Author Topic: 9-3  (Read 19462 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mixed-Nutz

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3411
  • Square
    • View Profile
Re: 9-3
« Reply #125 on: December 07, 2014, 05:11:58 PM »
One stud; 9-3. I mean, LHCBS really is amazing. Three studs, possible national championship.

You really think we were two more players from being 11-1? Because I feel like we were closer to 7-5

We weren't anywhere near 7-5... Maybe 8-4 because the OU game was close af and we had a top 20 SEC team in the OOC, but otherwise we just destroyed everybody else we played that we didn't lose to.

Auburn and Baylor were winnable games with a few breaks/bounces, or if we had a couple more legitimate studs.  How close do you think this team would be to 11-1 if Arthur Brown Jr on the defense and Daniel Thomas in the backfield?
If Green, Johnson, Jones and Moore stayed healthy could we of gotten another win. What about if we landed a couple of serviceable JUCO offensive tackles last year.

Offline MixBerryCrunch

  • Señor Vol
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3745
  • Anybody want a peanut?
    • View Profile
Re: 9-3
« Reply #126 on: December 07, 2014, 05:12:19 PM »
One stud; 9-3. I mean, LHCBS really is amazing. Three studs, possible national championship.
You really think we were two more players from being 11-1? Because I feel like we were closer to 7-5

We weren't anywhere near 7-5... Maybe 8-4 because the OU game was close af and we had a top 20 SEC team in the OOC, but otherwise we just destroyed everybody else we played that we didn't lose to.

Auburn and Baylor were winnable games with a few breaks/bounces, or if we had a couple more legitimate studs.  How close do you think this team would be to 11-1 if Arthur Brown Jr on the defense and Daniel Thomas in the backfield?

Without Lockett we lose to Iowa State and Oklahoma. That's pretty damn close to 7-5.   
Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.

Offline kso_FAN

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 29506
    • View Profile
Re: 9-3
« Reply #127 on: December 07, 2014, 05:19:47 PM »
One stud; 9-3. I mean, LHCBS really is amazing. Three studs, possible national championship.
You really think we were two more players from being 11-1? Because I feel like we were closer to 7-5

We weren't anywhere near 7-5... Maybe 8-4 because the OU game was close af and we had a top 20 SEC team in the OOC, but otherwise we just destroyed everybody else we played that we didn't lose to.

Auburn and Baylor were winnable games with a few breaks/bounces, or if we had a couple more legitimate studs.  How close do you think this team would be to 11-1 if Arthur Brown Jr on the defense and Daniel Thomas in the backfield?

Without Lockett we lose to Iowa State and Oklahoma. That's pretty damn close to 7-5.   

Goodness these arguments are dumb either way, BBSing or not.

With the players we did have we went 9-3 and 7-2. We competed for a conference title up until the final game of the season. We were in the CFB playoff discussion much of the season. And we finished the regular season as one of the top 11 college football teams in the country.

In other words we had a damn good season. If I ever reach the point where a season like this isn't good enough I hope someone slaps me in the face.

Offline kim carnes

  • chingon!
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 13555
    • View Profile
Re: 9-3
« Reply #128 on: December 07, 2014, 05:24:14 PM »
One stud; 9-3. I mean, LHCBS really is amazing. Three studs, possible national championship.
You really think we were two more players from being 11-1? Because I feel like we were closer to 7-5

We weren't anywhere near 7-5... Maybe 8-4 because the OU game was close af and we had a top 20 SEC team in the OOC, but otherwise we just destroyed everybody else we played that we didn't lose to.

Auburn and Baylor were winnable games with a few breaks/bounces, or if we had a couple more legitimate studs.  How close do you think this team would be to 11-1 if Arthur Brown Jr on the defense and Daniel Thomas in the backfield?

Without Lockett we lose to Iowa State and Oklahoma. That's pretty damn close to 7-5.   

Goodness these arguments are dumb either way, BBSing or not.

