How we stack up against Bama (from hornfans.com)

[Rasputin]

I find it hard to follow your logic here. Colt lead his team to 0 points in the same time frame. So its hard to extrapolating that and make any sense out of anything.

I'm not going to say that OU would have won that game, but for you to pretend losing Bradford didn't hurt OU's chances of winning is to deny or defy logic.

The point is...

We do not know what would have happened in that game. Texas prepared and faced Bradford in the game, and due to their preparation and abilities, knocked him out of the game.

Bradford may have thrown 3 int's in the game and played a worse of a role than did their backup...we do not know, this is a silly argument.

Texas beat OU...that statement can't be argued with...

:BigA:

 

[Rasputin]

LMAO....... Now there ya go making sense and all.... You know us dumb ol BAMA boys with our trailer parks and no teeth cannot do math....

You are correct my friend let them take the spread I WANT THE TROPHY~!~

I'm not sure what post/poster this was referring to...

 

[Dallas4Bama]

We're arguing semantics here, but it's pretty silly to dismiss the Texas win over OU by saying "Texas didn't have to face Bradford." If we didn't have to face him, it's because we knocked him out of the freaking game.

What if McClain had KO'd Tebow on Florida's second series, and then Texas fans came to your board and said, "You guys are totally lucky. Your record is inflated. You didn't even have to play against Tebow." Do you think someone maybe would point out, "Um, we did play him but we knocked him out of the game?"

If Colt McCoy got knocked out of the game in the first series against Alabama how would you feel about Texas' chances to win the game?

A) Same as with him
B) Improved without him
C) Maybe not so good now

 

[Rasputin]

If Colt McCoy got knocked out of the game in the first series against Alabama how would you feel about Texas' chances to win the game?

A) Same as with him
B) Improved without him
C) Maybe not so good now

Obviously Texas' chances would "theoretically" decrease with McCoy not playing, but we are not talking about a game in the future. We are discussing a game that has already been played, in which Texas was victorious...

Lets get off the subject of whether or not, they coulda, shoulda lost to OU or not...the fact of the matter is they won...

I don't like the idea of anyone belittling any of Alabama's victories because someone was "out", especially when your player was the reason he was not in the game in the first place!!!

 

[CapitalTider]

We're arguing semantics here, but it's pretty silly to dismiss the Texas win over OU by saying "Texas didn't have to face Bradford." If we didn't have to face him, it's because we knocked him out of the freaking game.

What if McClain had KO'd Tebow on Florida's second series, and then Texas fans came to your board and said, "You guys are totally lucky. Your record is inflated. You didn't even have to play against Tebow." Do you think someone maybe would point out, "Um, we did play him but we knocked him out of the game?"

I don't think anyone is dismissing Texas' win over Oklahoma. Quite the contrary, we are saying that against one of the two best defenses you faced all year and the other team without their starting QB for the majority of the game, you only scored 16 points. Had Bradford been in for the entire game you MIGHT have lost that game. Just like IF Nebraska had ANY offense you MIGHT have lost that game. And IF Tennessee had a kicker, Alabama MIGHT have lost that game.

Going with your hypothetical, had Tebow been knocked out of the SECCG and Alabama won 13-12, Texas fans might have a point, it would be comparable to the UT-OK game. However, had Tebow been knocked out and we won 31-6, the point would not be as valid. Our offense still performed and Tebow doesn't play Defense.

 

[Dallas4Bama]

We do not know what would have happened in that game. :BigA:

You could have stopped right there.

The poster I quoted made some kind of crazy conclusion based on the fact that because Sam only lead his team to 3 points before he was knocked out that he could not have possibly helped them win had he played the rest of the game. I pointed out that Colt had only scored 0 points in the same amount of time so his conclusion really made no sense. Using his theory OU would have won because TX would have never scored, but we know that's not what happened

Somehow you decided I said OU beat Texas or something. I've gone back and reread my post 10 times and I can't for the life of me figure out where you could think I said that.

What I said was to refuse to admit losing Bradford hurt their chance to win is not very intelligent.

 

[Dallas4Bama]

Obviously Texas' chances would "theoretically" decrease

I need an A, B or C. I don't recognize your answer as a possible answer.

 

[Rasputin]

I don't think anyone is dismissing Texas' win over Oklahoma. Quite the contrary, we are saying that against one of the two best defenses you faced all year and the other team without their starting QB for the majority of the game, you only scored 16 points. Had Bradford been in for the entire game you MIGHT have lost that game. Just like IF Nebraska had ANY offense you MIGHT have lost that game. And IF Tennessee had a kicker, Alabama MIGHT have lost that game.

Going with your hypothetical, had Tebow been knocked out of the SECCG and Alabama won 13-12, Texas fans might have a point, it would be comparable to the UT-OK game. However, had Tebow been knocked out and we won 31-6, the point would not be as valid. Our offense still performed and Tebow doesn't play Defense.

