CFN Fiesta Bowl analysis [Archive] - SoonerFans.com Message Boards

aurorasooner

1/2/2011, 09:59 AM

http://cfn.scout.com/2/1035942.html

Really Matt Zemek? Really? Broyles disrespecting UConn on the punt return fumble. Not what I saw.
It's what I thought originally. However, after watching the replay it looks to me like RB is trying to turn to fight off the UConn tackler with a stiff arm and he has no idea that the other UConn defensive player is in a position to strip the ball from his left hand which he's using to maintain balance. I guess it could be either depending on if you're looking for a straw to prop up a negative article.
Obviously this guy is a Sooner H8er (or was taking that position per management to follow the ESPN model of "bad cop/good cop), just by the overall tone of his article, & (right or wrong), as a Sooner fan I prefer to give RB the benefit of the doubt.
In any event, that was one helluva of a catch he made on that TD. In real time I thought there was no way in he[[ that he was in bounds. He also made some superb "quiet" plays in the punt return game, such as catching that ball & taking it OB at about the 12 before UConn could down it inside the 5.

Widescreen

1/2/2011, 10:26 AM

Zemek is a moron. I hate it when writers play the "if only" game in one direction.

If only their receivers had made a couple of plays.
If only their coach wasn't a coward.
If only they'd have picked off Landry more.

Yeah, well if OU had picked off as many passes as they should have, we would have won by 40. I'm not sure how big a win would've been impressive to this idiot. We were favored by 17 and won by 28. Oddsmakers don't care how the points are scored or in which quarter they occur. And to bash on Landry after that performance is lunacy.

Scott D

1/2/2011, 10:33 AM

My favorite part actually is when the guy says they need to look at the whole 60 minutes and not the final score. Clearly nobody in the media did that when they continually reference the 2004 Sugar Bowl as being "dominated" despite it being a 7 point game.

btb916

1/2/2011, 12:06 PM

What an insult to OU. "The Huskies worked harder" over the course of the game.

This guy is a d-bag extraordinaire. "No honest Sooner fan would regard this as a particularly impressive effort."

Landry Jones threw for 400+ yards (more than their entire offense), Murray was close to a 100 yard game, and their offense had 6 points off 2 field goals. I felt a little nervous throughout, but the outcome of this game was never in doubt. UCONN got stopped on 4th and 1 twice (the first time it was seriously inches to go). Everything UCONN could have asked for on defense/special teams happened--and yet they still could never get within two scores.

I'm an honest Sooner fan, and I was definitely impressed with this win.

MR2-Sooner86

1/2/2011, 12:11 PM

Matt Zemek I hope when you're walking to your car later this week a group of crossdressing gang bangers ties you to a tree and beats you over the face with their dicks until you have two black eyes, a bloody nose, and a busted lip. I hope they rape you so much you have to wear a diaper for the rest of your days which won't be long because you'll have AIDS while ****ting all over yourself causing massive internal bleeding.

****ing ***hole.

StatGeek

1/2/2011, 12:15 PM

MR2-Sooner86

1/2/2011, 12:32 PM

Seriously bro?

Do I seriously wish that? No. Does his and some of our fan's attitude royally **** me off to no end? **** yes. Half our fans on here seem to bitch and moan about every little damn thing and can't enjoy our first BCS bowl win in eight years and then we have this ***hole trying to **** all over our parade. We can't just enjoy the win? Obviously not.

Leroy Lizard

1/2/2011, 12:38 PM

After reading Zemek's analysis, I have one question: We did win the game, right? I thought we did, but now I'm not so sure. I'll check the scores on ESPN later.

OUEngr1990

1/2/2011, 12:47 PM

F the haters. They are jealous.

slh1234

1/2/2011, 01:18 PM

The article is about what I expected when I clicked on it. They have to have someone look at the positive, and someone find the negative.

I really don't find anything there to get upset about - even if Zemek really believes what he is writing. OU won the game, and at worst, Zemek sounds like a bitter losing fan who is trying hard to not sound like a bitter fan. He comes off sounding like someone I'd like to talk smack to about the game. But really, I think he just had to be the guy who wasn't too positive when they posted the analysis.

