"OU just doesn't have the receiving core." - FishThtSvdWaco
"For the first time since the Adrian Peterson era, OK is more of a running team than a passing one." - california horn
"TCU is very impressive. I think this game will be a knock-down-drag-out kind of game. If OU is able to win this game, then they are for real." - ftblbob5
http://www.baylorfans.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=280718
Schools from Texas team fanbases never cease to revel in the fact that they are so football knowledgeable, especially on the Internets. We'll just see which team is begging their home fans to shaddap when their team's off offense and which team is glaring at their crowd for sitting on their hands when the team's on defense...
Oh wait, that's because Baylor for years has had to rely on visiting teams like OU to fill their mostly vacant and partially tarped stadium and all of that poorly timed noise was the visiting OU fans! Silly me.
The TCU and Baylor games will be our most difficult this year.
concur. TCU will be a tough test for our offense. First time we face a truly multiple QB as well. Teams are going to max protect against us and test our DBs. Will be a tough one in Ft Worth. Must be disciplined against the big play on D, and on O the receivers have got to get open and hang onto the ball, to loosen up that front seven/eight.Originally Posted by EatLeadCommie
I think OSU will be tougher than TCU. I could see TCU keeping it close, but I don't expect them to be able to beat us.
TCU has out played us in the second half the last 2 years - largely on Boykins' performance. Now he is the unchallenged starter with over 2 years experience. It took an excellent pass break-up play at the goal line by Julian Wilson to prevent TCU from tying the game 2 years ago and a 75 yard run by Brennen Clay last year to break a tie late last year. We're certainly a better team this year, but TCU may be as well.
The big variable is TCU's new offense. So far, they have executed well, and it appears to be an improvement. We'll see if they can continue that against a loaded defense.
On the other side of the ball, TCU is always good. Just a sound fundamental defensive squad. However, they don't have DeVonte Fields this year (but in fairness, he wasn't much of a factor last year), or Jason Verrett (who was absolutely a factor last year). So, they may not be as tough on that side of the ball as they have been in recent years.
I hope the bye week gave Sanchez enough time to get healthy.
The enduring image of Oklahoma was that ridiculous double–middle finger of a game-icing kick. It was probably an accident, which somehow made it more, not less, insulting. It was as though Stoops had partied so hard on the corpse of the SEC that he woke up with an unplanned tattoo.
Just so we're clear -- California horn is not a Baylor fan; although, I do enjoy his posts....for a Whorn.
He might be a Baylor fan THIS year.
I would have to agree with the statement about our receiving corps. After watching the other ""top teams, I think that it is pretty much correct. Of course, that has a lot to do TK making the correct reads and throwing a ""catch-able pass to an open receiver. I look at other teams and they've got the 6'3/ 6'5 wide-outs with speed who can go up and get the ball.
I think JH/HCBS plays it like the previous 2 games, unless we get behind early due to TOs/tied/ or the TCU D is continually stuffing our unimaginative rushing game. The fans that are complaining about TK not running the ball more, are going to be disappointed, unless we fall behind early and have to open it up in the 2nd half to win. As long as we have a 10 point or more lead, we'll just play it safe and next Monday, the ESecPN/CBSec talking heads will diss us as not "looking like a top 5 team".
After hearing all of this for a week, I do believe after last year HCBS lets it all hang out at the Cotton Bowl with screens/mis-direction/options/getting B.Bell involved more in the passing game etc, and puts a substantial beat down on the Whorns.
If the prize is making the playoffs though, it won't mean squat if we don't take care of business on Saturday.
SicEm, what did you think about that Whorn player's bulletin board material. I just read that he said something like "Baylor is still Baylor even though they're winning, and we're Texass"
Last edited by aurorasooner; 9/29/2014 at 05:33 PM.
Yeah, and I'm not sure how good he has been at making his reads. I still see a lot of staring down of receivers, which I guess is to be expected with so few starts under his belt. That will decrease with time. I'm more concerned about the accuracy of his throws at this point.
Our WR corps is still a big unknown, but we're slowly seeing the other guys get involved. It will be nice to have Ford back for some backfield receptions. I've also been glad to see Young get more in the mix lately. He and Neal need to step up.
There's not that may 6'3"+ WRs with speed. I think you're overestimating what's out there. Most of the top teams have maybe one tall guy at WR, the rest are typical of what we have on the field every Saturday. Look at Florida State for instance; Of their starting 3 wide-outs, only one is above 6'0" (Greene 5'11", Wilson 5'9", Green 6'2")...Or Auburn (who runs a similar offense), 2 of their starting 4 are over 6'0", but not 6'3"-6'5" (Bray 5'10", Coates 6'1", Truitt 5'9", Williams 6'2").
So, when you look at our starting 3 (Shepard 5'10", Neal 5'11" and Young 6'0"), it's not that different. We do lack that one guy tall guy that can cause a mismatch with a corner on a fade, but it hasn't really hurt us at this point.
