Let me say this, I am not sure Texas would have won even if McCoy hadn't gotten hurt. BUT they definitely had a chance if he didn't. Losing McCoy in the Championship game is equivalent to the Colts losing Peyton Manning to injury in a Super Bowl. Once again, I'm not saying they win even with him, BUT it defintely didn't hurt Bama's chances. Without McCoy the 2009 Longhorns would have been a 9 win team.
Here are some things that are 100% true no matter what..."I think"
Anyways, this conversation has been entertaining to follow and participate in because I don't have to protect "My team" but realistically some of you are blinded by fanboy syndrome.
Washington's offense will be very good this year. They have one of the best quarterbacks in the entire country and return nine starters on offense. All offensive skill players that started in '09 are back. Defensively they should improve slightly on their 9th best performance in the PAC-10 with six starters back.
Washington went 5-7 last year with the same players. Why wouldn't they win even more with those same exact players minus two linemen? As good as their offense is, their defense could easily hold them to a 6th or 7th place conference finish.
The middle of the PAC-10 is so wide open though, it's possibly the most competitive conference in the country.
And McCoy had a completion percentage of 70% ! Seventy! I'm not a Texas fan, but I appreciate something like that. Obviously his size didn't hurt him, I feel half-special for even having to argue this.
There is no doubt that the outcome of the game could have drastically been different had he not become injured. I'm not going to say Alabama couldn't have won but it definitely mattered.
Yo stfu forreal man. Where did all of these Bama' fans come from to begin with?
"now a new era" Ohh really now? You guys win a NC when arguably the best QB in the country last season gets hurt 1st quarter and still almost let a UT team with a TRUE Fr. pull of a comeback & now you guys run the College world? Come on man, your kid who switches teams every year...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barkley7
I know that isn't McCoy's size. I think he's like 6'2" 215. I agree though. Bama tried to play milk the clock football all of the second half, which resuted in three and outs. Texas killed themselves with the shovel pass for TD, and plenty of dropped passes.
QFT.
Bama did let off the gas quite a bit in the second half. The offense became very stagnant and predictable. Now would things have played out differently if Colt would have never gotten injured? None of us know for sure. And truthfully, it really doesn't matter.
WSU getting a C+ and a B- offense is a bigger deal too me. No way they are a C+ caliber team.
Im shocked they even dropped WSU to a 2 star, since Washington didn't lose any prestige and they didn't touch their prestige after having like 5 straight losing seasons and going 0-12.
Wazzu is returning a lot of starters and have battled the last 2 years with injuries across the board (our PUNTER was our Quarterback for a series in the Apple Cup last year). C+ is fine with me as they still have a lot of Pac-10 talent on their team (but very young).
Here are some things that are 100% true no matter what..."I think"
Anyways, this conversation has been entertaining to follow and participate in because I don't have to protect "My team" but realistically some of you are blinded by fanboy syndrome.
Washington's offense will be very good this year. They have one of the best quarterbacks in the entire country and return nine starters on offense. All offensive skill players that started in '09 are back. Defensively they should improve slightly on their 9th best performance in the PAC-10 with six starters back.
Washington went 5-7 last year with the same players. Why wouldn't they win even more with those same exact players minus two linemen? As good as their offense is, their defense could easily hold them to a 6th or 7th place conference finish.
The middle of the PAC-10 is so wide open though, it's possibly the most competitive conference in the country.
The one thing I am concerned about is the defense, though. We return some starters, but we lost easily our best two defensive players in Daniel Te'o-Nesheim and Donald Butler. Replacing them isn't going to be easy. Our depth at defensive end concerns me. We have two good linebackers in Mason Foster and Cort Dennison, but the third is kind of unknown.
I have no such concerns about the offense. It will improve. Locker should be a bit better, all our skill players should be better, and our o-line should improve solely through continuity. We have a very good looking freshman running back in Deontae Cooper who should help give Chris Polk some rest.
Im shocked they even dropped WSU to a 2 star, since Washington didn't lose any prestige and they didn't touch their prestige after having like 5 straight losing seasons and going 0-12.
Wazzu is returning a lot of starters and have battled the last 2 years with injuries across the board (our PUNTER was our Quarterback for a series in the Apple Cup last year). C+ is fine with me as they still have a lot of Pac-10 talent on their team (but very young).
Because even with 5 straight losing seasons and going 0-12, UW is still a more prestigious school than Wazzu
But realistically, even after 0-12 and then only winning 5 games last season, we still pulled in a pretty solid recruiting class. It was ranked 11th by Scout, 20th by ESPN, and 28th by Rivals. I'd say that's an indicator of UW having a good reputation and prestige in the college football world despite the recent losing. Not to mention a relatively bright future.
Because even with 5 straight losing seasons and going 0-12, UW is still a more prestigious school than Wazzu
But realistically, even after 0-12 and then only winning 5 games last season, we still pulled in a pretty solid recruiting class. It was ranked 11th by Scout, 20th by ESPN, and 28th by Rivals. I'd say that's an indicator of UW having a good reputation and prestige in the college football world despite the recent losing. Not to mention a relatively bright future.
A lot Ty Willingham's prized top 25 recruiting classes really did nothing on the field though, which is what really matters. And if that was the case then the Cougs should have not become less prestigious due to us having top 38-45 classes the last 2 years under Wulff, compared to top 55-80 under Doba.
A lot Ty Willingham's prized top 25 recruiting classes really did nothing on the field though, which is what really matters. And if that was the case then the Cougs should have not become less prestigious due to us having top 38-45 classes the last 2 years under Wulff, compared to top 55-80 under Doba.
A good recruiting class is just one part. Actual player development is another. Willingham never did that well. Sark has shown that in just one year, he's at least much better than Willingham at player development.
I guess we will just see after this season. I do think our rating is a bit high, but it's not entirely unreasonable. I think it may just be propped up by Locker's high rating. If I remember correctly, we only have two 90 and above rated players: Locker and Polk. That seems to make sense to me. I expect to see improvement this year. Perhaps that's part of the reason why UW is being rated higher is due to potential.