Jacie

1/2/2011, 01:38 PM

They were kind of playing devil's advocate on the broadcast, trying to keep the non-Sooner/non-huskie fans interested. Of course, changing the result of a few plays would not negate the effect of a defense that allowed only two field goals (perhaps someone should tell Edsall to use that big fullback on those short yardage situations . . .).

OUNASH

1/2/2011, 01:59 PM

This article is the reason I dont read CFN any longer. I am very open to honest analysis, however, this seems more one sided as always.

Flying Scotsman

1/2/2011, 02:11 PM

The "writer" is a toad and completely confused....

Seamus

1/2/2011, 02:17 PM

Haters gonna hate!

This meme deserves the quiet death it has earned. People should have stopped using this dribble circa 2003.

SoonerNutt

1/2/2011, 02:24 PM

Leroy Lizard

1/2/2011, 02:42 PM

It must be a truly miserable existence to have such a hatred of OU, and yet still have the compelling need to watch, in dusgust, every detail as they succeed.

That's what I often think of the oSu people I often run into, who go out of their way to tell me how much the "hate" OU.

You'd be much happier to just ignore OU than to be such a prick all the time. Just sayin....

I like reading the game threads on gopokes and orangepower. Those Poke fans have a jealousy of our Sooners that borders on psychotic. They think OU should be flagged on every freakin' play. Our chant is "Boomer Sooner!" Theirs is "Why didn't they call PI on that play? The Gooner was all over him!"

Lott's Bandana

1/2/2011, 02:48 PM

These days, if an article containing editorial opinion doesn't have a "comments" section at the end for folks to provide a counter argument, it has no credibility with me.

StoopTroup

1/2/2011, 02:51 PM

slh1234

1/2/2011, 02:52 PM

These days, if an article containing editorial opinion doesn't have a "comments" section at the end for folks to provide a counter argument, it has no credibility with me.

What's funny is if you assign any "credibility" to any editorial article beyond exactly what it is: An opinion.

TMcGee86

1/2/2011, 03:00 PM

While I agree that we didn't play a perfect game and looked somewhat lackadaisical at times, in the end we won by 4 touchdowns and uconn didn't score a single offensive TD.

If anything I would say uconn is lucky it wasn't a 55-6 game instead of saying OU is lucky it wasn't closer in the 4th quarter.

douchy article

rekamrettuB

1/2/2011, 03:01 PM

The play was amazingly reminiscent of Dallas Cowboy lineman Leon Lett being stripped by Don Beebe (not Big 12 Commissioner Dan Beebe) of the Buffalo Bills in Super Bowl XXVII.

Amazingly reminiscent except for the fact the Broyles never thought he was broken away from everyone else on the field and was actually stiff arming a defender when, as Matt Millen said a couple three times, "violated 3 points of pressure" on the ball. He made a mistake as does anyone that fumbles. What the hell did this guy see that made it "amazingly reminiscent"?

slh1234

1/2/2011, 03:05 PM

Sooner_Tuf

1/2/2011, 03:14 PM

StoopTroup

1/2/2011, 03:31 PM

I'd say this was way beyond not being 100% positive.....

--Finally, simply know this: For this season and this particular BCS bowl rotation, Oklahoma did not get a raw deal. The Sooners lucked out by drawing Connecticut. This was the time to get a beatable opponent in a January game instead of playing one of the big boys in college football. Landry Jones’s inconsistency made OU a very vulnerable team; the Sooners didn’t have their best offensive and defensive lines in the Bob Stoops era; Oklahoma couldn’t overpower opposing defenses with its running game; and OU’s defensive backs – who dropped multiple interceptions against UConn – didn’t possess the same nose for the ball that past Sooner corners have manifested on the field. This was the time for a less-than-complete OU team, a champion of a less-than-imposing Big 12 Conference, to break its Fiesta Bowl losing skid and quietly accept a trophy. Next year, perhaps OU will be fully loaded the way it was in 2003, 2004 and 2008. Next year, maybe the Sooners will field a team that can play with the very best in the sport. This year, the presence of an 8-4 opponent on Jan. 1 was a blessing

He had no comments about us Lucking out when he did his Dec. 16th Weekly Affirmation of BCS Bowl Facts. For him to make comments such as the one above shows that he completely ignored our Bowl and anything different than a chance for him to write about an OU loss in last nights game wasn't anything he cared to write about. He could have kept things on a positive note and written about how Bob has been to the Big Show four times as a Coach and tonight again proves that you should bring your Team's "A" Game if you're gonna take the Sooners down.

