to Shipley).

And you're probably right about the hit, but it was clean in my book. Although the dude did talk like a real jackass after the game about it.

ummm the qb got hit on pass plays WAYYYYYYY more than twice. Gilbert didnt have any called rushes that would have counted(maybe a qb sneak im not remembering but remember that the one at the goal line didnt count because of the penalty.) That said gilbert still had 5 rushing attempts. All of those were plays where he got hit and struggled to the line to prevent a sack. The oline did play well given the circumstances and their talent level, but they were definately not anything special. That plus the fact that they epically sucked at run blocking keeps me from giving them much if any credit.

[nikeball]

Oh well, at least I still had fun in LA after the game. I lost my voice within the first 3 minutes of the game. Then all of the Texas sideline was on their phones trying to find out WTF happened. We didn't get any information from the stadium until after halftime wtf?

But no, there should not have been an asterisk on that win. Bama played the cards that they were dealt. Freak injuries happen. They didn't cheat and the hit wasn't outside the confines of the game.

There is no doubt that Colt is way more important to this team than Ingram is to the Tide. Our defense was on the field longer because of terrible conservative play calling by Greg Davis. This caused numerous 3 and longs / 3 and outs. Bama's running game gets stronger as the game goes on if Texas's defense can't get any rest. If Alabama gets in the hole, Mcelroy would not have been able to lead his team back.

It seems the consensus in the sports world that Texas would have dominated Alabama if Colt played the whole game. This is why I have not heard much trash talking by any Bama fans.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by Five-ofan

ummm the qb got hit on pass plays WAYYYYYYY more than twice. Gilbert didnt have any called rushes that would have counted(maybe a qb sneak im not remembering but remember that the one at the goal line didnt count because of the penalty.) That said gilbert still had 5 rushing attempts. All of those were plays where he got hit and struggled to the line to prevent a sack. The oline did play well given the circumstances and their talent level, but they were definately not anything special. That plus the fact that they epically sucked at run blocking keeps me from giving them much if any credit.

Texas's inability to run has less to do with the run blocking on the players' side than you might think. The scheme is subpar. In 2006, we had 2 all-Americans and 3 vets who started on the national title team return to the line and we couldn't run the ball consistently. Hell, even in 2007 when Jamaal Charles had several 150+ yard games, he also had several subpar games where he couldn't get anything going. It was a weaker line in 2007, but still talented and with a back as talented as JC, there was no excuse to lead the Big XII in running plays for zero or negative yards.

As for the line in the BCS game, they played well. Better than they've played all year, really. They deserve a lot of credit, whether you're willing to give it to them or not, because Alabama has had much more success blitzing from that awesome back seven against just about every other team they played this year. It was a pretty damn amazing turnaround from the Big XII game.

[ocelot_ark]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

I've already pointed out one of the ways you went too far in an earlier post. You went so far to try and make your point, in fact, that what you wrote ended up being complete nonsense.

Hyperbole

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

As for the poll, nobody's looking for congrats. I don't expect the school to be mailed a trophy because of an internet poll. In fact, it's almost entirely meaningless. I bring it up only because it firmly establishes that it's not some whacko UT-homer assertion to claim that the game would have ended differently if UT had its best player, who just so happens to play the most important position on the field. The majority of every single state outside of SEC country feels the same way.

They very well MAY HAVE. But it doesn't change the fact that the game didn't play out that way. I'm not arguing who would have won the game if both teams had been completely healthy (I still think Alabama wins), just saying this asterisks talk is nonsense. If the asterisks should apply HERE, Texas shouldn't have even been in the national championship game. Sam Bradford and the OU game ring a bell?

[ocelot_ark]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

Texas's inability to run has less to do with the run blocking on the players' side than you might think. The scheme is subpar.

It amazes me that Texas isn't a better running team. You guys get the cream of the crop EVERY year in OL and RB. You have top-notch QB's who can keep a defense honest. I know Greg Davis has long been criticized, but the disinterest in establishing a run game is pretty perplexing given the resources he has available.

[mkat]

i'm not a longhorns fan, but i don't think they have any interest in running much. why would they? they've won 12-13 games a year for the past few years, and before that 10-11 games a year for a few years.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by ocelot_ark

Hyperbole



They very well MAY HAVE. But it doesn't change the fact that the game didn't play out that way. I'm not arguing who would have won the game if both teams had been completely healthy (I still think Alabama wins), just saying this asterisks talk is nonsense. If the asterisks should apply HERE, Texas shouldn't have even been in the national championship game. Sam Bradford and the OU game ring a bell?

Again, I don't buy the "asterisk" talk either, but the two situations are distinguishable. Colt was completely healthy coming in. Nobody could have predicted he'd last 5 plays.

Bradford, on the other hand, was unsurprisingly re-injured during the Texas game because of a bad decision by his coach to let him play in the first place. Nobody has ever fully recovered from an grade 2 or 3 AC joint sprain to their throwing arm in 3 weeks. I couldn't count on both hands the number of people I personally know who said, leading up to that game, "Bradford will leave the game and not come back the first time he gets hit and lands on his arm." It's not like it was a surprise to anyone.

You could make the argument that Texas should have played Gilbert throughout the season more (although that's a pretty weak argument considering Colt's Heisman candidacy and the fact that several games weren't put away until late), and that same argument is 10x more compelling vis-a-vis OU. They should have spent the week before the Texas game prepping Landry Jones with their first team offense on 100% of the snaps, and suited up Bradford for the game only as a backup. Only homer OU fans and the organization itself were insisting that Bradford was healthy and read to go. You don't get an asterisk when it's your own dumb-ass decision that resulted in the re-injury in the first place.