As we know, offensive inconsistencies can have a direct correlation to how well the defense plays. (Ahem...Alabama not being able to put together consistent drives against Utah (and yes I'm blaming that on a patchwork O-line, ala not having AS))

You could have stopped right there.

The poster I quoted made some kind of crazy conclusion based on the fact that because Sam only lead his team to 3 points before he was knocked out that he could not have possibly helped them win had he played the rest of the game. I pointed out that Colt had only scored 0 points in the same amount of time so his conclusion really made no sense. Using his theory OU would have won because TX would have never scored, but we know that's not what happened

Somehow you decided I said OU beat Texas or something. I've gone back and reread my post 10 times and I can't for the life of me figure out where you could think I said that.

What I said was to refuse to admit losing Bradford hurt their chance to win is not very intelligent.

I wasn't just commenting on your remarks, I just happened to quote your statement. I would just like to see the, OU should have beat Texas remarks go away...not trying to throw you under the bus...

 

[Dallas4Bama]

As we know, offensive inconsistencies can have a direct correlation to how well the defense plays. (Ahem...Alabama not being able to put together consistent drives against Utah (and yes I'm blaming that on a patchwork O-line, ala not having AS))



I wasn't just commenting on your remarks, I just happened to quote your statement. I would just like to see the, OU should have beat Texas remarks go away...not trying to throw you under the bus...

Ok, I was just trying to say they might have faired better with Bradford. TX has a great defense so I'm not sure they would have. I'm also one of the few that will say I'm glad we didn't have to face DUI boy from FL. Not that it would have made a difference, but it could have. I'm just trying to be honest and that's the way I see it.

 

[Paul Wesley]

I don't like the idea of anyone belittling any of Alabama's victories because someone was "out", especially when your player was the reason he was not in the game in the first place!!!

Thank you for the voice of sanity, studmlb55.

This point has derailed the whole thread. A Bama poster was going down the Texas schedule and dismissing our wins, including "facing OU without Bradford." I objected to that comment, and suddenly we get 2 pages of "what ifs," semantics, and speculation on what Bradford MIGHT have done.

What difference does it make? Texas played OU with Bradford. We knocked him out of the game. Apparently a few posters are determined to penalize Texas and put an asterisk on the win because they did so. It makes no sense.

 

[JPT4Bama]

So much to discuss on this most interesting thread. Wish I had time to respond to all the good comments.

Look at it another way. In this decade, Mack has beaten five coaches who have won national championships - Bob Stoops, Nick Saban, Jim Tressel, Pete Carroll, and Les Miles. I know, I know, he beat Saban when Nick was at LSU, and beat Miles when he was at Okla. State, and he's only 5-6 vs. Stoops, and he had Superman when he beat Pete Carroll, and Ohio State sucks, and on and on. But if the guy is an idiot, then all those successful coaches let themselves get beat by an idiot. Shame on them.

That's nice but misleading. Saban defeated three coaches with national championships this year alone. These includes the 2006, 2007 and 2008 champs. A little different than beating someone who had yet to win one etc. :BigA:

 

[Dallas4Bama]

Thank you for the voice of sanity, studmlb55.

This point has derailed the whole thread. A Bama poster was going down the Texas schedule and dismissing our wins, including "facing OU without Bradford." I objected to that comment, and suddenly we get 2 pages of "what ifs," semantics, and speculation on what Bradford MIGHT have done.

What difference does it make? Texas played OU with Bradford. We knocked him out of the game. Apparently a few posters are determined to penalize Texas and put an asterisk on the win because they did so. It makes no sense.

I posted a question and I am asking about our game. I would like to know how you would feel about losing your starting qb.

 

[Orangechipper]

You could have stopped right there.

The poster I quoted made some kind of crazy conclusion based on the fact that because Sam only lead his team to 3 points before he was knocked out that he could not have possibly helped them win had he played the rest of the game. I pointed out that Colt had only scored 0 points in the same amount of time so his conclusion really made no sense. Using his theory OU would have won because TX would have never scored, but we know that's not what happened

Somehow you decided I said OU beat Texas or something. I've gone back and reread my post 10 times and I can't for the life of me figure out where you could think I said that.

What I said was to refuse to admit losing Bradford hurt their chance to win is not very intelligent.

It was intimated that with Bradford we lose that game. You are reading too much into what I said. Its not like OU with Bradford was killing us. If in his two series they scored 14 points, i think the point is valid that we likely lose. Since he only scored 3 points on us... its hard to draw a conclusion that they'd DEFINITELY have beaten us if he weren't knocked out.

I think we are saying the same thing. Bottom line. He didn't play enough in the game to help determine the outcome. To draw a conclusion EITHER WAY would be specious. I'm saying to say we'd lose is specious. You are saying to say we'd still win is specious. We are both right. Can't draw a conclusion either way.

 

[Dallas4Bama]

It was intimated that with Bradford we lose that game. You are reading too much into what I said. Its not like OU with Bradford was killing us. If in his two series they scored 14 points, i think the point is valid that we likely lose. Since he only scored 3 points on us... its hard to draw a conclusion that they'd DEFINITELY have beaten us if he weren't knocked out.