He didn't and he's just one of those writers that follows the normal popular Sports Stories and does little work to research games that interest him.

http://cfn.scout.com/a.z?s=451&p=2&c=557922

2121Sooner

1/2/2011, 03:35 PM

Just curious when reading through the comments here: Did anybody read the first two writers' posted opinions? The second was somewhat sarcastic, but both were complimentary of OU. Only Zemek was anything but positive, but he seems to be the only one anyone wants to comment on.

I'm just curious about that on boards. Nobody seems to post anything on balance, they just get upset if anyone posts an opinion that isn't 100% positive about "their" team.

I read the first two and didnt think much of any of the articles.

Like my man said above.......they are just opinions and if you agree with them, great. If not, that is fine as well. OU from the start of the year to the end showed amazing improvment and I like our chances next year. The spread was 14 points and we won by 28.

Lets move on.

btb916

1/2/2011, 03:38 PM

Just curious when reading through the comments here: Did anybody read the first two writers' posted opinions? The second was somewhat sarcastic, but both were complimentary of OU. Only Zemek was anything but positive, but he seems to be the only one anyone wants to comment on.

I'm just curious about that on boards. Nobody seems to post anything on balance, they just get upset if anyone posts an opinion that isn't 100% positive about "their" team.

What's curious about it at all? The guy posted a sh!tty analysis and he's getting ripped for it. You can pretend it was "just an opinion" all you want, but it was an article designed purely to trash on OU. His main points were OU was not impressive at all; he said no honest Sooner fan could be impressed; and he just generally bagged on OU at every point.

You pretend to be objective, like you're only interested in analysis. But really, you're just looking to be contrarian. It's quite annoying.

slh1234

1/2/2011, 03:38 PM

I'd say this was way beyond not being 100% positive.....

He had no comments about us Lucking out when he did his Dec. 16th Weekly Affirmation of BCS Bowl Facts. For him to make comments such as the one above shows that he completely ignored our Bowl and anything different than a chance for him to write about an OU loss in last nights game wasn't anything he cared to write about. He could have kept things on a positive note and written about how Bob has been to the Big Show four times as a Coach and tonight again proves that you should bring your Team's "A" Game if you're gonna take the Sooners down.

He didn't and he's just one of those writers that follows the normal popular Sports Stories and does little work to research games that interest him.

http://cfn.scout.com/a.z?s=451&p=2&c=557922

You're quoting Matt Zemek and apparently responding to me. Yes, that is not positive. It also doesn't answer the question I asked, though. Why ignore what is positive and go ape on the one written that is not positive. What is it about fans/people that leads them to need to be stroked by everyone? and to go nuts if someone isn't positive?

slh1234

1/2/2011, 03:39 PM

I read the first two and didnt think much of any of the articles.

Like my man said above.......they are just opinions and if you agree with them, great. If not, that is fine as well. OU from the start of the year to the end showed amazing improvment and I like our chances next year. The spread was 14 points and we won by 28.

Lets move on.

Just opinnions, yes, that is my point exactly. I might even be the one you are referring to above that posted that they are just opinions. I agree with the rest of what you said as well.

slh1234

1/2/2011, 03:43 PM

What's curious about it at all? The guy posted a sh!tty analysis and he's getting ripped for it. You can pretend it was "just an opinion" all you want, but it was an article designed purely to trash on OU. His main points were OU was not impressive at all; he said no honest Sooner fan could be impressed; and he just generally bagged on OU at every point.

You pretend to be objective, like you're only interested in analysis. But really, you're just looking to be contrarian. It's quite annoying.

No comment about the positive articles? Nothing in balance. Only "ripping" the guy who posted an opinion that is in your opinion "sh!tty analysis." You're still doing exactly what I'm asking about.