[ocelot_ark]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

Again, I don't buy the "asterisk" talk either, but the two situations are distinguishable. Colt was completely healthy coming in. Nobody could have predicted he'd last 5 plays.

Bradford, on the other hand, was unsurprisingly re-injured during the Texas game because of a bad decision by his coach to let him play in the first place. Nobody has ever fully recovered from an grade 2 or 3 AC joint sprain to their throwing arm in 3 weeks. I couldn't count on both hands the number of people I personally know who said, leading up to that game, "Bradford will leave the game and not come back the first time he gets hit and lands on his arm." It's not like it was a surprise to anyone.

You could make the argument that Texas should have played Gilbert throughout the season more (although that's a pretty weak argument considering Colt's Heisman candidacy and the fact that several games weren't put away until late), and that same argument is 10x more compelling vis-a-vis OU. They should have spent the week before the Texas game prepping Landry Jones with their first team offense on 100% of the snaps, and suited up Bradford for the game only as a backup. Only homer OU fans and the organization itself were insisting that Bradford was healthy and read to go. You don't get an asterisk when it's your own dumb-ass decision that resulted in the re-injury in the first place.

But none of that changes the fact that Bradford missed the majority of the game. OU played with their unprepared backup. UT had to do the same thing. UT should get some sort of pass when it happens to them, but it's OU's fault when it happens to them?

[Murphy3]

Originally Posted by Five-ofan

Ill point out that im a ut fan. Would the game have been different if mccoy had played? Sure.(though to be fair, gilbert was the only person on our offense aside from shipley who played well). That said we dont know what would have happened. Yes the game would have been different but that doesnt mean ut would have won. Alabama pretty much just quit playing offense in the 3rd quarter because there was no reason to take any risk. They would have played differently if Mccoy was there.

Do UT fans have every right to wonder what if? Sure. Does that question result in a * for bamas title? No.

Gilbert was TERRIBLE for most of the game.

[Five-ofan]

Originally Posted by mkat

i'm not a longhorns fan, but i don't think they have any interest in running much. why would they? they've won 12-13 games a year for the past few years, and before that 10-11 games a year for a few years.

because until last year, they were one of the more dominant running teams in college football which is a big part of what led to all of those wins.

[Five-ofan]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

Gilbert was TERRIBLE for most of the game.

gilbert was terrible for the first half. He was the best offensive player on the field for the majority of the second half.

[nikeball]

Originally Posted by ocelot_ark

But none of that changes the fact that Bradford missed the majority of the game. OU played with their unprepared backup.

Landry Jones got some reps with the first team that week. I'm sure the coaches prepared him a little for the game just in case. Landry Jones also played the few weeks prior (and played pretty well). A better comparison would be Jones being thrust into the first game of the season against BYU.

I'm pretty sure Gilbert got 0 reps with the first team leading up to the MNC. The preparation, mentally (studying film) and physically (practice) takes a whole week or more.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by ocelot_ark

But none of that changes the fact that Bradford missed the majority of the game. OU played with their unprepared backup. UT had to do the same thing. UT should get some sort of pass when it happens to them, but it's OU's fault when it happens to them?

Yes, because OU had fair notice that their QB was at risk of re-injury and still chose not to prepare the backup. I don't understand why you're not getting this very simple distinction. UT had no reason to think that their backup would need to be prepared. You always want to prepare your backup some, which UT did, but you're not going to go out of your way to give him an inordinate amount of first-team snaps when there's no advance reason to suspect that he'll be needed. Frankly, it would be incredibly stupid to give your secnd-stringer a bunch of first-team reps when the first-stringer is completely healthy. The #1 guy needs that prep time for such a big game.

OU, on the other hand, had every reason to think that they might need Jones, but instead chose to deny, deny, deny. Stoops was so concerned with trying to salvage the season and break out of this funk he has with Texas that he put a guy out there who was nowhere near ready. Did you watch Bradford the week before against Baylor? Nice stats after some 4th quarter stat-padding, but his arm strength was awful and his accuracy nowhere near its 2008 level. His initial diagnosis was 6-8 weeks (if it was only a grade 2 sprain), and suddenly he's ready to go in 2-3? Please.

I really don't know how else to explain this to you. The two situations are distinguishable. Colt's injury and Gilbert's relative unpreparedness were the result of bad luck; Bradford's re-injury and Jones' relative unpreparedness were the result of big egos and bad management decisions.

[ocelot_ark]

They're SLIGHTLY distinguishable. Why? Bradford is THAT much better than Jones and McCoy is THAT much better than Gilbert. Regardless of prep time, it doesn't change the fact that UT benefited from the absence of Bradford.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by ocelot_ark

They're SLIGHTLY distinguishable. Why? Bradford is THAT much better than Jones and McCoy is THAT much better than Gilbert. Regardless of prep time, it doesn't change the fact that UT benefited from the absence of Bradford.

And UT did so because Bob Stoops is an egomaniac who stubbornly refused to take the course of action that would have given his team the best chance to win, thereby compromising not only his team's chances for success but also potentially the career of a super-talented young QB. Cry me a river. I felt (and feel) bad for Bradford, who's a great kid and a superstar football player. But OU and Stoops got exactly what they deserved.