I think we are saying the same thing. Bottom line. He didn't play enough in the game to help determine the outcome. To draw a conclusion EITHER WAY would be specious. I'm saying to say we'd lose is specious. You are saying to say we'd still win is specious. We are both right. Can't draw a conclusion either way.

I hate a tie. It's like kissing your sister. DT_tsr:

I believe we are in agreement. The reason I even care is because I work with so many UT fans that said they would have killed OU even if Bradford had played. I was just pointing out that nobody really killed anyone in that game and it could have gone either way, especially if you throw a variable in there like Bradford playing. I don't say it to take anything away from the TX win. I feel the same way about some of our close games.

 

[Orangechipper]

I posted a question and I am asking about our game. I would like to know how you would feel about losing your starting qb.

Since our backup has zero relevant game experience and since we'd be playing a top 5 defense in most categories. We WILL lose. Its a shame that in the 4th quarter of most games Mack doesn't allow our backup to play our standard offense. He comes in and just hands the ball off 90% of the time. This is not to say our backup is without talent. He was the HS player of the year as a Senior and i don't believe he's lost a game in HS his last 2 years. So he has great talent... he's just raw and has no relevant game experience.

This is a different situation altogether than the OU one. I don't know if you are trying to make that comparison or not. But OU's backup had been playing decently and passed for 2700 yards and over 20 TD's on the year. What you had was a coaching staff that tried to put their injured QB back in too quickly imho. Arguably we could've done better against Bradford since he was rather rusty having only played one full game at that point in the season against Baylor.

 

[CapitalTider]

It was intimated that with Bradford we lose that game. You are reading too much into what I said. Its not like OU with Bradford was killing us. If in his two series they scored 14 points, i think the point is valid that we likely lose. Since he only scored 3 points on us... its hard to draw a conclusion that they'd DEFINITELY have beaten us if he weren't knocked out.

I think we are saying the same thing. Bottom line. He didn't play enough in the game to help determine the outcome. To draw a conclusion EITHER WAY would be specious. I'm saying to say we'd lose is specious. You are saying to say we'd still win is specious. We are both right. Can't draw a conclusion either way.

I don't think anyone said Texas would have lost to Oklahoma if Bradford had finished the game. Most of us, myself included, were saying that the statement that "Oklahoma with Bradford for 15 minutes (give or take) is equal to Oklahoma with Bradford for 60 minutes" is ridiculous. Furthermore, the statement that Oklahoma only scored 3 points with Bradford in the first quarter equals Oklahoma loses with Bradford in the game for full 60 minutes is equally ridiculous.

It's irrelevant anyway, Texas won the game end of story. What is relevant to me, is that at the end of the year Oklahoma was ranked #7 in total defense in the NCAA, without their starting QB their defense was likely on the field much more than they would have been had Bradford been in the game. Therefore, they were worn down in the second half and especially the third quarter. Despite these advantages and a neutral field, Texas' potent offense scored a grand total of 16 points. Alabama's defense is ranked higher than #7 in total defense. Hopefully our starting QB will finish the game, and our defense will not be on the field for long drives (like happened to OU). I think our defense can do at least as good of a job as OU's.

 

[FutureAlumnusDT]

One of this guy's big knocks against our D is that most of our sacks didn't come from the d-line...does he not know how a 3-4 D is supposed to work? I guess there's a reason why he is posting his 'analysis' on a message board and not using it to help draw up schemes for a college coaching staff.

 

[tidefan39817]

all i have to say to the Long Horn fans about that smaller but faster defense of yours....were gonna make your butt quit.

if your defense trys to cover Julio one on one....he's gonna have a field day...

 

[Orangechipper]

One of this guy's big knocks against our D is that most of our sacks didn't come from the d-line...does he not know how a 3-4 D is supposed to work? I guess there's a reason why he is posting his 'analysis' on a message board and not using it to help draw up schemes for a college coaching staff.

I don't think the OP is knocking that you get your sacks from different areas. I think his point is that when the DLine is the one sacking us... it gives us more fits. When the sacks come from elsewhere, we tend to handle it much better.

In a nutshell, he's saying that the same things that worked for Nebraska won't necessarily work for you. He is NOT saying that you won't get decent pressure. But that the type of pressure you will give us we handle better. It would be fool's gold for you to look at the Nebraska tape and lick your chops. You cannot replicate Suh.

 

[WishIwasInBama]

I don't think the OP is knocking that you get your sacks from different areas. I think his point is that when the DLine is the one sacking us... it gives us more fits. When the sacks come from elsewhere, we tend to handle it much better.

In a nutshell, he's saying that the same things that worked for Nebraska won't necessarily work for you. He is NOT saying that you won't get decent pressure. But that the type of pressure you will give us we handle better. It would be fool's gold for you to look at the Nebraska tape and lick your chops. You cannot replicate Suh.

How many 3-4's did Texas play this year? I only ask cause I don't know