Thank you for sharing your opinion of. I really don't give a **** if I annoy you, but I suppose it's good to know **** like that. I'm not pretending to be anything. I see something I think is interesting, and I ask questions. It seems to me that some people don't like to be asked questions - they just want to be stroked. Maybe I'm wrong, but I still like asking the questions. Maybe someone can answer intelligently, but most can't seem to get past a dismissal with a childish name. It is rather difficult to get an answer with any substance, whatever the reason.

btb916

1/2/2011, 03:50 PM

No comment about the positive articles? Nothing in balance. Only "ripping" the guy who posted an opinion that is in your opinion "sh!tty analysis." You're still doing exactly what I'm asking about.

Thank you for sharing your opinion of. I really don't give a **** if I annoy you, but I suppose it's good to know **** like that. I'm not pretending to be anything. I see something I think is interesting, and I ask questions. It seems to me that some people don't like to be asked questions - they just want to be stroked. Maybe I'm wrong, but I still like asking the questions. Maybe someone can answer intelligently, but most can't seem to get past a dismissal with a childish name. It is rather difficult to get an answer with any substance, whatever the reason.

I posted an intelligent response to your question. As I see it, your question is this:

"Why are people focusing on the negative when there are two positive articles above it?"

The response:

I didn't focus on the positive articles because (1) no one pointed out anything interesting about them up to the point I originally posted in this thread, (2) there are lots of other positive threads where I've posted and congratulated the team and individual players, and (3) the author's opinion was basically trashing OU's effort and win. There was nothing valuable in his article, and a lot of people get mad when someone trashes OU unfairly. Which is exactly what that article did.

slh1234

1/2/2011, 03:52 PM

I posted an intelligent response to your question. As I see it, your question is this:

"Why are people focusing on the negative when there are two positive articles above it?"

The response:

I didn't focus on the positive articles because (1) no one pointed out anything interesting about them up to the point I originally posted in this thread, (2) there are lots of other positive threads where I've posted and congratulated the team and individual players, and (3) the author's opinion was basically trashing OU's effort and win. There was nothing valuable in his article, and a lot of people get mad when someone trashes OU unfairly. Which is exactly what that article did.

That's actually a decent answer. Thank you.

2121Sooner

1/2/2011, 03:54 PM

No comment about the positive articles? Nothing in balance. .

Fair and Balanced? This is Sooner football, not FoxNews. HAHAHA!!!!!

It is all Sooners, all the time.

Leroy Lizard

1/2/2011, 03:55 PM

He had no comments about us Lucking out when he did his Dec. 16th Weekly Affirmation of BCS Bowl Facts. For him to make comments such as the one above shows that he completely ignored our Bowl and anything different than a chance for him to write about an OU loss in last nights game wasn't anything he cared to write about.

It's writers like Zimek who make it pointless to blow out your opponent. If we had won 60-0, it would have only affirmed his opinion that OU was just lucky. In their mind, the worser you beat your opponent, the more evidence appears that you suck. It's Horn logic.

slh1234

1/2/2011, 03:55 PM

Fair and Balanced? This is Sooner football, not FoxNews. HAHAHA!!!!!

It is all Sooners, all the time.

So my question is about what draws someone to respond with such emotional force to something they see as negative, but not see, or at least not be interested in what came immediately before it that was not negative.

2121Sooner

1/2/2011, 03:58 PM

So my question is about what draws someone to respond with such emotional force to something they see as negative, but not see, or at least not be interested in what came immediately before it that was not negative.

Cause they arent as cool as me? Dont know.....dont care. Just like if someone says something nice about your kid and someone else says something negative. What are you gonna have a bigger reaction to?

Kind of a stretch, but you get my point.

slh1234

1/2/2011, 04:09 PM

It's writers like Zimek who make it pointless to blow out your opponent. If we had won 60-0, it would have only affirmed his opinion that OU was just lucky. In their mind, the worser you beat your opponent, the more evidence appears that you suck. It's Horn logic.

Maybe, except for the fact that he's a sports writer that needs to have readership, and needs to fill a certain number of column inches each week.

If I'm him and reading this board right now, I would see that article as a huge success in doing exactly that. People completely skipped over reacting to the positive article, and his name and article is all that is being discussed. It's kind of like Bozworth selling the anti-Boz T-Shirts. He was the big winner even while people thought they were expressing sentiment against him.

slh1234

1/2/2011, 04:15 PM

Cause they arent as cool as me? Dont know.....dont care. Just like if someone says something nice about your kid and someone else says something negative. What are you gonna have a bigger reaction to?

