. Stranger was on record on the old Baylor Fans site for being AGAINST the building of McLane Stadium... she was AGAINST building The McLane. Let that sink in. The term "Baylor Fan " does not even remotely describe her.Crash Davis said:
Last spring stranger said he preferred Harry Miller over Scott Drew. That really tells me all I need to know about the guy.
I'm not invested in anything to do with Jett Duffey. All I've done is present facts on his career. I find it odd that you read so much into what I write.bear2be2 said:I'm not personally invested in anything where Jett Duffey's career arc is concerned. I just find it odd that you seem to be.ColomboLQ said:The guy is a junior and has played 12 games in his career and has had 2 different head coaches make him the 3rd string QB of the team behind underclassmen. If he's shown he's not good enough with his play, and with the people that coach him, I'm pretty sure that data isn't limited. There's literally nothing in what I've posted that has anything to do with diminishing Baylor's wins. It's not exactly hard to draw the unbiased conclusions I've drawn with the facts I've presented unless you are somehow personally invested in preserving the current coaching staff's reputation for whatever reason. I'm sorry that this doesn't fit into your narrative.bear2be2 said:Why do you paint yourself into unnecessary corners with these hard-line takes based on limited data?ColomboLQ said:I'm not sure Duffey leading them in rushing last year means anything considering no one on Tech rushed for more than 400 yards for the season, which is awful. Duffey was actually 3rd string last year behind Bowman and McLane Carter, who was their actual starter. Duffey was once again their 3rd stringer this year behind Bowman and Jackson Tyner. As far as 2018 goes, there was literally 2 games all year where Duffey threw more TDs than INTs and only once did he throw for over 200 yards. There is literally only one game out of the 8 he played where anyone would say he had a good game. The guy has simply not been a good QB in CFB.Bleed Green said:
We just disagree then. We have struggled once against a seriously inferior team, Rice. Tech isn't that far from us. You should also know that Duffy lit up OSU for more than 420 yards and 5 TDs. You should also know that he led the team in rushing last year, has completed over 65% of his passes and was the second string QB behind Bowman.
Duffey doesn't have a long enough track record to state with any certainty whether his last two games are a fluke or evidence that he's turned a corner. But the guy obviously has talent. There's really no reason or motivation -- beyond an obvious effort to diminish Baylor's win -- to draw any firm conclusions now about what kind of player he is when you can wait three or four weeks and find out for sure.
We'll know exactly what kind of quarterback Jett Duffey is four or five weeks from now. I'm content to wait until then to find out as a) it really doesn't matter to me and b) there's no reason to draw a conclusion good or bad right now. You clearly feel differently. But if he does continue the level of play he's shown the past two weeks, the posts in this thread aren't going to age very well.
When Bowman got hurt, who started the following game?Bleed Green said:Duffy was suspended from the team in 2017 for a sexual assault incident that was eventually dismissed. He was suspended again in 2018 for disorderly conduct arrest. The disorderly conduct arrest was mainly for other players but Jett chose to be with them and make a poor decision. He moved back to Mansfield that summer and missed workouts to get his head right. All that to say, the fact he is still on the team is a huge statement of his ability. He was not the 3rd string QB this year. They did not declared a QB2. Tyner has had less than 10 passing attempts this year so if you think that he was the QB2, then you don't know much about how it all works.ColomboLQ said:The guy is a junior and has played 12 games in his career and has had 2 different head coaches make him the 3rd string QB of the team behind underclassmen. If he's shown he's not good enough with his play, and with the people that coach him, I'm pretty sure that data isn't limited. There's literally nothing in what I've posted that has anything to do with diminishing Baylor's wins. It's not exactly hard to draw the unbiased conclusions I've drawn with the facts I've presented unless you are somehow personally invested in preserving the current coaching staff's reputation for whatever reason. I'm sorry that this doesn't fit into your narrative.bear2be2 said:Why do you paint yourself into unnecessary corners with these hard-line takes based on limited data?ColomboLQ said:I'm not sure Duffey leading them in rushing last year means anything considering no one on Tech rushed for more than 400 yards for the season, which is awful. Duffey was actually 3rd string last year behind Bowman and McLane Carter, who was their actual starter. Duffey was once again their 3rd stringer this year behind Bowman and Jackson Tyner. As far as 2018 goes, there was literally 2 games all year where Duffey threw more TDs than INTs and only once did he throw for over 200 yards. There is literally only one game out of the 8 he played where anyone would say he had a good game. The guy has simply not been a good QB in CFB.Bleed Green said:
We just disagree then. We have struggled once against a seriously inferior team, Rice. Tech isn't that far from us. You should also know that Duffy lit up OSU for more than 420 yards and 5 TDs. You should also know that he led the team in rushing last year, has completed over 65% of his passes and was the second string QB behind Bowman.
