 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups Platforms PCXboxPlayStationNintendoGames ActionStrategyRole Playing GamesSimulatorsSport Games |
Game Forum / Role Playing Games / Final Fantasy / January 2006USC was cheated
USC could have used those 20 seconds that were lost when the clock wasn't stopped between with around 6 minutes to go in the game when the player went out of bounds. Pete Carroll should protest the game. Would have been a great game if not for this giant blunder. > USC could have used those 20 seconds that were lost when the clock > wasn't stopped between with around 6 minutes to go in the game when > the player went out of bounds. Pete Carroll should protest the game. > Would have been a great game if not for this giant blunder. Pffft. Carroll didn't protest because he thought it helped his team. The announcers dropped it because it seemed to help their team (they were the home crew for the Trojans, right?) You can't be happy about getting a "break" and then complain when said "break" comes back to bite you. -Tim >> USC could have used those 20 seconds that were lost when the clock >> wasn't stopped between with around 6 minutes to go in the game when [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > You can't be happy about getting a "break" and then complain when said > "break" comes back to bite you. This guy is a class one assclown, but if I recall the play, the player's forward progress was stopped while he was inbounds, then forced out. Might be a different play, but KJ and DF were talking about it, and the official came over, wound his arm to keep the clock moving because contact was made and progress was stopped BEFORE going out. Venger I didn't see the official wind his arm. I thought he gestured for the clock to stop and since there wasn't a replay I thought the clock should have stopped. But, good notice of the call to keep the clock going. This confirms what a idiot you are, how about I protest the game for Petes lame calls on 4th down, or for wasting THE FINAL time out on the 2 point conversion. I would also like to protest Reggie for that lame lateral in the 1st half. > USC could have used those 20 seconds that were lost when the clock wasn't > stopped between with around 6 minutes to go in the game when the player went > out of bounds. Pete Carroll should protest the game. Would have been a great > game if not for this giant blunder. > USC could have used those 20 seconds that were lost when the clock wasn't > stopped between with around 6 minutes to go in the game when the player went > out of bounds. Pete Carroll should protest the game. Would have been a great > game if not for this giant blunder. D00d, everyone's right -- you are the biggest fucktard on usenet. U$C *WANTED* the clock to keep rolling. Now, please... go home. The difference in this game was the 4th and 2 that went for 1 3/4. Pure and simple. If U$C converts that 4th down, the game is over and U$C wins. -Junior "watsona@kenyon.edu"- What is a plethora? > > USC could have used those 20 seconds that were lost when the clock wasn't > > stopped between with around 6 minutes to go in the game when the player went [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > The difference in this game was the 4th and 2 that went for 1 3/4. Well, it actually went for a half, but they marked it a full yard ahead of where the ref marking the spot he was stopped said it was.  SignatureTO "Back the Bot and Lift the Lads, and we shall reap more Glory than we could eat in a month." > Well, it actually went for a half, but they marked it a full yard ahead > of where the ref marking the spot he was stopped said it was. Whatever. All I know is that the entire game hinged on that play. -Junior The entire game? What about the touchdowns and the turnovers? What about Young's 4th down touchdown run? It was a pivotal play, for sure, but one could make the argument that there were several plays that served as a hinge. > > Well, it actually went for a half, but they marked it a full yard ahead > > of where the ref marking the spot he was stopped said it was. > > Whatever. All I know is that the entire game hinged on that play. > > -Junior The game was lost two plays earlier when the brain dead coaches called a pass paly on second down that went INCOMPLETE...it was second and seven...it gave Young an extra 45 seconds to play with when they got the ball back. He scored with 19 seconds left. Why would anyone over the age of seven take a chance on letting the clock stop like the dumbass USC coaches did?? >>>Well, it actually went for a half, but they marked it a full yard ahead >>>of where the ref marking the spot he was stopped said it was. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Why would anyone over the age of seven take a chance on letting the > clock stop like the dumbass USC coaches did?? Exactly, that is where the screwed the pooch. People can whine and complain about the rest of the game, but when it came down to when it REALLY mattered, that pass hurt. Texas did still have time out left, but that pass could have gone for yardage. oh well, smiling in Texas, mk > "watsona@kenyon.edu"- What is a plethora? >> > USC could have used those 20 seconds that were lost when the clock [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Well, it actually went for a half, but they marked it a full yard > ahead of where the ref marking the spot he was stopped said it was. They were just being consistant, as they did the same thing on the other 4th down conversion that Texas stopped. -Tim > "watsona@kenyon.edu"- What is a plethora? > > > USC could have used those 20 seconds that were lost when the clock wasn't [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Well, it actually went for a half, but they marked it a full yard ahead > of where the ref marking the spot he was stopped said it was. Yep. The ref stood there forever, then all of the sudden, the ball majickally was placed half a yard further. > > "watsona@kenyon.edu"- What is a plethora? > > > > USC could have used those 20 seconds that were lost when the clock [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Yep. The ref stood there forever, then all of the sudden, the ball > majickally was placed half a yard further. They did the same thing against Georgia. UGa had 4th and 1/2 yd. Then just before they wind the clock the ref moves the ball BACKWARDS 1 yd. UGa had to call timeout to (a) figure out WTF just happened and to (b) try to get a replay of the spot and/or (c) call a play to get 1 1/2 yds instead of 1/2 yd. I hate NCAA officials. Are they full-time officials? I'm guessing not (if they're not in the NFL, ...) You'd think with the near Billion-ddollar industry that is College FOotball, they'd be able to afford to pay fulltime officials.... *sigh* -goro- >> > "watsona@kenyon.edu"- What is a plethora? >> > > > USC could have used those 20 seconds that were lost when the clock [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > >-goro- this is my number one peeve....how can you have an operation like pro football and college football, and have mercenary assclowns officiating. Hire and train professional referees, controlled by the ncaa instead of individual