With the players we did have we went 9-3 and 7-2. We competed for a conference title up until the final game of the season. We were in the CFB playoff discussion much of the season. And we finished the regular season as one of the top 11 college football teams in the country.

In other words we had a damn good season. If I ever reach the point where a season like this isn't good enough I hope someone slaps me in the face.

someone should slap you in the face right now _fan

Offline kso_FAN

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 29506
    • View Profile
Re: 9-3
« Reply #129 on: December 07, 2014, 05:24:44 PM »
One stud; 9-3. I mean, LHCBS really is amazing. Three studs, possible national championship.
You really think we were two more players from being 11-1? Because I feel like we were closer to 7-5

We weren't anywhere near 7-5... Maybe 8-4 because the OU game was close af and we had a top 20 SEC team in the OOC, but otherwise we just destroyed everybody else we played that we didn't lose to.

Auburn and Baylor were winnable games with a few breaks/bounces, or if we had a couple more legitimate studs.  How close do you think this team would be to 11-1 if Arthur Brown Jr on the defense and Daniel Thomas in the backfield?

Without Lockett we lose to Iowa State and Oklahoma. That's pretty damn close to 7-5.   

Goodness these arguments are dumb either way, BBSing or not.

With the players we did have we went 9-3 and 7-2. We competed for a conference title up until the final game of the season. We were in the CFB playoff discussion much of the season. And we finished the regular season as one of the top 11 college football teams in the country.

In other words we had a damn good season. If I ever reach the point where a season like this isn't good enough I hope someone slaps me in the face.

someone should slap you in the face right now _fan

Do it!

Offline wazucat

  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 411
    • View Profile
Re: 9-3
« Reply #130 on: December 07, 2014, 05:27:10 PM »
TLBL did not miss major playing time.
Waters stayed healthy enough to start every game.
If someone had told me that was going to happen before the first game I would have taken it and ran, so 9-3  :cool:

Offline Bqqkie Pimp

  • qoEMAW ambassador
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 6475
  • qoEMAW's official representative to goEMAW
    • View Profile
Re: 9-3
« Reply #131 on: December 07, 2014, 05:28:50 PM »
I just appreciate everybody's efforts to meltdown over a 9-3 season when most everybody predicted either 8-4 or 9-3...

Good job, guys!!

 :emawkid:
bears are fast...

Offline Functianalyst

  • Fan
  • *
  • Posts: 190
    • View Profile
Re: 9-3
« Reply #132 on: December 07, 2014, 05:39:09 PM »
If not already said, K-State's losses came to teams that were ranked no lower than #6 in the nation at the time they were played.  Yeah, I would say a damn good season.

Offline Benja

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 6268
    • View Profile
Re: 9-3
« Reply #133 on: December 07, 2014, 05:55:53 PM »
I think what's bothering some cat fans is because k-state teams put out such a consistently high effort level, and play about the same every week, it's really easy to see where our ceiling is.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37086
    • View Profile
Re: 9-3
« Reply #134 on: December 07, 2014, 07:05:51 PM »
6-6 without Lockett...I'm really scared about next year.

I think we will be better.

Why?

We return a lot on defense and are going to be able to run the football.

Offline Katpappy

  • I got my eye on you
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 12808
  • Party on gE
    • View Profile
Re: 9-3
« Reply #135 on: December 07, 2014, 08:17:42 PM »
I just appreciate everybody's efforts to meltdown over a 9-3 season when most everybody predicted either 8-4 or 9-3...

Good job, guys!!

 :emawkid:
Not everbody's efforts, just a few slugs and want-a-bees that have something against LHCBS every since he has came back.  We're looking at you MIR and Kimmy.
Hot time in Kat town tonight.

Offline HerrSonntag

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3436
    • View Profile
Re: 9-3
« Reply #136 on: December 07, 2014, 08:22:03 PM »
I just appreciate everybody's efforts to meltdown over a 9-3 season when most everybody predicted either 8-4 or 9-3...