Duffey doesn't have a long enough track record to state with any certainty whether his last two games are a fluke or evidence that he's turned a corner. But the guy obviously has talent. There's really no reason or motivation -- beyond an obvious effort to diminish Baylor's win -- to draw any firm conclusions now about what kind of player he is when you can wait three or four weeks and find out for sure.
JohnProctor said:
Bear2B**ch is just a fanboy who goes ape if anyone dares to criticize his man crush Matt Rhule. Sports and politics are complicated for the thinking man. Its simple for him... and tiring for those of us who look at things a bit less black and white.
"Rhule good" "Baylor Administration good" "Baylor AD good". If you dare to challenge any of the above he jumps on it like a chicken on a cricket and in his simple world you hate Baylor. Silly and child like thinking.
We have had some luck (and I still don't like our offense strategy), but Rhule has gotten it done this year. I don't see us beating UT or OU but 9-2 or 8-3 is something to be proud of and deserves some grace on a stumble or two from here.
bear2be2 said:I'd argue that this game was one of the best examples yet of why Matt Rhule is an excellent football coach. His team's can play poorly for most of a game and still find ways to stay in it and win at the end.ColomboLQ said:
This is an odd thread. Are you trying to say that Stranger is not a Baylor fan? Because if so, I've not gotten that impression over the years. And if you're saying he's not a Rhule fan, this would be an odd game to try to use to boast about anything for Rhule considering the result relative to the opponent.
There's a reason his record is what it is when leading going into the fourth quarter and why his teams are freaking nails in tight ballgames. The dude builds mentally tough football teams that nut up when things get tough, which is coincidentally a quality many on this board -- Stranger especially -- could learn from.
Whoa!!!McCavebear said:. Stranger was on record on the old Baylor Fans site for being AGAINST the building of McLane Stadium... she was AGAINST building The McLane. Let that sink in. The term "Baylor Fan " does not even remotely describe her.Crash Davis said:
Last spring stranger said he preferred Harry Miller over Scott Drew. That really tells me all I need to know about the guy.
Thanks for making my point. Dander not raised. Just calmly accurate.bear2be2 said:JohnProctor said:
Bear2B**ch is just a fanboy who goes ape if anyone dares to criticize his man crush Matt Rhule. Sports and politics are complicated for the thinking man. Its simple for him... and tiring for those of us who look at things a bit less black and white.
"Rhule good" "Baylor Administration good" "Baylor AD good". If you dare to challenge any of the above he jumps on it like a chicken on a cricket and in his simple world you hate Baylor. Silly and child like thinking.
We have had some luck (and I still don't like our offense strategy), but Rhule has gotten it done this year. I don't see us beating UT or OU but 9-2 or 8-3 is something to be proud of and deserves some grace on a stumble or two from here.
Amazing. Every word of what you just said was wrong.
But it's a good bet anyone whose dander is raised this much by my posts is/was exactly the type of ****heel I was referencing earlier.
. No she's not. She's an old lady posing as a man posing as a Baylor fan.TellMeYouLoveMe said:
Stranger is a Baylor fan.
Why?Stefano DiMera said:
Ive read all 3 pages of this thread and have come to the conclusion that Columbo doesn't watch a lot of college football..or sports in general.