conferences, and move them around from conference to conference. There now appear to be TWO people who see this as a problem. I thought I was the only one. >>>"watsona@kenyon.edu"- What is a plethora? >>> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > -goro- officating jobs for the most part are not full time jobs. Many of these guys are car dealers, lawyers, insurance salesman, etc. mk >> USC could have used those 20 seconds that were lost when the clock wasn't >> stopped between with around 6 minutes to go in the game when the player [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > -Junior you nailed it Yeah, "unclejr" <watsona@kenyon.edu>, well... that's just like... your opinion man. >> USC could have used those 20 seconds that were lost when the clock wasn't >> stopped between with around 6 minutes to go in the game when the player went [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >The difference in this game was the 4th and 2 that went for 1 3/4. That 4th and 2 actually only went for 1... the ref who spotted the ball gave them a bonus 3/4. John Rogers AU Class of 1985 The Al Del Greco of Atlanta "It was said that everything in Ankh-Morpork was for sale except for the beer and the women, both of whom one merely hired." (Terry Pratchett, "Sourcery") If you are going to bitch, complain about the "incomplete" catch and fumble that gave Texas the deciding 3 points. > If you are going to bitch, complain about the "incomplete" catch and > fumble that gave Texas the deciding 3 points. or the touchdown pass play that started after the play clock was already at zero. or the play that vince young lateralled the ball after his knee was down. or the play that texas had the interception until he landed on the ground. or the two helmet-to-helmet plays (one each way). and that's just what i remember. or the official that decided usc recovered the ball on the kick-off while the ball was still bouncing around. poorly called game for being so important. dave > > If you are going to bitch, complain about the "incomplete" catch and > > fumble that gave Texas the deciding 3 points. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > dave Cheese? >> > If you are going to bitch, complain about the "incomplete" catch and >> > fumble that gave Texas the deciding 3 points. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Cheese? you should stick to beating your ex-wife and stay out of topics you can't figure out. > >> > If you are going to bitch, complain about the "incomplete" catch and > >> > fumble that gave Texas the deciding 3 points. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > you should stick to beating your ex-wife and stay out of topics you can't > figure out. There were some poorly called bowl games this year. This was NOT one of them. Quit your rsfck'n' whining you pussy. >> >> > If you are going to bitch, complain about the "incomplete" catch and >> >> > fumble that gave Texas the deciding 3 points. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > There were some poorly called bowl games this year. This was NOT one of > them. Quit your rsfck'n' whining you pussy. it was poorly called. whining? maybe if i cared about the result you could make a case, but i don't care who won. i call it like i see it. as for calling me pussy, it's just a five letter word on the internet. any nine year old can type it. that puts you in good company, unfortunately you're lowing their average iq. dave "There were some poorly called bowl games this year. This was NOT one of them. Quit your rsfck'n' whining you pussy. " This game was called terribly. There were bad spots left and right. Some spots were even a yard off. The thing is that they made bad calls on both sides, not just on USC or not just on Texas. This is made evident by the replays shown throughout the game. I.e.: Young's lateral and the incomplete pass/interception. > > If you are going to bitch, complain about the "incomplete" catch and > > fumble that gave Texas the deciding 3 points. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > poorly called game for being so important. Don't forget that USC was only undefeated coming in because of a horrific missed call in the ND game giving them a win. SignatureGary Collard SABR-L Moderator gmcollard@yahoo.com http://sarcastipundit.blogspot.com/ "No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session." -- Thomas Jefferson > If you are going to bitch, complain about the "incomplete" catch and > fumble that gave Texas the deciding 3 points. Dude, USC was up 38-26 with 6 minutes to go. They have noone to blame but themselves for choking. > > If you are going to bitch, complain about the "incomplete" catch and > > fumble that gave Texas the deciding 3 points. > > Dude, USC was up 38-26 with 6 minutes to go. They have noone to blame but > themselves for choking. don't bring Herman's Hermits into this. > > If you are going to bitch, complain about the "incomplete" catch and > > fumble that gave Texas the deciding 3 points. > > Dude, USC was up 38-26 with 6 minutes to go. They have noone to blame but > themselves for choking. And you could argue that they stepped up and did what they needed to do on that play to tip the balance in their favor. If you are going say that these two teams are evenly matched, you must accept the fact that one bad call can make a huge difference, and that's why awful officiating in a game of that magnitude is unacceptable. It wasn't just one play, it was all night both sides, but I think Texas got the bigger benefit in the end. > > > If you are going to bitch, complain about the "incomplete" catch and > > > fumble that gave Texas the deciding 3 points. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > one play, it was all night both sides, but I think Texas got the bigger > benefit in the end. Whatever. All I know is the clock seemed to still keep moving when Texas threw an incomplete pass or went out of bounds. Somehow the 'Horns managed to find a way anyway. They didn't whine about the extra time they lost, did they? At about 5 Jan 2006 06:11:41 -0800, Justin Pate was dragged into the street and beaten by an angry mob for writing.. :> > > If you are going to bitch, complain about the "incomplete" catch and :> > > fumble that gave Texas the deciding 3 points. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] :'Horns managed to find a way anyway. They didn't whine about the extra :time they lost, did they? ..or about the possession they missed when an interception went unnoticed. SignatureBryan S. Slick, onyx_hokie at yahoo dot com "To those who have fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know." > At about 5 Jan 2006 06:11:41 -0800, Justin Pate was dragged into the > street and beaten by an angry mob for writing.. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > ..or about the possession they missed when an interception went > unnoticed. I thought that was a pivotal play. Instead of UT having the ball at midfield, with a chance to score before half, USC gets a TD, and the momentum that comes with it going into the 3rd quarter. Calls were missed both ways. Rod > At about 5 Jan 2006 06:11:41 -0800, Justin Pate was dragged into the > street and beaten by an angry mob for writing.. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > ..or about the possession they missed when an interception went > unnoticed. yes, that was the biggest blown call of the game. if UT gets that pick, they probably go down and score and usc surely doesn't get 3 points. if texas is up 23-7, or even 19-7, at the half, then chances are USC never takes the lead in the 2nd half at all. texas probably wins pretty easily. Signature"if federal judges have the final word over its meaning, the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please". - Thomas Jefferson > > > > If you are going to bitch, complain about the "incomplete" catch and > > > > fumble that gave Texas the deciding 3 points. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > 'Horns managed to find a way anyway. They didn't whine about the extra > time they lost, did they? What part of "It was both sides, all night long" don't you get? Did USC specifically whine about the turnover play after the game? Why do I get the feeling if Texas had lost you'd be on here whining about those 30 seconds? Crossfacewa...@aol.com wrote: > > > > > If you are going to bitch, complain about the "incomplete" catch and > > > > > fumble that gave Texas the deciding 3 points. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > the feeling if Texas had lost you'd be on here whining about those 30 > seconds? That's where you're wrong. It was game where each side got their bum calls. In the end someone gets it done and the other doesn't. In fact, I was already packing it in when they were down 38-26 with six minutes to go. USC clearly outplayed Texas in the Second Half until those last few minutes of the game. Them's the breaks. We just had things go our way. And I couldn't be happier. > If you are going to bitch, complain about the "incomplete" catch and > fumble that gave Texas the deciding 3 points. There was an interception by Texas earlier in the game, the player fell down on his back, he demonstrated possession, when he came in contact with the ground, it popped out. Can the ground cause a fumble, NO. the officiating in college football sucks, just like Dan Fouts flip flopping a.s. how many times did he say "...but this is USC". at the end I thought he was going to claim Vince as family. mk >USC could have used those 20 seconds that were lost when the clock wasn't >stopped between with around 6 minutes to go in the game when the player went >out of bounds. Pete Carroll should protest the game. Would have been a great >game if not for this giant blunder. And the spinning begins >>USC could have used those 20 seconds that were lost when the clock wasn't >>stopped between with around 6 minutes to go in the game when the player [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > And the spinning begins Oh, it began right after the game with first Pete Carrol, then Mat Lineart saying the better team lost the game. Bottom line is... Carrol made some inexplicably stupid coaching moves the last half of the fourth quarter, and any whining about that 20 seconds that rolled off the clock is nothing more than crying over spilt milk. > Oh, it began right after the game with first Pete Carrol, then Mat Lineart > saying the better team lost the game. Carroll was pretty classy and gracious afterwards. What did you object to him doing/saying? -Junior P.S. RSFCK! >> Oh, it began right after the game with first Pete Carrol, then Mat >> Lineart [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > P.S. RSFCK! here's the quotes i found (didn't watch post-game). - "Well, we couldn't stop them when we had to," USC coach Pete Carroll said. "The quarterback ran all over the place. "This is their night," he said. "It's wonderful doing what we've been doing. We didn't get it done." Said Leinart: "I still think we're a better football team, they just made the plays in the end." > here's the quotes i found (didn't watch post-game). > - > "Well, we couldn't stop them when we had to," USC coach Pete Carroll said. > "The quarterback ran all over the place. A compliment to Vince Young. > "This is their night," he said. "It's wonderful doing what we've been doing. > We didn't get it done." A compliment to the entire Texas team and coaching staff. > Said Leinart: "I still think we're a better football team, they just made > the plays in the end." An "in the heat of the moment" statement from a 23-year-old guy who still has some growing up to do. -Junior >> here's the quotes i found (didn't watch post-game). >> - >> "Well, we couldn't stop them when we had to," USC coach Pete Carroll >> said. "The quarterback ran all over the place. > > A compliment to Vince Young. Yes. >> "This is their night," he said. "It's wonderful doing what we've been >> doing. We didn't get it done." > > A compliment to the entire Texas team and coaching staff. Yes. >> Said Leinart: "I still think we're a better football team, they just >> made the plays in the end." > > An "in the heat of the moment" statement from a 23-year-old guy who > still has some growing up to do. No. He was a classless a.s. SignatureTom Reestman > >> Oh, it began right after the game with first Pete Carrol, then Mat > >> Lineart [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Said Leinart: "I still think we're a better football team, they just made > the plays in the end." Carroll is very complementary and classy there, but Leinart slipped into Webberdom there. SignatureGary Collard SABR-L Moderator gmcollard@yahoo.com http://sarcastipundit.blogspot.com/ "No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session." -- Thomas Jefferson >> Oh, it began right after the game with first Pete Carrol, then Mat >> Lineart >> saying the better team lost the game. > > Carroll was pretty classy and gracious afterwards. What did you object > to him doing/saying? More the way he said what he said than the specific words. No doubt, USC is a GREAT football team, and on another day... they well might beat the Longhorns... might even should have beaten 'em tonight, but I noticed that Mack Brown took time from his victory spiel to congratulate USC on a tremendous run. Don't get me wrong... I like Pete Carrol... I was just surprised at his and Lineart's reactions... saying, and acting as if they believed the better team lost. I understand no team's ever even gonna get to the N/C game if they don't believe that... Longhorns included... but as Young showed his butt a bit at the Heisman presentation, I thought their reaction tonight was more of that as well. I mean, take away the touchdown where Young pitched the ball off while his knee was on the ground and he still turns in a record breaking Rose Bowl performance. As a Texas fan, obviously, I wanted my team to win, but it was a great game and I almost hated to see anybody lose it... almost. ;^) ADG3UCATION OF ADM COPELAND - OCT1!!!!11 OMG WTF 7 203 W3LCOMA ONA AND AL 2 THIS WEKS ADGEUCATION IT1!!11!!1 OMG WTF LOL SEMS EV3RYONE STIL WANTS 2 KNOW HOW DA N3K IS DONG111111 LOL IT FELS GR3AT11!! WTF I STIL DONT HAEV FUL MOBILITY BUT ITS A WORK IN PROGR3S!111 WTF MAH WORKOUTS HAEV BEN GRAAT AND IMM ALMOST AT FUL STR3NGTH1!!111! OMG LOL HOWEVAR THIS DOAS NOT M3AN I CAN COME BAK AARLY!!111! WTF