no more bradford excuse

[PDXsooner]

the reality is no one cares about the bradford excuse. of course it's a factor and a reason, but every time we bring up losing bradford as a reason we lost those games it is an excuse.

a championship team would have figured out a way to win those games. a championship team would have stopped BYU on 4th down, stopped miami on that late 3rd down, and returned that pick to beat texas.

we lost aikman in 85 and won it all with a freshman. in 2007 a 9-0 oregon lost dixon and lost their remaining 3 games. that's the difference between a championship TEAM and a team that needs everything to go it's way to win it all. JMO.

[meoveryouxinfinity]

Texas & BYU = valid

Miami= just an excuse

and because we lost at Miami, it kind of makes the Texas & BYU games excuses too. Umm hello, Landry Jones was the known starter and had played in 3 games prior to the Miami game. And we had a bye week. We should've beat those mother effers.

[StoopTroup]

Texas & BYU = valid

Miami= just an excuse

and because we lost at Miami, it kind of makes the Texas & BYU games excuses too. Umm hello, Landry Jones was the known starter and had played in 3 games prior to the Miami game. And we had a bye week. We should've beat those mother effers.

I don't think you can hang that loss on Landry either though. I hope nobody feels that one was on him.

[PDXsooner]

you can't really pin the loss on anyone specifically. the defense had a chance to win the byu game, and at least give the offense the ball back against miami. and return any of 3 picks against texas. the o could have produced a lot more as well.

either way, my point is that you have a backup QB for a reason. you have 85 scholarships for a reason. some teams find a way to dig in and win, some don't...bottom line - NO EXCUSES.

10-3 and a cotton bowl win over that maniacal freak known as les miles and i'll go into the off-season with a smile on my face!

[Sonner magic923]

ya i agree that its something that a team should be able to overcome but i think its a combination of bradford and gresham.

i think with one or the other we would of been ok. Bradford would of had the experience to get by without gresham and landry really needed a reliable tight end while developing

but thats all could of should of now. it is what it is...got to move on

[StoopTroup]

Having a guy like Landry come in and pick up the pieces shows just how well we do in recruiting QBs IMO. Josh is doing a spectacular job.

[BoulderSooner79]

It's not an excuse - it's just fact. With Bradford and Gresham, OU was a championship caliber team; without them, it is not. To say a championship teams would have figured out how to win without them is BS. That would be a team that happens to be deep at the positions where they have injuries and that is definitely not OU this season. The only team that could lose their starting QB this year and still win it all is 'Bama. Does that mean they are the only championship capable team this year? I don't think so and I doubt they win it all. It will probably be one of those other weenie teams that depend on their star QB to win big games.

I agree on the excuse part - it is what it is. Without the star players we lost, we are not a top 10 team. So what? We're getting better and building for coming years.

[Mississippi Sooner]

But, if Bradford was still playing, there would be no excuse for this thread. :pop:

[1981]

As a Horn I have to disagree. I do not believe it is an excuse. I feel it is more of a reason. For crying out loud, YOU LOST THE HEISMAN TROPHY WINNER. Any OPPOSITION who says different is an idiot. For you all, as Sooners, to say that it is just an excuse is admirable. However, there is only on "championship" team a year and we do not know who that is yet. I am pretty sure if Texas lost Colt or Florida lost Tebow they would not win the MNC. Do not take it too hard. OU is a still a very good team and a very good program. I just cannot imagine how bad it sucks to have the entire off-season to discuss how good your team may be and then lose as much as OU has. It has to be tough. In my opinion, those are reasons. Not excuses.

[StoopTroup]

To be honest...I think the excuse wasn't the main reason to begin with. It was only a part of it. The loss of Gresham was instrumental and when Sam went down and we lost the bYu game...The excuse was inflated. Folks started tripping. Lots of folks throwing the blame game around. Fire Wilson! Fire Venables! Fire Stoops! Fire somebody!

The truth is...we weren't prepared to lose Sam or Jermaine. I don't know how you prepare for that anyway. I think you prepare every week laying out the game plan based on who you have ready to play. When you lose guys like that...you look to backups to replace them in the lineup and look to all your players to step it up.

I think our Team is stepping it up and beginning to recover. This weeks Road Game is a good test.