Or are we?? Stranger things have happenedCrash Davis said:Also worth noting we were picked 6th in the league. We'll see how things shake out, but hard to complain too much. We aren't world beaters...I think most of knew that before the season started.bear2be2 said:Again, maybe our offensive potential isn't as high as you thought it was. You seem to base your expectations a lot more on what you think we should be than what we've proven so far to be. That might be your problem.ColomboLQ said:And my point is that we've done that too many times already (on offense especially) in 6 games this season to be considered a truly good team.bear2be2 said:And my point is teams play below their potential all the time. Even good ones. When you can win those games, that's a really good sign.ColomboLQ said:I can't tell if you are purposefully being dense or just simply can't understand what I'm saying. In the interest of not belaboring the point since at this point it's pretty clear to me, for one reason or another, you will not get what I'm saying, I'll leave with this: the question is not whether we COULD have beaten them worse if we had played better. I think that answer is obvious. The question is SHOULD we have beaten them worse because we SHOULD have played better. And that's where my contention is.bear2be2 said:Those aren't objective measures. Objective measures would include statistical evidence based on the two teams' performance this season, not circumstantial evidence based primarily on last year's outcome and phrasing such as "I feel fairly comfortable in saying ..."ColomboLQ said:I literally just provided you with some. Like, just read. Nothing I said was opinion, unless you believe that Baylor's team is not better this year than last year. And really, as far as not being competitive, we're really talking about the offense here. And the offense has played very poorly multiple times already in just half the season: the 2nd half against Rice, the 1st half against ISU and the 1st half against Tech just off the top of my head.bear2be2 said:We're not talking about video games or Strat-O-Matic here. There are a million different factors that go into every game that make each and every game unique.ColomboLQ said:Far from it. I'll explain my reasoning. We beat Tech last year by 11 in a neutral site. Our team was worse last year, and considering they just went through a coaching change with completely new systems for both offense and defense, lost a lot of key contributors for last year's team, they came into this game starting their 3rd string QB, and considering the fanbase was already asking for the coach to be fired just 2 games ago because of how poor they were playing, I feel fairly comfortable in saying that they are a worse team than last year. We are in year 3 of our coaching regime, with our offensive and defensive systems seemingly in place, or at least in a place more advanced than Tech's would have been, we returned a lot of key players from last year and we were playing at home this year. We were even favored to win by double digits. This game should not have been competitive. There's just no objective reason for it to have been.Bleed Green said:ColomboLQ said:bear2be2 said:I'd argue that this game was one of the best examples yet of why Matt Rhule is an excellent football coach. His team's can play poorly for most of a game and still find ways to stay in it and win at the end.ColomboLQ said:
This is an odd thread. Are you trying to say that Stranger is not a Baylor fan? Because if so, I've not gotten that impression over the years. And if you're saying he's not a Rhule fan, this would be an odd game to try to use to boast about anything for Rhule considering the result relative to the opponent.
There's a reason his record is what it is when leading going into the fourth quarter and why his teams are freaking nails in tight ballgames. The dude builds mentally tough football teams that nut up when things get tough, which is coincidentally a quality many on this board -- Stranger especially -- could learn from.
Playing poorly against a really good/ great team and finding a way to win is one thing that would show excellent coaching. Playing poorly against a mediocre team that you should crush and then winning is NOT proof of excellent coaching.
Are you under the impression that we are on OU's level? IMHO we are much closer to Tech's level than we are OU. And that is the only team that has truly blown out Tech this year. Texas very well could, but we aren't in that level yet either. The lack of objectivity on this board from either side is ridiculous. We are a good team with very good coaching. We are no where near elite as a team and coaching will have to continue to show growth to be labeled great.
Rhule was a good hire. Probably even a great hire considering who would have come here at the time. I love Baylor, but the truth is we have not had a single coach go on from here and coach another school. Only 2 in my lifetime were even courted by others. Quit thinking we had the pick of the litter when we hired Rhule. Given that, Rhule has done nothing but shut down critics. (You can't simply look at year 1 and ignore everything since) I loved Briles, but he had plenty of issues despite leading our program to its greatest heights. He rarely had great teams as shown by our lack of pro players but he had a great system. He also benefited from UT and ATM having mediocre coaches. Rhule has issues, but he is 6-0 and has only 2 games on his schedule that I will be shocked if we win.