I'm not saying we have a tall receiving corp by any means, but the idea that great teams need 4 guys over 6'3" is a myth. If there were a bounty of 6'3" burners, you'd see them everywhere. The fact is there just aren't that many, and almost no 6'5" guys with elite speed.
I don't have a problem with an 'unimaginative running plays' if they work like they have, but we both know the defenses are going to get better. I doubt we've seen anywhere near the entire playbook. We may not see much more as long as our running game is producing, but again, there's bound to be a game that requires more.
As for the ESPN/CBS talking heads, I'm not sure I'm hearing what you're hearing. Today, on Championship Drive (a daily ESPNU show dedicated to the 'contenders' in CFB), OU was ranked either #1 or #2 depending on who's list it was. And the last time I looked, OU was #1 in the ESPN power poll. TCU is ranked this week, so a win will be good regardless of the score. In any event, if we take care of business and win out, it won't matter if we won every game by 5 or 50, we'll be in the playoff.
Seems like all that I've been hearing is that FSU/aTm didn't look like a top 5 team this weekend, even though they won.As for the ESPN/CBS talking heads, I'm not sure I'm hearing what you're hearing. Today, on Championship Drive (a daily ESPNU show dedicated to the 'contenders' in CFB), OU was ranked either #1 or #2 depending on who's list it was. And the last time I looked, OU was #1 in the ESPN power poll. TCU is ranked this week, so a win will be good regardless of the score. In any event, if we take care of business and win out, it won't matter if we won every game by 5 or 50, we'll be in the playoff.
Hell, I was pretty impressed with the Pigs running game (running play design), offensive line, getting their tight end involved in their passing game, and their overall effort and even with the aTm win, even though they were lucky to be in that game and take it into OT.
This is the problem that I have about taking the computers completely out of the playoff equation. They aren't swayed by all of the talking heads spew, and as we all know the only difference in the network's talking heads opinions and knowledgeable CFB fans is that they have a mic and get a paycheck from their network and seem to slanted in their comments to boost their networks next Saturday's CFB TV ratings. I doubt that any of them are completely objective and w/o bias, although some are more level than others.
Hopefully this supposedly unbiased playoff committee isn't listening to any of their opinionated drivel.
btw, if we barely win by a point or 3 points in the next 3 weeks, these ""analysts will come out of the woodwork to pizz on us. A win is a win, just doesn't cut it anymore unless it is a 65-13 type beat down, which imo is a shame.
Last edited by aurorasooner; 9/29/2014 at 06:55 PM.
My hope is that the playoff committee does what they said they would do, and ignore the media (they didn't say that specifically, but they said they would base their rankings on their own opinion). We'll know in a few weeks, when the first committee poll comes out (the only one that matters).
It's funny because not to long ago the score differential was taken out of the computer equations, supposedly because they didn't want that to be an important component. With the current system, it's almost a liability to win close against teams that should be blown out. I agree, it's is a shame.
The committee members will be far more occupied with how to push their own hidden agendas in the meetings than any outside polls or media spew.
It's really too bad that 5 teams don't fit into this 2 game playoff (2 semi games then 1 championship), and 6 teams would push the playoffs to 3 weeks and almost into the spring semester/ recruiting.The committee members will be far more occupied with how to push their own hidden agendas in the meetings than any outside polls or media spew.
I'm almost in favor of going back to the old bowl system, and having the number 1 team chosen where it should be, with debate on the FB boards/polls.
Honestly the old bowl system wasn't that bad. It did get bad when the major bowls were pushed farther away from New Year's Day for TV, though, and then having 1 or 2 weedeater bowls sprinkled in after the 1st of the year.
Wouldn't it be nice if the selection process were televised? Of course nobody would agree to be on the committee if that happened. Too many crazy fans out there.The committee members will be far more occupied with how to push their own hidden agendas in the meetings than any outside polls or media spew.
8 is the perfect number. I've been a proponent of 8 teams since the first discussion of a playoff.
It would only add one week to the process, and lets be honest, there's already a long break between the last game and the new year. Anyway, take the champions of the power 5, and 3 at-large teams. That way, the 'conference champions only' crowd would be satisfied, and the mid majors would have a chance to get a deserving team in, and if there were a really good team that lost a game (eliminating them from their conference championship), but deserved a shot, they could get in. Everyone's happy...except for the #9 team, but they didn't deserve a shot anyway.
This seems reasonable to me, since we're really talking about the P5 championship. If the committee ends up promoting multiple teams from any one conference, the conferences left out are going to be PO'd. All 5 (at least for now) need to buy in to the system, and ensuring that at /least/ the champion of each of the P5 gets their shot is, I think, going to be necessary for long-term success. Then again, this may all winnow down to having 4 16-team conferences, in which case the 4-team playoff will make more sense as long as they go with the champion of each conference.
Posting Permissions