Good job, guys!!

 :emawkid:
Not everbody's efforts, just a few slugs and want-a-bees that have something against LHCBS every since he has came back.  We're looking at you MIR and Kimmy.
If we get a 10th win against the Bruinkats, i'll be very pleased with this season  :thumbsup:

Offline EMAWzified

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 4244
    • View Profile
Re: 9-3
« Reply #137 on: December 07, 2014, 08:24:39 PM »
Although it would have been nice to have gotten a share of the conference title, I look at the difficulty of a program like Texas getting to and sustaining our success of the past four years, and feel better about 9-3.

Offline Steffy08

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1292
    • View Profile
Re: 9-3
« Reply #138 on: December 07, 2014, 08:26:36 PM »
I think Snyder comes back to make one more run with Huebner/Ertz.

We will play the style of ball next year that suits our coaches and our fans.  I'm worried about linebacker and running back.  Other than that am very excited with what we have coming back.  Ps. would like to pick up a Meshack Williams to replace Mueller.

Offline pissclams

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 46462
  • (worst non-premium poster at goEMAW.com)
    • View Profile
Re: 9-3
« Reply #139 on: December 07, 2014, 08:44:49 PM »
the Texas shutout should be getting more love


Cheesy Mustache QB might make an appearance.

New warning: Don't get in a fight with someone who doesn't even need to bother to buy ink.

Offline treysolid

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3483
  • complacent and self-involved
    • View Profile
Re: 9-3
« Reply #140 on: December 07, 2014, 09:19:41 PM »
We have landed the best recruiting class in Bill 2.0 last year. We are currently on the verge of having a better one this year. I think we are progressing, I think we should be happy with the trend.

Let's pump the brakes on this. Matching the 2014 class will only be possible if we flip the Davis twins.

Offline Mixed-Nutz

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3411
  • Square
    • View Profile
Re: 9-3
« Reply #141 on: December 07, 2014, 09:33:28 PM »
We have landed the best recruiting class in Bill 2.0 last year. We are currently on the verge of having a better one this year. I think we are progressing, I think we should be happy with the trend.

Let's pump the brakes on this. Matching the 2014 class will only be possible if we flip the Davis twins.
I think it currently could be better. I think leaning hard on high school kids is a smart move for us. Landing Ryan Davis would also for sure make it better.

Offline MakeItRain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 44880
    • View Profile
Re: 9-3
« Reply #142 on: December 07, 2014, 10:08:22 PM »
One stud; 9-3. I mean, LHCBS really is amazing. Three studs, possible national championship.
You really think we were two more players from being 11-1? Because I feel like we were closer to 7-5

We weren't anywhere near 7-5... Maybe 8-4 because the OU game was close af and we had a top 20 SEC team in the OOC, but otherwise we just destroyed everybody else we played that we didn't lose to.

Auburn and Baylor were winnable games with a few breaks/bounces, or if we had a couple more legitimate studs.  How close do you think this team would be to 11-1 if Arthur Brown Jr on the defense and Daniel Thomas in the backfield?

Without Lockett we lose to Iowa State and Oklahoma. That's pretty damn close to 7-5.   

Goodness these arguments are dumb either way, BBSing or not.

With the players we did have we went 9-3 and 7-2. We competed for a conference title up until the final game of the season. We were in the CFB playoff discussion much of the season. And we finished the regular season as one of the top 11 college football teams in the country.

In other words we had a damn good season. If I ever reach the point where a season like this isn't good enough I hope someone slaps me in the face.

I wish you would stop ignoring the larger point to pander to bottom level dummies you are smarter than. For the last time, 9-3 isn't the problem, the fact that now its seems like this type of a season is a ceiling is. Most people are incapable of understanding nuance and circumstance, you aren't so can we move past the 9-3 is always good stuff?