****NOTE: THIS IS NOT AN INDICTMENT ON RHULE. I'M NOT SAYING HIS HIRING WAS A BAD HIRE OR A MISTAKE. I'M NOT SAYING ANYTHING BAD ABOUT RHULE AT ALL IF YOU JUST READ WHAT I'M WRITING. I'M SAYING THIS GAME SHOULD NOT BE USED AS AN ENDORSEMENT FOR HIM EITHER. LITERALLY THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING****
We could play Tech 50 times and every game would be different. Many of them would be competitive. That's what makes sports -- and particularly college football -- great. And what makes the whole, "we should have crushed them" critique a really shallow one.
A) there are very few objective measures that suggest we should have crushed them, and B) there are two teams on the field full of scholarship athletes who are all trying to win the game. Sometimes the other team plays well. Sometimes you don't.
But this idea among fans that games shouldn't be competitive is a really silly one unless you're rooting for Alabama or Clemson. Good teams play competitive games all the time.
And perhaps you just overrate(d) our offense. Given that it has struggled for stretches in every game but those played against Stephen F. Austin and UTSA, I think that would be a reasonable conclusion. Certainly more reasonable than assuming we would crush them because "we should."
Based on what's actually been put on paper, our proclivity to play close games and the fact that our spread was 11 points and not some astronomical number, I'm struggling to see why anyone would find this outcome to be shocking.
Could we have beaten them worse if we had played better? Certainly. We likely win by two scores at least if Charlie doesn't throw that pick in the end zone. But Tech had something to do with our inability to pull away. And the fact that we took their best shot and still managed to win is a feather in the cap of this team and coaching staff whether you want to admit it or not. These are the types of games good teams/coaches find ways to pull out.
Tech played a good game. We played a mistake-riddled one. But when push came to shove, we made the plays necessary to win. That's what good, well-coached teams do.
But what we are without doubt currently is 6-0 with a good, not great football team. No Baylor fan should be lamenting over style points.
. True. stranger herself is an oddity, wrapped in an enigma , enshrined in a pig's turd.BUbearinARK said:Or are we?? Stranger things have happenedCrash Davis said:Also worth noting we were picked 6th in the league. We'll see how things shake out, but hard to complain too much. We aren't world beaters...I think most of knew that before the season started.bear2be2 said:Again, maybe our offensive potential isn't as high as you thought it was. You seem to base your expectations a lot more on what you think we should be than what we've proven so far to be. That might be your problem.ColomboLQ said:And my point is that we've done that too many times already (on offense especially) in 6 games this season to be considered a truly good team.bear2be2 said:And my point is teams play below their potential all the time. Even good ones. When you can win those games, that's a really good sign.ColomboLQ said:I can't tell if you are purposefully being dense or just simply can't understand what I'm saying. In the interest of not belaboring the point since at this point it's pretty clear to me, for one reason or another, you will not get what I'm saying, I'll leave with this: the question is not whether we COULD have beaten them worse if we had played better. I think that answer is obvious. The question is SHOULD we have beaten them worse because we SHOULD have played better. And that's where my contention is.bear2be2 said:Those aren't objective measures. Objective measures would include statistical evidence based on the two teams' performance this season, not circumstantial evidence based primarily on last year's outcome and phrasing such as "I feel fairly comfortable in saying ..."ColomboLQ said:I literally just provided you with some. Like, just read. Nothing I said was opinion, unless you believe that Baylor's team is not better this year than last year. And really, as far as not being competitive, we're really talking about the offense here. And the offense has played very poorly multiple times already in just half the season: the 2nd half against Rice, the 1st half against ISU and the 1st half against Tech just off the top of my head.bear2be2 said:We're not talking about video games or Strat-O-Matic here. There are a million different factors that go into every game that make each and every game unique.ColomboLQ said:Far from it. I'll explain my reasoning. We beat Tech last year by 11 in a neutral site. Our team was worse last year, and considering they just went through a coaching change with completely new systems for both offense and defense, lost a lot of key contributors for last year's team, they came into this game starting their 3rd string QB, and considering the fanbase was already asking for the coach to be fired just 2 games ago because of how poor they were playing, I feel fairly comfortable in saying that they are a worse team than last year. We are in year 3 of our coaching regime, with our offensive and defensive systems seemingly in place, or at least in a place more advanced than Tech's would have been, we returned a lot of key players from last year and we were playing at home this year. We were even favored to win by double digits. This game should not have been competitive. There's just no objective reason for it to have been.Bleed Green said:ColomboLQ said:bear2be2 said:I'd argue that this game was one of the best examples yet of why Matt Rhule is an excellent football coach. His team's can play poorly for most of a game and still find ways to stay in it and win at the end.ColomboLQ said:
This is an odd thread. Are you trying to say that Stranger is not a Baylor fan? Because if so, I've not gotten that impression over the years. And if you're saying he's not a Rhule fan, this would be an odd game to try to use to boast about anything for Rhule considering the result relative to the opponent.