GO SOONERS!

BEAT THE HUSKERS!

[PDXsooner]

To say a championship teams would have figured out how to win without them is BS.


absolutely wrong.

[fossil]

the reality is no one cares about the bradford excuse. of course it's a factor and a reason, but every time we bring up losing bradford as a reason we lost those games it is an excuse.

a championship team would have figured out a way to win those games. a championship team would have stopped BYU on 4th down, stopped miami on that late 3rd down, and returned that pick to beat texas.

we lost aikman in 85 and won it all with a freshman. in 2007 a 9-0 oregon lost dixon and lost their remaining 3 games. that's the difference between a championship TEAM and a team that needs everything to go it's way to win it all. JMO.

:confused: So, losing Bradford had no impact on these games? Puhleez!!

[StoopTroup]

:confused: So, losing Bradford had no impact on these games? Puhleez!!

Maybe it's Beer:30 in Pheonix.

[fossil]

As a Horn I have to disagree. I do not believe it is an excuse. I feel it is more of a reason. For crying out loud, YOU LOST THE HEISMAN TROPHY WINNER. Any OPPOSITION who says different is an idiot. For you all, as Sooners, to say that it is just an excuse is admirable. However, there is only on "championship" team a year and we do not know who that is yet. I am pretty sure if Texas lost Colt or Florida lost Tebow they would not win the MNC. Do not take it too hard. OU is a still a very good team and a very good program. I just cannot imagine how bad it sucks to have the entire off-season to discuss how good your team may be and then lose as much as OU has. It has to be tough. In my opinion, those are reasons. Not excuses.

:confused: OMG! Have I been abducted by an alien craft and whisked to a parallel universe. A Texas fan actually saying something that really makes some sense. Somebody pinch me, I gotta be dreaming.

[BoulderSooner79]

absolutely wrong.

You can think what you like (as can I). But UF ain't winning it all without Tebow and neither are the horns without McCoy. We probably won't find that out, but that's the way it is. And if you want to go back in history to the good old days when men were men and we had Switzer-hair on our chests, we didn't figure out a way to win the '88 Orange Bowl without Holieway. That was probably Switzer's deepest, most talented team, but Holieway was the heart of the offense. You can always find exceptions, but teams win the big games with their star players. When it happens otherwise, their is usually a lot of luck involved, not some "championship" royal jelly.

[TexasLidig8r]

:confused: OMG! Have I been abducted by an alien craft and whisked to a parallel universe. A Texas fan actually saying something that really makes some sense. Somebody pinch me, I gotta be dreaming.

You hillbillies need to be negbombing him into Bolivia. :mad:

[PDXsooner]

:confused: So, losing Bradford had no impact on these games? Puhleez!!

not what i said.

[PDXsooner]

You can think what you like (as can I). But UF ain't winning it all without Tebow and neither are the horns without McCoy. We probably won't find that out, but that's the way it is. And if you want to go back in history to the good old days when men were men and we had Switzer-hair on our chests, we didn't figure out a way to win the '88 Orange Bowl without Holieway. That was probably Switzer's deepest, most talented team, but Holieway was the heart of the offense. You can always find exceptions, but teams win the big games with their star players. When it happens otherwise, their is usually a lot of luck involved, not some "championship" royal jelly.

as ron burgundy would say - "agree to disagree"

[Breadburner]

Losing Gresham was bigger than Bradford.....No disrespect to Bradford at all.....

[rawlingsHOH]

I rate this thread a thumbs-down and a big fart.

[freshchris05]

Losing Gresham was bigger than Bradford.....No disrespect to Bradford at all.....

my thoughts as well

[sooneron]

This thread irks me for some reason...

[tator]

as ron burgundy would say - "agree to disagree"
So there IS championship royal jelly. Where do we get said jelly at?

[ashley]

the reality is no one cares about the bradford excuse. of course it's a factor and a reason, but every time we bring up losing bradford as a reason we lost those games it is an excuse.

a championship team would have figured out a way to win those games. a championship team would have stopped BYU on 4th down, stopped miami on that late 3rd down, and returned that pick to beat texas.

we lost aikman in 85 and won it all with a freshman. in 2007 a 9-0 oregon lost dixon and lost their remaining 3 games. that's the difference between a championship TEAM and a team that needs everything to go it's way to win it all. JMO.