EV3RYONE SEMS 2 THINK TAHT I CAN COM3 BAK BFOR3 BUT DR11!!!!! WTF U WIL NOT REL3AES ANYON3 BFOR3 A FUL YEAR IS UP NO MAT3R HOW GOD TH3Y FEL WANT!!1!1 OMG LOL 2 SE TEH RUNDOWN THIS WEK1!1!!11! LOL I THOUGHT TEH ROK WAS GREAT!!!1 OMG LOL HAS A MOVEI STAR NO DOUBT ABOUT IT AND GOD FOR HIM1!!!1 THROUGH 3VARYTHNG HAS STAEYD TH3 SME PERSON AND IMM PROUD AND HAPY FOR HIM!!1!1!!1 LOL IF U HAEV NOT SEN IT DEFINIETLY GO CHEK IT OUT ITS A FUN MOVEI W3NT!!11!!! OMG 2 TEH BUCS-COLTS GME LAST NIGHT!1!11111 USUALY IMM AT WORK WHIEL FOTBAL IS PLAEYD!1!! SUNDAY AND MONDAY NIGHTS R SPENT THROWNG P3OPL3 AROUND!!!!!! WTF LOL SO WHEN MY NEIGHBOR CMA 2 DA DOR WIT TWO BUCS TIKETS IN HAND I DECIEDD WT!!!!1!1 OMG WTF LOL ID NAVER BEN 2 A FOTBAL GME AND I WAS NOT DISAPOINTED11!!!111 OMG WTF IT WAS A DIFERENT ATMOSPH3RE THAN ANY TEM SPORT IVE 3V3R B3N 2!!!!1 LOL LUKILY I GOT 2 SE ONA HEL OF A GMA 21!!!!11 WTF LOL ASPN IS SAYNG ITS ON3 OF TEH BST GMES EV3R11!1!! OMG I GUAS I LUKED OUT W3L1111 OMG FOLKS DONT HAEV MUCH ALSE 2 SAY THIS WEK!11!! OMG WTF SORY FOR TEH SHORT ON3 U STIL B3N ADGEUCAETD (A LITL3) 1!!1!111 OMG WTF LOL >>>USC could have used those 20 seconds that were lost when the clock wasn't >>>stopped between with around 6 minutes to go in the game when the player [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >last half of the fourth quarter, and any whining about that 20 seconds that >rolled off the clock is nothing more than crying over spilt milk. Who cares. It's only college and next year nobody will give a f.ck. Lineart and Bush have great careers ahead of them. Young will be good for 2 years, then be injury-prone and suck like all scat-QBs ala Vick, McNabb, Kordell. >>>>USC could have used those 20 seconds that were lost when the clock >>>>wasn't [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > for 2 years, then be injury-prone and suck like all scat-QBs ala Vick, > McNabb, Kordell. No argument that Lineart and Bush have lights out careers ahead of 'em. I'm not so sure I'd write off Young just yet as just another "mobile" QB who turns injury prone. Last year, I'd have bet if Young even made it to the NFL he'd be converted into a WR or RB. He's learned to throw a little bit, and some coach might still want to convert him, but he's been nowhere near as fragile as other running QBs I've seen over the years. >>>>USC could have used those 20 seconds that were lost when the clock wasn't >>>>stopped between with around 6 minutes to go in the game when the player [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >for 2 years, then be injury-prone and suck like all scat-QBs ala Vick, >McNabb, Kordell. Cheese? f.ck you norton, USC got seriously owned all night.. lenart was static and sucked seriously.. Vince Young has a bright future ahead of him.. the heismen is a kiss of death anyway.. only losers win it. > >>>USC could have used those 20 seconds that were lost when the clock wasn't > >>>stopped between with around 6 minutes to go in the game when the player [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > for 2 years, then be injury-prone and suck like all scat-QBs ala Vick, > McNabb, Kordell. And Adrian Peterson will be a better pro than any of them. SignatureGary Collard SABR-L Moderator gmcollard@yahoo.com http://sarcastipundit.blogspot.com/ "No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session." -- Thomas Jefferson "it began right after the game with first Pete Carrol, then Mat Lineart saying the better team lost the game." I agree. I was disappointed with both of their responses. If the Trojans really were the better team, they would have won. I rooted for USC and for Texas all season and have rooted for both teams for years. I understand how both Carrol and Lineart could feel that the Trojans were the better team, but when you lose in the National Championship game, you clearly aren't the best team--at least not during that game. It's one thing to lose to a mediocre team during the regular season due to not taking the game seriously, it is quite a different story when you lose in a championship game to an undefeated team. The Longhorns proved that they are just as good as the Trojans and that they were a little bit better on January 4th. It might have been better for both Carrol and Lineart to have simply admitted that Texas had the better team last night. Because they did. >"it began right after the game with first Pete Carrol, then Mat Lineart > >saying the better team lost the game." > >I agree. I was disappointed with both of their responses. If the >Trojans really were the better team, they would have won. BULLSHIT. After 34 wins in a row, you're bound to have an off game. If Bush doesn't fumble, USC wins. By your warped theory, the Chargers are a better team than the Colts, because the Colts lost to them, too. >>"it began right after the game with first Pete Carrol, then Mat Lineart >>saying the better team lost the game." >>I agree. I was disappointed with both of their responses. If the >>Trojans really were the better team, they would have won. >BULLSHIT. After 34 wins in a row, you're bound to have an off game. If >Bush doesn't fumble, USC wins. If Texas doesn't fumble the first punt, it's not close. If my aunt had nuts, she'd be my uncle. Who cares? >By your warped theory, the Chargers are a better team than the Colts, >because the Colts lost to them, too. The Chargers aren't undefeated. The bottom line is there is no evidence that U$C is a better team than Texas. Texas put up better numbers against better competition (at least as good) and beat U$C head to head on basically U$C's home field. Leinart had a fairly classy reputation. He's pissed that away with one comment. Doug > If Texas doesn't fumble the first punt, it's not close. What you said is right. > If my aunt had > nuts, she'd be my uncle. Conitnue thinking of treating her well, and remember always walk away from such stuff. >Who cares? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The Chargers aren't undefeated. The bottom line is there is no > evidence that U$C is a better team than Texas. >Texas put up better > numbers against better competition (at least as good) and beat U$C head > to head on basically U$C's home field. > > Leinart had a fairly classy reputation. Once a guy starts something, you walk out immediately, tell whoever is in charge and don't even let them do this crap >He's pissed that away with one > comment. You deal with them right away, gets em in line forever mk5000 "All you got to give to me is all your love. Oooh yeah, ooh yeah, ooh yeah, oh yeah. I'm so glad I'm living and gonna tell the world I am, I got me a fine woman and she says that I'm her man, "--led zeppelin > >I agree. I was disappointed with both of their responses. If the > >Trojans really were the better team, they would have won. > > BULLSHIT. After 34 wins in a row, you're bound to have an off game. If > Bush doesn't fumble, USC wins. Not in the championship game. USC is a great team, but Texas played better in that game. In order to claim that Team #1 is better than Team #2, Team #1 needs to prove it. USC did not prove they were the better team. > By your warped theory, the Chargers are a better team than the Colts, > because the Colts lost to them, too. The Chargers played better in that game. They won. Also a very stupid comparison. The Chargers didn't have the same undefeated record the Colts had when they played. Texas has won some 20 games in a row and have been ranked right up at the top with USC all season long. Texas is the better team this year--unless you can prove otherwise. >> >I agree. I was disappointed with both of their responses. If the >> >Trojans really were the better team, they would have won. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Texas is the better team this year--unless you can prove otherwise. While some pan the Texas defense for giving up 600 yards, the USC defense gave up very little less than that. They gave up nearly 500 to Vince Young's feet and right arm alone. Texas' defense was ranked 6th in the nation, and USC supposedly had an improved defense. What I think that game proves is great offense defeats good defense every time, and I believe one would have to admit that both Texas and USC have rather potent offenses. Whatever the case, the Longhorns have the bragging rights for the coming year... and if Young comes back for his senior year, they'd have to be a favorite to repeat. National columnists who've tried all year to ignore the Horns have mostly admitted they're pretty damned good; the zebras made iffy calls both ways and the Horns beat the team most figured they had no chance against. I'd say that pretty much says it all. >While some pan the Texas defense for giving up 600 yards, the USC defense >gave up very little less than that. They gave up nearly 500 to Vince Young's >feet and right arm alone. USC was supposed to have never seen a defense as good as Texas'. USC's offensive numbers were gaudy because they played in the no-defense Pac 10. Well, it turns out that even Texas gave up 600 yard to USC, so perhaps USC just had a really good offense. No one was claiming that USC's defense was that great. The Fresno State game was evidence of that. >Texas' defense was ranked 6th in the nation, and USC supposedly had an >improved defense. What I think that game proves is great offense defeats >good defense every time, and I believe one would have to admit that both >Texas and USC have rather potent offenses. USC's defense was worse this year than last, not improved. It was a sore spot for them all season. Overall, last year's USC team was better than this one. Dimitri >>While some pan the Texas defense for giving up 600 yards, the USC defense >>gave up very little less than that. They gave up nearly 500 to Vince [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > USC just had a really good offense. No one was claiming that USC's defense > was that great. The Fresno State game was evidence of that. I seriously doubt that they DID see a defense as good as Texas'. Thing is... and I've been trying to make this point all along, BOTH offenses are probably good enough to torch the Texas defense. Certainly, USC's is. >>Texas' defense was ranked 6th in the nation, and USC supposedly had an >>improved defense. What I think that game proves is great offense defeats [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > spot for them all season. Overall, last year's USC team was better than > this one. I'll take your word for that, as about the only USC game I saw any of this year was the Notre Dame game. I was merely going on some writer's opinion that the USC defense had "improved" some > I'll take your word for that, as about the only USC game I saw any of this > year was the Notre Dame game. I was merely going on some writer's opinion > that the USC defense had "improved" some The USC defense had improved during the season. They had to replace several talented players (Cody, Patterson, Tatupu, Grootegoed), and had a rash of injuries early in the season. As they got more experience and got healthier, things improved (except for the Fresno State game). Even so, they were not as good as last season's defense. >> I'll take your word for that, as about the only USC game I saw any of >> this year was the Notre Dame game. I was merely going on some writer's [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > healthier, things improved (except for the Fresno State game). Even so, > they were not as good as last season's defense. Okay. Makes sense, as I also remember reading about some injury problems. All I can really say is that was one hell of a game and I'd have enjoyed it even if Texas had lost... maybe not quite so much... but there it is. >Okay. Makes sense, as I also remember reading about some injury problems. Quite serious ones in fact. Nearly half the defensive players that started that game where either third stringers or still in highschool last year with peach fuzz instead of whiskers. The defense was extremely vulnerable all year, especially in big games down the stretch as merely a function of personnel rather than planning. No surprise there. The game plan was to jump on Texas early and stick them down a hole they couldn't dig their way out of. Would have worked except for a few key plays. >>Okay. Makes sense, as I also remember reading about some injury problems. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > them down a hole they couldn't dig their way out of. Would have worked > except for a few key plays. Depends on the depth of the hole. Young was as flat as a pancake in the Texas game with A&M and still wound up looking pretty good, and he's not at all uncomfortable playing from behind, but I have to admit... I had doubts after the opening three-and-out, followed by a USC punt and a Texas fumble near mid field. And, against that Texas defense, it's gonna take more than skill to put 'em in all THAT deep a hole. Yeah, they gave up six hundred yards, but they pulled a stop when it mattered against a back they hadn't stopped all night. >>>Okay. Makes sense, as I also remember reading about some injury problems. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >after the opening three-and-out, followed by a USC punt and a Texas fumble >near mid field. In my mind, if Bush doesn't give the ball away on that absolutely boneheaded latteral bullshit, this game would have resembled last years blowout against OU. One might argue otherwise, but I'm quite sure of it. The potential 14 point swing of that play would have been enough to easily make up for SC's defensive deficiencies. >And, against that Texas defense, it's gonna take more than skill to put 'em >in all THAT deep a hole. Yeah, they gave up six hundred yards, but they >pulled a stop when it mattered against a back they hadn't stopped all night. That's just a matter of the odds. If you run down their throats enough times, chances are eventually they are going to stop you once or twice. The point is to not make the game come down to that. > Okay. Makes sense, as I also remember reading about some injury problems. > > All I can really say is that was one hell of a game and I'd have enjoyed > it even if Texas had lost... maybe not quite so much... but there it is. As a USC fan, I can say that I enjoyed the game as well, even though they lost. Had they won, it would have been a great achievement, but they had a great run over the past three years and