There's a reason his record is what it is when leading going into the fourth quarter and why his teams are freaking nails in tight ballgames. The dude builds mentally tough football teams that nut up when things get tough, which is coincidentally a quality many on this board -- Stranger especially -- could learn from.
Playing poorly against a really good/ great team and finding a way to win is one thing that would show excellent coaching. Playing poorly against a mediocre team that you should crush and then winning is NOT proof of excellent coaching.
Are you under the impression that we are on OU's level? IMHO we are much closer to Tech's level than we are OU. And that is the only team that has truly blown out Tech this year. Texas very well could, but we aren't in that level yet either. The lack of objectivity on this board from either side is ridiculous. We are a good team with very good coaching. We are no where near elite as a team and coaching will have to continue to show growth to be labeled great.
Rhule was a good hire. Probably even a great hire considering who would have come here at the time. I love Baylor, but the truth is we have not had a single coach go on from here and coach another school. Only 2 in my lifetime were even courted by others. Quit thinking we had the pick of the litter when we hired Rhule. Given that, Rhule has done nothing but shut down critics. (You can't simply look at year 1 and ignore everything since) I loved Briles, but he had plenty of issues despite leading our program to its greatest heights. He rarely had great teams as shown by our lack of pro players but he had a great system. He also benefited from UT and ATM having mediocre coaches. Rhule has issues, but he is 6-0 and has only 2 games on his schedule that I will be shocked if we win.
****NOTE: THIS IS NOT AN INDICTMENT ON RHULE. I'M NOT SAYING HIS HIRING WAS A BAD HIRE OR A MISTAKE. I'M NOT SAYING ANYTHING BAD ABOUT RHULE AT ALL IF YOU JUST READ WHAT I'M WRITING. I'M SAYING THIS GAME SHOULD NOT BE USED AS AN ENDORSEMENT FOR HIM EITHER. LITERALLY THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING****
We could play Tech 50 times and every game would be different. Many of them would be competitive. That's what makes sports -- and particularly college football -- great. And what makes the whole, "we should have crushed them" critique a really shallow one.
A) there are very few objective measures that suggest we should have crushed them, and B) there are two teams on the field full of scholarship athletes who are all trying to win the game. Sometimes the other team plays well. Sometimes you don't.
But this idea among fans that games shouldn't be competitive is a really silly one unless you're rooting for Alabama or Clemson. Good teams play competitive games all the time.
And perhaps you just overrate(d) our offense. Given that it has struggled for stretches in every game but those played against Stephen F. Austin and UTSA, I think that would be a reasonable conclusion. Certainly more reasonable than assuming we would crush them because "we should."
Based on what's actually been put on paper, our proclivity to play close games and the fact that our spread was 11 points and not some astronomical number, I'm struggling to see why anyone would find this outcome to be shocking.
Could we have beaten them worse if we had played better? Certainly. We likely win by two scores at least if Charlie doesn't throw that pick in the end zone. But Tech had something to do with our inability to pull away. And the fact that we took their best shot and still managed to win is a feather in the cap of this team and coaching staff whether you want to admit it or not. These are the types of games good teams/coaches find ways to pull out.
Tech played a good game. We played a mistake-riddled one. But when push came to shove, we made the plays necessary to win. That's what good, well-coached teams do.
But what we are without doubt currently is 6-0 with a good, not great football team. No Baylor fan should be lamenting over style points.