I know you are kidding, or I hope you are. Anyone who doesn't think Sam would have been worth the the 5 point we lost by is nuts. You also don't know anything about the importance of the starting QB in football.
Try this, tu without Young. Indy without Manning. Cowboys without Aikman. Denver without Elway. I could go on and on. Great teams are who they are in modern football because of the great QB.
I am still shaking my head at this. It is an excuse and a good one.

[westbrooke]

I'm a little confused about the purpose of this thread.

Are we trying to make a distinction between known factors in our losses and the way that we represent ourselves? I'm all for that. I think we can recognize that this season would have gone a lot differently with some key players back in the lineup and still expect to remain competitive in our remaining games, analyzing those performances on the merits of who did play instead of who didn't. Expectations must be adjusted, though.

Are we trying to determine if this OU team was/is a "championship" team? I think hindsight clearly tells us it isn't now and probably never was, if we accept the definition that a "championship" team can plug-and-play up and down its roster to overcome the loss of key personnel. Last year's line might have been able to protect Landry well enough for him to learn and find receivers and win the games we've lost; this year's team clearly needed luck and health to compete in its biggest games.

I think it's a mistake, though, to so narrowly define what a "championship" team is. Quite simply, championship teams win championships, and it takes an enormous confluence of factors to make that happen, health among them. Go through any team that's won a championship and pick off their best two offensive players and then think hard about whether they still would have won. I don't think you'll find more than a handful, particularly after scholarship limits were imposed. Everyone needs things to go their way to win it all.

[gaylordfan1]

BYU-Lost by horrible line play and Bradford going down.... Bradford is good for one point. I think coach Wilson was baffled by Gresham going down before the game, Bradfords injury only compounded his game plan.

MIAMI- Broyles injury was bigger than Bradfords... For this game at least! Broyles in the game should have been enough to overcome that one point.

UT-Bradfords injury completely took the wind out of the offense, Landry played well enough to win, but the WR could have won the game with more catches... see the past two games for comfirmation.

[PLaw]

At the end of the day, we are in the same exact position that we would have been had Bradford and Gresh decided to enter the 09 NFL draft.

Bottom line is we had a young QB ready to step up. However, there was also an "entitled" O-line that had been in the program long enough to perform at a championship level, but was to immature to grasp the focus and committment required to deliver that standard. There was no leadership by the "star" of the group and consequently the whole team has suffered.

Patton's PDR results definitely warrant a PIP.

BOOMER

[gaylordfan1]

Yeah, very true. And put very well. But the only difference is with Bradford in the picture, Landry missed out on a lot of snaps with the first team. It does make a differense when your the man, not the man behind the man. It at least would have made a bigger difference in the BYU game.

[PDXsooner]

I'm a little confused about the purpose of this thread.

Are we trying to make a distinction between known factors in our losses and the way that we represent ourselves? I'm all for that. I think we can recognize that this season would have gone a lot differently with some key players back in the lineup and still expect to remain competitive in our remaining games, analyzing those performances on the merits of who did play instead of who didn't. Expectations must be adjusted, though.

Are we trying to determine if this OU team was/is a "championship" team? I think hindsight clearly tells us it isn't now and probably never was, if we accept the definition that a "championship" team can plug-and-play up and down its roster to overcome the loss of key personnel. Last year's line might have been able to protect Landry well enough for him to learn and find receivers and win the games we've lost; this year's team clearly needed luck and health to compete in its biggest games.

I think it's a mistake, though, to so narrowly define what a "championship" team is. Quite simply, championship teams win championships, and it takes an enormous confluence of factors to make that happen, health among them. Go through any team that's won a championship and pick off their best two offensive players and then think hard about whether they still would have won. I don't think you'll find more than a handful, particularly after scholarship limits were imposed. Everyone needs things to go their way to win it all.

don't overanalyze it too much, although i tend to do that a lot. i've heard/read a lot of sooner fans talking about how we'd be 8-0 IF bradford and gresham were playing. my point is, they're not and we're not.

this team still had the opportunity to go 8-0 with those guys out. actually we've had a very good chance of winning all our games...but we didn't. it's a tough pill to swallow, but it's a fact.