Offline Benja

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 6268
    • View Profile
Re: 9-3
« Reply #143 on: December 07, 2014, 10:10:26 PM »
This team might have been the easiest team to judge its ceiling, like of all time. Interesting.

Offline MakeItRain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 44880
    • View Profile
Re: 9-3
« Reply #144 on: December 07, 2014, 10:14:20 PM »
This team might have been the easiest team to judge its ceiling, like of all time. Interesting.

If Daniel Sams never took a snap last year, 2013 would have had a very similar vibe.

Offline Benja

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 6268
    • View Profile
Re: 9-3
« Reply #145 on: December 07, 2014, 10:17:59 PM »
Agreed. One reason sports is so popular is that it mimics our lives and dreams and wants and competitive spirit. We'd like to think we're capable of anything. I think this team being so clearly capable of a very easy to pinpoint amount of success took some of the wind of of the fanbases sails.

Offline GoodForAnother

  • It was all a scheme I used to read emaw magazine
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 6045
  • You hate to see this Mike
    • View Profile
Re: 9-3
« Reply #146 on: December 07, 2014, 10:25:07 PM »
9-3 against this schedule at kansas state is nothing to be upset about at all

There are two completely different conversations happening here and I'm not sure if you guys are doing it intentionally or not. Did anyone say they are upset that we're 9-3?

for the most part when I post I'm just talking to myself in incomplete thoughts
emaw

Offline kso_FAN

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 29506
    • View Profile
Re: 9-3
« Reply #147 on: December 07, 2014, 10:29:39 PM »
For the last time, 9-3 isn't the problem, the fact that now its seems like this type of a season is a ceiling is.

Perhaps that's where the nuanced difference lies; I'm not willing to say that 9-3 is the ceiling, especially to say it is a "fact". There is no reason for me to believe that we couldn't have another 2014 type season in the next 5-10 years.

Offline michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 53771
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: 9-3
« Reply #148 on: December 07, 2014, 10:30:38 PM »


One stud; 9-3. I mean, LHCBS really is amazing. Three studs, possible national championship.
You really think we were two more players from being 11-1? Because I feel like we were closer to 7-5

We weren't anywhere near 7-5... Maybe 8-4 because the OU game was close af and we had a top 20 SEC team in the OOC, but otherwise we just destroyed everybody else we played that we didn't lose to.

Auburn and Baylor were winnable games with a few breaks/bounces, or if we had a couple more legitimate studs.  How close do you think this team would be to 11-1 if Arthur Brown Jr on the defense and Daniel Thomas in the backfield?

Without Lockett we lose to Iowa State and Oklahoma. That's pretty damn close to 7-5.   

Goodness these arguments are dumb either way, BBSing or not.

With the players we did have we went 9-3 and 7-2. We competed for a conference title up until the final game of the season. We were in the CFB playoff discussion much of the season. And we finished the regular season as one of the top 11 college football teams in the country.

In other words we had a damn good season. If I ever reach the point where a season like this isn't good enough I hope someone slaps me in the face.

I wish you would stop ignoring the larger point to pander to bottom level dummies you are smarter than. For the last time, 9-3 isn't the problem, the fact that now its seems like this type of a season is a ceiling is. Most people are incapable of understanding nuance and circumstance, you aren't so can we move past the 9-3 is always good stuff?

You seem to be the only person who thinks this type of season is our ceiling.

Offline Asteriskhead

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 9371
  • giving new meaning to the term "anger juice"
    • View Profile
Re: 9-3
« Reply #149 on: December 07, 2014, 10:33:42 PM »
For the last time, 9-3 isn't the problem, the fact that now its seems like this type of a season is a ceiling is.

Perhaps that's where the nuanced difference lies; I'm not willing to say that 9-3 is the ceiling, especially to say it is a "fact". There is no reason for me to believe that we couldn't have another 2014 type season in the next 5-10 years.

as opposed to what?