I read enigma as enema, and it somehow added an extra layer of truth to your post.McCavebear said:. True. stranger herself is an oddity, wrapped in an enigma , enshrined in a pig's turd.BUbearinARK said:Or are we?? Stranger things have happenedCrash Davis said:Also worth noting we were picked 6th in the league. We'll see how things shake out, but hard to complain too much. We aren't world beaters...I think most of knew that before the season started.bear2be2 said:Again, maybe our offensive potential isn't as high as you thought it was. You seem to base your expectations a lot more on what you think we should be than what we've proven so far to be. That might be your problem.ColomboLQ said:And my point is that we've done that too many times already (on offense especially) in 6 games this season to be considered a truly good team.bear2be2 said:And my point is teams play below their potential all the time. Even good ones. When you can win those games, that's a really good sign.ColomboLQ said:I can't tell if you are purposefully being dense or just simply can't understand what I'm saying. In the interest of not belaboring the point since at this point it's pretty clear to me, for one reason or another, you will not get what I'm saying, I'll leave with this: the question is not whether we COULD have beaten them worse if we had played better. I think that answer is obvious. The question is SHOULD we have beaten them worse because we SHOULD have played better. And that's where my contention is.bear2be2 said:Those aren't objective measures. Objective measures would include statistical evidence based on the two teams' performance this season, not circumstantial evidence based primarily on last year's outcome and phrasing such as "I feel fairly comfortable in saying ..."ColomboLQ said:I literally just provided you with some. Like, just read. Nothing I said was opinion, unless you believe that Baylor's team is not better this year than last year. And really, as far as not being competitive, we're really talking about the offense here. And the offense has played very poorly multiple times already in just half the season: the 2nd half against Rice, the 1st half against ISU and the 1st half against Tech just off the top of my head.bear2be2 said:We're not talking about video games or Strat-O-Matic here. There are a million different factors that go into every game that make each and every game unique.ColomboLQ said:Far from it. I'll explain my reasoning. We beat Tech last year by 11 in a neutral site. Our team was worse last year, and considering they just went through a coaching change with completely new systems for both offense and defense, lost a lot of key contributors for last year's team, they came into this game starting their 3rd string QB, and considering the fanbase was already asking for the coach to be fired just 2 games ago because of how poor they were playing, I feel fairly comfortable in saying that they are a worse team than last year. We are in year 3 of our coaching regime, with our offensive and defensive systems seemingly in place, or at least in a place more advanced than Tech's would have been, we returned a lot of key players from last year and we were playing at home this year. We were even favored to win by double digits. This game should not have been competitive. There's just no objective reason for it to have been.Bleed Green said:ColomboLQ said:bear2be2 said:I'd argue that this game was one of the best examples yet of why Matt Rhule is an excellent football coach. His team's can play poorly for most of a game and still find ways to stay in it and win at the end.ColomboLQ said:
This is an odd thread. Are you trying to say that Stranger is not a Baylor fan? Because if so, I've not gotten that impression over the years. And if you're saying he's not a Rhule fan, this would be an odd game to try to use to boast about anything for Rhule considering the result relative to the opponent.
There's a reason his record is what it is when leading going into the fourth quarter and why his teams are freaking nails in tight ballgames. The dude builds mentally tough football teams that nut up when things get tough, which is coincidentally a quality many on this board -- Stranger especially -- could learn from.
Playing poorly against a really good/ great team and finding a way to win is one thing that would show excellent coaching. Playing poorly against a mediocre team that you should crush and then winning is NOT proof of excellent coaching.
Are you under the impression that we are on OU's level? IMHO we are much closer to Tech's level than we are OU. And that is the only team that has truly blown out Tech this year. Texas very well could, but we aren't in that level yet either. The lack of objectivity on this board from either side is ridiculous. We are a good team with very good coaching. We are no where near elite as a team and coaching will have to continue to show growth to be labeled great.
Rhule was a good hire. Probably even a great hire considering who would have come here at the time. I love Baylor, but the truth is we have not had a single coach go on from here and coach another school. Only 2 in my lifetime were even courted by others. Quit thinking we had the pick of the litter when we hired Rhule. Given that, Rhule has done nothing but shut down critics. (You can't simply look at year 1 and ignore everything since) I loved Briles, but he had plenty of issues despite leading our program to its greatest heights. He rarely had great teams as shown by our lack of pro players but he had a great system. He also benefited from UT and ATM having mediocre coaches. Rhule has issues, but he is 6-0 and has only 2 games on his schedule that I will be shocked if we win.