lost to a very good team led by a great player. USC made too many mistakes to win against a very good team. Losing this game doesn't really hurt much. Had they lost to Notre Dame, well, that would have been different. > >>While some pan the Texas defense for giving up 600 yards, the USC defense > >>gave up very little less than that. They gave up nearly 500 to Vince [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > and I've been trying to make this point all along, BOTH offenses are > probably good enough to torch the Texas defense. Certainly, USC's is. Given that Texas didn't reallly Stop USC all nite except on that one 4th down. BUT. Texas D should be given credit for making USC work for all those yards. USC had to drive down the field, completing short passes, running for (for them) few yards, and converting many 3rd downs. While this seems like a hollow victory--after all USC DID end up scoring just about every time they had the ball and TDs most of the time at that, which is a credit to the USC offense--what it did do was chew up the clock. USC is used to having a quick strike offense (and ST and D) and alot of times they had 3 play 80 yd TD strikes. If they did as normal, you'd expect USC to have (say) 2 quick TDs using up 3min of clock time instead of (say) 12min. Add another 9min plus-or-minus to the game and it's a totally different game (duh). So while it wasn't a defensive mastgerpiece, i think there WAS a method to the madness (bend but don't break) and Texas' D should at least be given credit for what they did do. -goro- > > >>While some pan the Texas defense for giving up 600 yards, the USC defense > > >>gave up very little less than that. They gave up nearly 500 to Vince [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Given that Texas didn't reallly Stop USC all nite except on that one > 4th down. BUT. What game were you watching? You missed the first half!!!! First U$C drive: three and out (3 yds total offense!) Third U$C drive: U$C halted 5 yds short on third down. Gained first down on incidental face mask as Bush was almost on the ground. U$C eventually turned ball over on downs @ UT 17. Fifth U$C drive: Leinart intercepted in end zone. Sixth U$C drive: U$C punted on 4th and 17 from U$C 27. At least one U$C drive was stopped by an interception in the 2nd half. Everybody saw it except the officials. . Heiman > Texas D should be given credit for making USC work for all those yards. > USC had to drive down the field, completing short passes, running for [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > -goro- >> >>While some pan the Texas defense for giving up 600 yards, the USC >> >>defense [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Given that Texas didn't reallly Stop USC all nite except on that one > 4th down. BUT. How about the opening three and out, right before Texas fumbled the first USC punt near mid field? How about USC scoring only seven points in the entire first half? At times during that game, the Texas defense was a strong as advertised... but there is simply no way to prevent an offense as good as USC's from getting the yards. In a game like this, you hope for a mistake from the other guy. In this game, the "other guy" happened to be USC. > Texas D should be given credit for making USC work for all those yards. > USC had to drive down the field, completing short passes, running for [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > expect USC to have (say) 2 quick TDs using up 3min of clock time > instead of (say) 12min. Yep, and Texas had a few one-play drives during the season too. > Add another 9min plus-or-minus to the game and it's a totally different > game (duh). Assuming only USC gets the ball in those extra minutes, you might be right. Texas was able to respond with a score most times they got the ball too, ya know. > So while it wasn't a defensive mastgerpiece, i think there WAS a method > to the madness (bend but don't break) and Texas' D should at least be > given credit for what they did do. Agreed. >>>>> While some pan the Texas defense for giving up 600 yards, the USC >>>>> defense [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > first USC punt near mid field? How about USC scoring only seven > points in the entire first half? Ummm, sorry. They scored 10 points. > At times during that game, the Texas defense was a strong as > advertised... but there is simply no way to prevent an offense as [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Agreed. >>>>>> While some pan the Texas defense for giving up 600 yards, the USC >>>>>> defense [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Ummm, sorry. They scored 10 points. Okay... ten points in the entire first half. Forgot about the field goal. Thought it was said, though, that USC scored practically every time they got the ball. They didn't. >>>>>>> While some pan the Texas defense for giving up 600 yards, the USC >>>>>>> defense [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Thought it was said, though, that USC scored practically every time they > got the ball. They didn't. 1st half USC's offense shot itself in the foot like a team of Barney Fifes. If it wasn't Bush's what-was-he-thinking lateral, it was Leinart's lazy interception, or being stopped 4th and one. By the time they got rolling, they weren't stopped until their final possession though. In the 1st half Texas hurt itself on offense plenty of times as well, just not as much. The first fumble and their own faied 4th down come to mind. brink >>>>>>>> While some pan the Texas defense for giving up 600 yards, the USC >>>>>>>> defense [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > lazy interception, or being stopped 4th and one. By the time they got > rolling, they weren't stopped until their final possession though. No question about both teams shoot.ng themselves in the foot on several possessions. There were times when both looked like they'd had a month off, but even on Bush's ill-thought-out lateral, had Texas been out of position that ball likely gets recovered by USC. We could all sit around and play "what if" all month long, but the bottom line is the Texas defense, in spite of giving up a ton of yards, held when it really mattered. > In the 1st half Texas hurt itself on offense plenty of times as well, just > not as much. The first fumble and their own faied 4th down come to mind. Yep. Still, I totally agree with something you pointed out elsewhere... taken on its whole, it's a game that's likely to be remembered as an all-time classic. Obviously, I'm happy "my" team won, but I'd have still looked upon that game as one of the very best I've ever seen had USC won it. > >>>>>>> While some pan the Texas defense for giving up 600 yards, the USC > >>>>>>> defense [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > In the 1st half Texas hurt itself on offense plenty of times as well, just > not as much. The first fumble and their own faied 4th down come to mind. On fourth and two, when all the chips were on the table, USC learned that the Longhorns knew how to play "Texas Hold'em" Heiman > brink > Given that Texas didn't reallly Stop USC all nite except on that one > 4th down. BUT. USC only scored on 6 of 13 possessions and 1 of those was a FG. Texas "stopped em" on 2 4th downs, an interception, and two forced punts. Not counting Bush's fumble or the game ending as "stops". > after all USC DID end up scoring just about > every time they had the ball and TDs most of the time at that, Nope. USC - 5 TDS and 1 FG on 13 possessions. "Stopped" 5 times. 