Kind of a stretch, but you get my point.

I understand your allusion. You may be close, but even with your kids, there are some places where opinions that don't stroke you or them are welcomed, are there not? If it is a personal attack against the kids (Maybe someone called them "morons," ;) ) then it may be different, but if your kid is a musician, and someone critiques their performance, I would think there would be some interest in reading it with the emotions detached to evaluate whether something was expressed that might help them improve.

I don't think that was the author's objective, but it just seems odd to me that some people get so wound up when someone expresses an opinion that is not just a stroke of the feathers. I just have a little trouble getting too excited about an opinion article (whether the article accurately represents the author's opinion, or it was written just to stir controversy). I'm just honestly curious about why it bothers some people.

oudavid1

1/2/2011, 04:21 PM

Oklahoma just won the Fiesta Bowl and he's a writer for a website that i've never heard of.

We dont need to make fun of him.

Adrian

1/2/2011, 04:51 PM

I love how he surmises all the teams which would have beaten OU in a BCS Game; one of those teams was Stanford. Really, Matt? Didn't we beat them in The Sun Bowl last year?

Salt City Sooner

1/2/2011, 04:53 PM

There's a lot in that article that I don't agree with, but to label Zemek a hater isn't accurate either. He's was one of our biggest defenders in both Lupica-gate & our getting into the title games of the '03 & '08 seasons.

bluedogok

1/2/2011, 05:01 PM

Matt Zemek
Is he a poster here?
Seems like I read some of those same thoughts in the game thread last night :pop:

Killerbees

1/2/2011, 05:08 PM

Yep I dont agree with some of it but he has been a defender in the past. I think he is just calling it like he sees it.

Obviously he didnt watch the fumble replay because its clear that he was trying to place the ball away from the UCONN player behind him to the right and was about to try a stiff arm when the other guy he never saw hit him from the left and knocked the ball out. Nothing really disrespectful about that, kind of stupid to suggest it.

I do agree we didnt play the best game and I agree we were not quite ready to compete for the NC this year (starting so many freshman this should have been a given). Also a tougher opponent like TCU, WISC or Arky would have made for a much tougher game (duh) but I think our chances of winning any of those games would be good.

PLaw

1/2/2011, 05:29 PM

Zemek is a tool - he thinks we need professional writers to tell us lowly, un-sophisticated manic fans what we saw.

He may have great future reporting politics a la Olbermann - but these clowns can KMA.

BOOMER

Leroy Lizard

1/2/2011, 07:09 PM

I don't think that was the author's objective, but it just seems odd to me that some people get so wound up when someone expresses an opinion that is not just a stroke of the feathers. I just have a little trouble getting too excited about an opinion article (whether the article accurately represents the author's opinion, or it was written just to stir controversy). I'm just honestly curious about why it bothers some people.

I don't speak for everyone, but it doesn't bother me. I just find the writer's viewpoint a self-fulfilling prophecy--no matter the outcome, his point is affirmed. If OU loses, that is proof that OU sucks. If OU wins by a small margin, OU obviously sucks because any good team would have blown Uonn out. If OU blows them out, that is proof that UConn is horrible and, therefore, OU deserves no credit for the win.

This is not the type of analysis I would expect from an objective reporter, but rather a homer for the opposition. It's like a member of gopokes wrote the column. There is no perspective at all.

BusterRhymes86

1/2/2011, 07:19 PM

Seriously bro?

He forgot to include...."With all due respect"

SoonerKnight

1/2/2011, 10:00 PM

What gets me is he said OU overcame Landry's inconsistancies. I thought Landry played a great game and I thought that overall OU played with determination. I did not see the huskies roll over and play dead. If he had gone for it on 4th down what would it have solved? No, this guy is an idiot and trying to bash on OU. Next year he will be writing about how OU doesn't deserve to be in the MNC because we play in a bad conference blah, blah, blah........This guy definatly was hoping for a loss. VT, TCU F him he is out of his mind and he is a (d oo sh bag!!). :D ;)