****NOTE: THIS IS NOT AN INDICTMENT ON RHULE. I'M NOT SAYING HIS HIRING WAS A BAD HIRE OR A MISTAKE. I'M NOT SAYING ANYTHING BAD ABOUT RHULE AT ALL IF YOU JUST READ WHAT I'M WRITING. I'M SAYING THIS GAME SHOULD NOT BE USED AS AN ENDORSEMENT FOR HIM EITHER. LITERALLY THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING****
We could play Tech 50 times and every game would be different. Many of them would be competitive. That's what makes sports -- and particularly college football -- great. And what makes the whole, "we should have crushed them" critique a really shallow one.
A) there are very few objective measures that suggest we should have crushed them, and B) there are two teams on the field full of scholarship athletes who are all trying to win the game. Sometimes the other team plays well. Sometimes you don't.
But this idea among fans that games shouldn't be competitive is a really silly one unless you're rooting for Alabama or Clemson. Good teams play competitive games all the time.
And perhaps you just overrate(d) our offense. Given that it has struggled for stretches in every game but those played against Stephen F. Austin and UTSA, I think that would be a reasonable conclusion. Certainly more reasonable than assuming we would crush them because "we should."
Based on what's actually been put on paper, our proclivity to play close games and the fact that our spread was 11 points and not some astronomical number, I'm struggling to see why anyone would find this outcome to be shocking.
Could we have beaten them worse if we had played better? Certainly. We likely win by two scores at least if Charlie doesn't throw that pick in the end zone. But Tech had something to do with our inability to pull away. And the fact that we took their best shot and still managed to win is a feather in the cap of this team and coaching staff whether you want to admit it or not. These are the types of games good teams/coaches find ways to pull out.
Tech played a good game. We played a mistake-riddled one. But when push came to shove, we made the plays necessary to win. That's what good, well-coached teams do.
But what we are without doubt currently is 6-0 with a good, not great football team. No Baylor fan should be lamenting over style points.
I love you man. Please don't turn into one of the mean girls.McCavebear said:. True. stranger herself is an oddity, wrapped in an enigma , enshrined in a pig's turd.BUbearinARK said:Or are we?? Stranger things have happenedCrash Davis said:Also worth noting we were picked 6th in the league. We'll see how things shake out, but hard to complain too much. We aren't world beaters...I think most of knew that before the season started.bear2be2 said:Again, maybe our offensive potential isn't as high as you thought it was. You seem to base your expectations a lot more on what you think we should be than what we've proven so far to be. That might be your problem.ColomboLQ said:And my point is that we've done that too many times already (on offense especially) in 6 games this season to be considered a truly good team.bear2be2 said:And my point is teams play below their potential all the time. Even good ones. When you can win those games, that's a really good sign.ColomboLQ said:I can't tell if you are purposefully being dense or just simply can't understand what I'm saying. In the interest of not belaboring the point since at this point it's pretty clear to me, for one reason or another, you will not get what I'm saying, I'll leave with this: the question is not whether we COULD have beaten them worse if we had played better. I think that answer is obvious. The question is SHOULD we have beaten them worse because we SHOULD have played better. And that's where my contention is.bear2be2 said:Those aren't objective measures. Objective measures would include statistical evidence based on the two teams' performance this season, not circumstantial evidence based primarily on last year's outcome and phrasing such as "I feel fairly comfortable in saying ..."ColomboLQ said:I literally just provided you with some. Like, just read. Nothing I said was opinion, unless you believe that Baylor's team is not better this year than last year. And really, as far as not being competitive, we're really talking about the offense here. And the offense has played very poorly multiple times already in just half the season: the 2nd half against Rice, the 1st half against ISU and the 1st half against Tech just off the top of my head.bear2be2 said:We're not talking about video games or Strat-O-Matic here. There are a million different factors that go into every game that make each and every game unique.ColomboLQ said:Far from it. I'll explain my reasoning. We beat Tech last year by 11 in a neutral site. Our team was worse last year, and considering they just went through a coaching change with completely new systems for both offense and defense, lost a lot of key contributors for last year's team, they came into this game starting their 3rd string QB, and considering the fanbase was already asking for the coach to be fired just 2 games ago because of how poor they were playing, I feel fairly comfortable in saying that they are a worse team than last year. We are in year 3 of our coaching regime, with our offensive and defensive systems seemingly in place, or at least in a place more advanced than Tech's would have been, we returned a lot of key players from last year and we were playing at home this year. We were even favored to win by double digits. This game should not have been competitive. There's just no objective reason for it to have been.Bleed Green said:ColomboLQ said:bear2be2 said:I'd argue that this game was one of the best examples yet of why Matt Rhule is an excellent football coach. His team's can play poorly for most of a game and still find ways to stay in it and win at the end.ColomboLQ said:
This is an odd thread. Are you trying to say that Stranger is not a Baylor fan? Because if so, I've not gotten that impression over the years. And if you're saying he's not a Rhule fan, this would be an odd game to try to use to boast about anything for Rhule considering the result relative to the opponent.