2 possessions ended "other" TEXAS - 5 TDS and 2 FGS on 12 possessions. "Stopped" 3 times 2 possessions ended "other" (I didn't count Texas' fumbled punt as a possession since the offense never took the field). I think the 5-2 "stopped" advantage clearly was crucial to the result. Here's the summary of possessions: USC TEX TD 5 5 FG 1 2 missed FG 0 1 punt 2 2 turnover 2 0 (Texas had one non-possession TO) over on downs 2 1 game over 1 0 ran out clock 0 1 And the sequence (anyone remember which of these Texas lost the interception on the bad call? I think it was #12, but I'm not sure): 1. USC own 12 - 3 & out, punt fumble punt 2. USC Tx 46 - 4 plays, 46 yards, TD 0-7 3. TEX own 20 - 6 plays, 29 yards, over on downs 4. USC Tx 49 - 9 plays, 32 yards, over on downs 5. TEX own 17 - 6 plays, 27 yards, punt 6. USC own 17 - 7 plays, 65 yards, fumble 7. TEX own 18 - 9 plays, 53 yards, FG 3-7 8. USC own 27 - 8 plays, 48 yards, interception 9. TEX own 20 - 7 plays, 80 yards, TD miss PAT 9-7 10 USC own 33 - 3 & out, punt 11 TEX own 49 - 4 plays, 51 yds, TD 16-7 12 USC own 20 - 11 plays, 54 yards, FG 16-10 13 Tex own 24 - 1 play, ran out clock HALFTIME 14 TEX own 19 - 3 & out, punt 15 USC own 38 - 7 plays, 62 yards, TD 16-17 16 TEX own 20 - 7 plays, 80 yards, TD 23-17 17 USC own 26 - 9 plays, 74 yards, TD 23-24 18 TEX own 20 - 9 plays, 66 yards, missed 31 yd FG 19 USC own 20 - 9 plays, 80 yards, TD 23-31 20 TEX own 31 - 9 plays, 52 yards, FG 26-31 21 USC own 19 - 4 plays, 81 yards, TD 26-38 22 TEX own 31 - 8 plays, 69 yards, TD 33-38 23 USC own 34 - 6 plays, 22 yards, over on downs 24 TEX own 44 - 10 plays, 56 yds,TD 41-38 25 USC own 31 - 2 plays, 26 yards, clock expires >> Given that Texas didn't reallly Stop USC all nite except on that one >> 4th down. BUT. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > I think the 5-2 "stopped" advantage clearly was crucial to > the result. I think you're parsing things too much in addition to failing math here... I'd count the fumble on the punt as a stop as it is a de facto offensive possession negated by a play made by the defense. Sure it's "special teams" but the net effect is the same. So the end result is 5-4, much closer than your idea of things, which confirms what we already knew--this was a *very* close game, could have gone either way. If there were 2 fewer minutes or 2 more minutes left on the clock at the end, Texas probably loses. > Here's the summary of possessions: > USC TEX [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the interception on the bad call? I think it was #12, > but I'm not sure): I thought it was a bad call, but I also thought USC lost a fumble on bad call... and not only that, it was at a much more crucial spot... if that's called a fumble on the field rather than a non-catch, then review would've likely upheld that call instead... USC would've been up 12 points still, NOW with possession and around 6 minutes left in the game. Again, all of this just points to how close the game was. Congratulations to Texas for winning what is sure to remembered as a classic. brink >>>Given that Texas didn't reallly Stop USC all nite except on that one >>>4th down. BUT. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > possession negated by a play made by the defense. Sure it's "special teams" > but the net effect is the same. Not when you're discussing how each defense did stopping the other's offense, but whatever. > So the end result is 5-4, > much closer than your idea of things, which > confirms what we already knew--this was a *very* close game, could have gone > either way. If there were 2 fewer minutes or 2 more minutes left on the > clock at the end, Texas probably loses. I never said anything to the contrary. But if there were *3* more minutes, Texas wins again. ;) >>Here's the summary of possessions: >> USC TEX [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I thought it was a bad call, but I also thought USC lost a fumble on bad > call... and not only that, it was at a much more crucial spot... Depends on what you mean by "crucial spot". Texas going into the locker room up 23-7 instead of 16-10 is not exactly a trivial difference. FWIW, I don't think it was a fumble...but I agree it probably would've stood if called that way on the field. The interception Texas lost, however, should've been ruled an interception either way - there was no doubt. > if that's > called a fumble on the field rather than a non-catch, then review would've [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Again, all of this just points to how close the game was. Congratulations > to Texas for winning what is sure to remembered as a classic. Agreed. > I think you're parsing things too much in addition to failing math here... > I'd count the fumble on the punt as a stop as it is a de facto offensive > possession negated by a play made by the defense. Sure it's "special teams" > but the net effect is the same. It isn't a possession until you get an offensive snap, fwiw. That play was more like an offensive rebound for USC if you put it in hoops terms. SignatureGary Collard SABR-L Moderator gmcollard@yahoo.com http://sarcastipundit.blogspot.com/ "No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session." -- Thomas Jefferson [snip!] >So while it wasn't a defensive mastgerpiece, i think there WAS a method >to the madness (bend but don't break) and Texas' D should at least be >given credit for what they did do. Sure, I give them credit for holding USC to 38 points and 600 yards if that's an accomplishment. I would hate to see what USC would do against a weak defense. Dimitri > [snip!] > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > that's an accomplishment. I would hate to see what USC would do against a > weak defense. Well...they scored 63 against Hawaii, 70 against Arkansas, 66 against UCLA, 55 against Washington State, and 51 against both Washington and Stanford. Oh, and 50 against Fresno State. Their lowest scoring game this year was against Notre Dame and they scored 34 points. > >"it began right after the game with first Pete Carrol, then Mat Lineart > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > BULLSHIT. After 34 wins in a row, you're bound to have an off game. If > Bush doesn't fumble, USC wins. But if Bush doesn't get away with cheating in the ND game, they don't have 34 in a row. SignatureGary Collard SABR-L Moderator gmcollard@yahoo.com http://sarcastipundit.blogspot.com/ "No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session." -- Thomas Jefferson >> >"it began right after the game with first Pete Carrol, then Mat Lineart >> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > But if Bush doesn't get away with cheating in the ND game, they don't have > 34 in a row. If Larry Johnson's throat didn't tighten up, he takes that three and UNLV goes undefeated. Duke wasn't the better team, but they were