[BoulderSooner79]

don't overanalyze it too much, although i tend to do that a lot. i've heard/read a lot of sooner fans talking about how we'd be 8-0 IF bradford and gresham were playing. my point is, they're not and we're not.

this team still had the opportunity to go 8-0 with those guys out. actually we've had a very good chance of winning all our games...but we didn't. it's a tough pill to swallow, but it's a fact.

My objection is to the term being a "championship" team and if that is some magic ingredient if you have it or character flaw if you don't. Championship teams are the ones good enough and lucky enough to get to the final dance and win it. No more no less. Usually any quality to it is given after the fact and most fans choose to forget the luck factors. We had incredible luck with lack of injuries in 2000 and I think we lucked out playing FSU instead of Miami in their home stadium. Not saying we wouldn't have won - I just think Miami would have been tougher. LSU lucked out getting in with 2 losses and getting tOSU in the final. They get to keep the trophy regardless.

And I disagree we had an opportunity to be 8-0; at least a good one. Yes, we could have won any one of those games, but low odds of winning all. It's 50/50 to get heads on a single coin flip, but only 12% (1 in 8) to get 3 heads in a row. That's why teams must be dominate to make it through a long season by making the odds much better than 50/50 in most games.

Long winded, but no we're not a title contender this year because the team isn't as good as the other contenders. We'll never know if we would have been with our star players on the field, but I think we would have been in the mix. We would not have been a clear pick due to other problems, but all the top teams have flaws this year too. It's not a bitter pill for me, just bummed I don't get to see these talented guys play - they make the game more entertaining and I selfishly want to be entertained. I don't feel there is any shame or character flaws with this team and I like where they are and how they are improving and i feel no need for excuses.

[BlownGP]

I think this post is a little late to be making.

I wanna use losing Sam and Gresham as excuse, but you tell that to anybody outside of the sooner world. They dont want to hear it. I cryed my river already, im sorta over it now. Nothing we can do about it.

about the championship game. I still dont think we could beat bama or florida if we had Sam and Gresham. Our defense 100 times better and it would keep them in check, but bama or floridas defense would eat our O-line up.

besides... do you really want brandon spikes poking sams eyes out? hahahaha

[rainiersooner]

Portland Sucks.

Sincerely,
Seattle

[Desert Sapper]

we lost aikman in 85 and won it all with a freshman.

We didn't win the Miami game that he went down in. Then we played Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, and Colorado. If you remember how much those teams sucked in 1985, you wouldn't be surprised we beat them before we faced #2 NU in Lincoln. By then Jamelle was settled. If we got to beat Texas with Sam at the helm and play and win all the games we lost without him getting hurt, then played Miami and lost Sam and the game, I'd like our chances better. Forget about how we needed the sun, moon, and stars to align that bowl season with Iowa dropping their Rose Bowl to UCLA, Tennessee beating Miami in the Sugar Bowl and us lucking out enough to draw #1 Penn State.

Championship teams get breaks. It's the nature of the beast.

No breaks this year = No Championship. In fact, we got anally raped by injuries before the BYU game. Our second team TE was starting as our center for ****'s sake!

[IronHorseSooner]

It's not just the injuries, but who they have been to this season. Your star QB, TE, WR, RB, and don't discount the injury to Habern in the BYU game. With him, you have your starting C in there, and then you would've had another experienced blocker and short yardage receiver in the mix. Not to mention, Simmons goes down to injury, T-Will has been playing banged up, and Jeffries missed a couple of games.

[PDXsooner]

wow, a lot of excuse makers around here...

[PDXsooner]

Portland Sucks.

Sincerely,
Seattle

ha ha please. seattle's a decent town but i'd rather be a garbage man in portland than a seahawk in seattle...;)

[Okla-homey]

Losing Gresham was bigger than Bradford.....No disrespect to Bradford at all.....

I absolutely agree.

[BoulderSooner79]

wow, a lot of excuse makers around here...

This thread has no purpose except to show you are bored.

[rainiersooner]

ha ha please. seattle's a decent town but i'd rather be a garbage man in portland than a seahawk in seattle...;)

That's too bad because I'm pretty sure the Seahawks are hiring!