There's a reason his record is what it is when leading going into the fourth quarter and why his teams are freaking nails in tight ballgames. The dude builds mentally tough football teams that nut up when things get tough, which is coincidentally a quality many on this board -- Stranger especially -- could learn from.
Playing poorly against a really good/ great team and finding a way to win is one thing that would show excellent coaching. Playing poorly against a mediocre team that you should crush and then winning is NOT proof of excellent coaching.
Are you under the impression that we are on OU's level? IMHO we are much closer to Tech's level than we are OU. And that is the only team that has truly blown out Tech this year. Texas very well could, but we aren't in that level yet either. The lack of objectivity on this board from either side is ridiculous. We are a good team with very good coaching. We are no where near elite as a team and coaching will have to continue to show growth to be labeled great.
Rhule was a good hire. Probably even a great hire considering who would have come here at the time. I love Baylor, but the truth is we have not had a single coach go on from here and coach another school. Only 2 in my lifetime were even courted by others. Quit thinking we had the pick of the litter when we hired Rhule. Given that, Rhule has done nothing but shut down critics. (You can't simply look at year 1 and ignore everything since) I loved Briles, but he had plenty of issues despite leading our program to its greatest heights. He rarely had great teams as shown by our lack of pro players but he had a great system. He also benefited from UT and ATM having mediocre coaches. Rhule has issues, but he is 6-0 and has only 2 games on his schedule that I will be shocked if we win.
****NOTE: THIS IS NOT AN INDICTMENT ON RHULE. I'M NOT SAYING HIS HIRING WAS A BAD HIRE OR A MISTAKE. I'M NOT SAYING ANYTHING BAD ABOUT RHULE AT ALL IF YOU JUST READ WHAT I'M WRITING. I'M SAYING THIS GAME SHOULD NOT BE USED AS AN ENDORSEMENT FOR HIM EITHER. LITERALLY THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING****
We could play Tech 50 times and every game would be different. Many of them would be competitive. That's what makes sports -- and particularly college football -- great. And what makes the whole, "we should have crushed them" critique a really shallow one.
A) there are very few objective measures that suggest we should have crushed them, and B) there are two teams on the field full of scholarship athletes who are all trying to win the game. Sometimes the other team plays well. Sometimes you don't.
But this idea among fans that games shouldn't be competitive is a really silly one unless you're rooting for Alabama or Clemson. Good teams play competitive games all the time.
And perhaps you just overrate(d) our offense. Given that it has struggled for stretches in every game but those played against Stephen F. Austin and UTSA, I think that would be a reasonable conclusion. Certainly more reasonable than assuming we would crush them because "we should."
Based on what's actually been put on paper, our proclivity to play close games and the fact that our spread was 11 points and not some astronomical number, I'm struggling to see why anyone would find this outcome to be shocking.
Could we have beaten them worse if we had played better? Certainly. We likely win by two scores at least if Charlie doesn't throw that pick in the end zone. But Tech had something to do with our inability to pull away. And the fact that we took their best shot and still managed to win is a feather in the cap of this team and coaching staff whether you want to admit it or not. These are the types of games good teams/coaches find ways to pull out.
Tech played a good game. We played a mistake-riddled one. But when push came to shove, we made the plays necessary to win. That's what good, well-coached teams do.
But what we are without doubt currently is 6-0 with a good, not great football team. No Baylor fan should be lamenting over style points.