the NCAA champions that year. Duke was the best team the next year, and in 1999 and 1986 too, but not in 2001. It all evens out more or less. I'm not sure who was better, Texas or USC, but a close game that comes down to the last possession doesn't prove much than throwing dynamite in a pond means you are a good fisherman. --Tedward >>>USC could have used those 20 seconds that were lost when the clock wasn't >>>stopped between with around 6 minutes to go in the game when the player [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Oh, it began right after the game with first Pete Carrol, then Mat Lineart >saying the better team lost the game. "It was a great win, I mean a hard-fought loss" hahaha >Bottom line is... Carrol made some inexplicably stupid coaching moves Well whaddaya expect? After all, at the end of the day he's still Pete Carroll. He doesn't win because he's a great coach, he wins because of on-field talent. the >last half of the fourth quarter, and any whining about that 20 seconds that >rolled off the clock is nothing more than crying over spilt milk. > Well whaddaya expect? After all, at the end of the day he's still Pete > Carroll. He doesn't win because he's a great coach, he wins because of > on-field talent. In college, one of the coach's responsibilities is getting that talent. > > Well whaddaya expect? After all, at the end of the day he's still Pete > > Carroll. He doesn't win because he's a great coach, he wins because of > > on-field talent. > > In college, one of the coach's responsibilities is getting that talent. By far the primary, in fact. SignatureGary Collard SABR-L Moderator gmcollard@yahoo.com http://sarcastipundit.blogspot.com/ "No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session." -- Thomas Jefferson > >Bottom line is... Carrol made some inexplicably stupid coaching moves > > Well whaddaya expect? After all, at the end of the day he's still Pete > Carroll. He doesn't win because he's a great coach, he wins because of > on-field talent. Hey creating the Princeton Offense was a fine accomplishment as well. SignatureGary Collard SABR-L Moderator gmcollard@yahoo.com http://sarcastipundit.blogspot.com/ "No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session." -- Thomas Jefferson > >>USC could have used those 20 seconds that were lost when the clock wasn't > >>stopped between with around 6 minutes to go in the game when the player [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > last half of the fourth quarter, and any whining about that 20 seconds that > rolled off the clock is nothing more than crying over spilt milk. I'm not sure if they were "stupid coaching moves" or coaching moves spurred by the arrogance of the 34 game winning streak. During those games, they could do no wrong and the big gambles seemed to always work out for them (Notre Damb). That's gotta set the mindset for being more aggressive and feeling like you can always pick up a 4th and short. It may also come from playing in a PAC-10 that (generally) has weak run defenses and where they've managed to do whatever they want on the ground (in the air,too). -goro- >I'm not sure if they were "stupid coaching moves" or coaching moves >spurred by the arrogance of the 34 game winning streak. During those [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >defenses and where they've managed to do whatever they want on the >ground (in the air,too). Well, that strong Texas run/pass defense gave up almost 600 yards to the Trojans. Dimitri >>I'm not sure if they were "stupid coaching moves" or coaching moves >>spurred by the arrogance of the 34 game winning streak. During those [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Well, that strong Texas run/pass defense gave up almost 600 yards to > the Trojans. All month long, I'd felt Texas would win, but I was surprised at the way both defenses played. Maybe both offenses are THAT good, but neither defense played lights out. It's rather obvious Texas' "number six" defense did not play up to its billing... also rather obvious that Carroll was scheming to contain Young and was only partly successful. >... also rather obvious that Carroll was scheming to >contain Young and was only partly successful. Yeah, they held him to only 200 yards rushing. One shudders to think what would've happened had USC not been keying on VY. > >... also rather obvious that Carroll was scheming to >>contain Young and was only partly successful. > > Yeah, they held him to only 200 yards rushing. > One shudders to think what would've happened had USC not been keying on > VY. Heh! ;^) Yeah, but they kept VY from throwing any TD passes at all, and you just know he's bawling his eyes out over that. Not! What a hoot of a game! >>I'm not sure if they were "stupid coaching moves" or coaching moves >>spurred by the arrogance of the 34 game winning streak. During those [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Well, that strong Texas run/pass defense gave up almost 600 yards to > the Trojans. Yeah, but it also shut down a scoring drive with a spectacular goal line interception and stopped "The Greatest Offense Ever" twice on fourth down - including once with the entire season on the line. >> Well, that strong Texas run/pass defense gave up almost 600 yards to >> the Trojans. > >Yeah, but it also shut down a scoring drive with a spectacular goal >line interception and stopped "The Greatest Offense Ever" twice on >fourth down - including once with the entire season on the line. Yes, ignore the entire game in favor of a few plays. Come on. It's obvious USC would've gained a lot of yards and scored a lot of points in every conference. Even though USC lost, I think they disproved the theory that the Pac 10 has weak defenses and that their gaudy offensive numbers were because of that. The vaunted best defense in the Big 12 gave up 600 yards. Dimitri > >> Well, that strong Texas run/pass defense gave up almost 600 yards to > >> the Trojans. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Dimitri Two heisman winners (Leinart and Bush) and a potential heisman candidate next year (White) plus a number 1 ranked offense for several years, I am not surprised Texas gave up that many yards. Empty3 Texas Longhorns 2006 National Champs! > > >> Well, that strong Texas run/pass defense gave up almost 600 yards to > > >> the Trojans. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > next year (White) plus a number 1 ranked > offense for several years, I am not surprised Texas gave up that many yards. Nobody should be! U$C had three SI First Team All Americans (RB, WR, & OL), two 2nd team (QB & OL), and one honorable mention (OL) on the same offense. IOW, OVER HALF of U$C'a offensive starters were at least SI honorable mention All Americans, 27% were 1st team, and two were HEI(s)MAN winners. And that doesn't include projected LenDale White who is projected to be a first round draft pick. Heiman > Empty3 > Texas Longhorns 2006 National Champs! >Two heisman winners (Leinart and Bush) and a potential heisman candidate >next year (White) plus a number 1 ranked >offense for several years, I am not surprised Texas gave up that many yards. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message