Author Topic: 9-3  (Read 24333 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lucas Scoopsalot

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2757
    • View Profile
Re: 9-3
« Reply #225 on: December 08, 2014, 03:18:16 PM »
I think we should hire some unproven Special Teams coach.
Luke's stock is rising as Winters continues to validate his greatness. Add Luke and Winters to my list! Also, EMAWBLAST! and Tobias!

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 38024
    • View Profile
Re: 9-3
« Reply #226 on: December 08, 2014, 03:19:12 PM »
Only really one disappointing game and that was the Auburn game. 

We were TCU's Super Bowl.

The Baylor game was disappointing only because they gave us a window to make that game a nail biter and the Dimel-Miller duo said no thanks.

Getting that stop at the end of the first half, starting at midfield with 2 minutes left and a chance to tie the game, only to go 3 and out, giving Baylor a field goal was just terrible. As bad as the defense was, that series was the game's defining moment.

Offline michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 55976
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: 9-3
« Reply #227 on: December 08, 2014, 04:06:37 PM »
I think it was touched on in this thread, but I  everyone should be reminded that we ran off Daniel Sams so we could go 9-3. He could have gotten a fair shake at QB and worked at least as a situational QB all year while getting QB reps in practice (and been in great shape for next year), but no. We threw all our eggs in the Jake Waters basket so we could rough ridin' go 9-3.

^this pisses me off more than anything and I hope you Jake Waters lovers are happy with yourselves.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2014, 04:11:14 PM by michigancat »

Offline Big_Dipper

  • Fan
  • *
  • Posts: 94
    • View Profile
Re: 9-3
« Reply #228 on: December 08, 2014, 04:10:24 PM »
 :Crybaby:

Offline 'taterblast

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 16979
  • Hi, I'm James McGill.
    • View Profile
Re: 9-3
« Reply #229 on: December 08, 2014, 04:13:18 PM »
Only really one disappointing game and that was the Auburn game. 

We were TCU's Super Bowl.

The Baylor game was disappointing only because they gave us a window to make that game a nail biter and the Dimel-Miller duo said no thanks.

Getting that stop at the end of the first half, starting at midfield with 2 minutes left and a chance to tie the game, only to go 3 and out, giving Baylor a field goal was just terrible. As bad as the defense was, that series was the game's defining moment.

eff now i'm getting mad about the game again. i had done a pretty good job of forgetting it quickly.

Offline 420seriouscat69

  • Don't get zapped! #zap
  • Wackycat
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63922
  • #1 rated - gE NFL Scout
    • View Profile
Re: 9-3
« Reply #230 on: December 08, 2014, 04:17:24 PM »
I think it was touched on in this thread, but I  everyone should be reminded that we ran off Daniel Sams so we could go 9-3. He could have gotten a fair shake at QB and worked at least as a situational QB all year while getting QB reps in practice (and been in great shape for next year), but no. We threw all our eggs in the Jake Waters basket so we could rough ridin' go 9-3.

^this pisses me off more than anything and I hope you Jake Waters lovers are happy with yourselves.
You think he would have stayed healthy? He split time this year at a different level and couldn't stay on the field. :frown:

Offline michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 55976
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: 9-3
« Reply #231 on: December 08, 2014, 04:18:08 PM »
I think it was touched on in this thread, but I  everyone should be reminded that we ran off Daniel Sams so we could go 9-3. He could have gotten a fair shake at QB and worked at least as a situational QB all year while getting QB reps in practice (and been in great shape for next year), but no. We threw all our eggs in the Jake Waters basket so we could rough ridin' go 9-3.

^this pisses me off more than anything and I hope you Jake Waters lovers are happy with yourselves.
You think he would have stayed healthy? He split time this year at a different level and couldn't stay on the field. :frown:

this year? absolutely. especially splitting time.

Offline DQ12

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 22787
  • #TeamChestHair
    • View Profile
Re: 9-3
« Reply #232 on: December 08, 2014, 05:44:00 PM »
our schedule didn't do us any favors this year either.  TCU and Baylor were juggernauts at home, but considerably worse on the road (especially TCU).  we played 4 out of our toughest 5 conference games on the road. 

wonder if we could've knocked one of them off had we played'em in the BSFS.



"You want to stand next to someone and not be able to hear them, walk your ass into Manhattan, Kansas." - [REDACTED]

Offline CNS

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 38108
  • I'm Athletes
    • View Profile
Re: 9-3
« Reply #233 on: December 08, 2014, 05:59:01 PM »
Well that schedule flip should really help next season given the rebuild discussion.

Offline DQ12

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 22787
  • #TeamChestHair
    • View Profile
Re: 9-3
« Reply #234 on: December 08, 2014, 06:01:17 PM »
Well that schedule flip should really help next season given the rebuild discussion.
can't tell if you're serious or not, but next year we'd ideally have the easy games at home and toughies on the road.


"You want to stand next to someone and not be able to hear them, walk your ass into Manhattan, Kansas." - [REDACTED]

Offline kso_FAN

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 29506
    • View Profile
Re: 9-3
« Reply #235 on: December 08, 2014, 06:26:15 PM »
I think it was touched on in this thread, but I  everyone should be reminded that we ran off Daniel Sams so we could go 9-3. He could have gotten a fair shake at QB and worked at least as a situational QB all year while getting QB reps in practice (and been in great shape for next year), but no. We threw all our eggs in the Jake Waters basket so we could rough ridin' go 9-3.

^this pisses me off more than anything and I hope you Jake Waters lovers are happy with yourselves.
You think he would have stayed healthy? He split time this year at a different level and couldn't stay on the field. :frown:

this year? absolutely. especially splitting time.

He would've done Charles Jones stuff slightly more than Jones did. It certainly wouldn't have been like last year.

I do put some credence in the fact that he went to a 6-5 FBS team and didn't win the job, granted I know he had injury issues.

Offline michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 55976
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: 9-3
« Reply #236 on: December 08, 2014, 06:34:06 PM »
I think it was touched on in this thread, but I  everyone should be reminded that we ran off Daniel Sams so we could go 9-3. He could have gotten a fair shake at QB and worked at least as a situational QB all year while getting QB reps in practice (and been in great shape for next year), but no. We threw all our eggs in the Jake Waters basket so we could rough ridin' go 9-3.

^this pisses me off more than anything and I hope you Jake Waters lovers are happy with yourselves.
You think he would have stayed healthy? He split time this year at a different level and couldn't stay on the field. :frown:

this year? absolutely. especially splitting time.

He would've done Charles Jones stuff slightly more than Jones did. It certainly wouldn't have been like last year.

That would have been fine as long as Daniel was getting a fair shot and getting maximum QB reps in practice. Jake could have been able to rehab after he tore his shoulder up and started running like a fraidy-cat.

And without a doubt we'd be monumentally better off going into next season, but we had a 9-3 season at our fingertips that we just couldn't pass up!

Offline kso_FAN

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 29506
    • View Profile
Re: 9-3
« Reply #237 on: December 08, 2014, 06:44:15 PM »
I think it was touched on in this thread, but I  everyone should be reminded that we ran off Daniel Sams so we could go 9-3. He could have gotten a fair shake at QB and worked at least as a situational QB all year while getting QB reps in practice (and been in great shape for next year), but no. We threw all our eggs in the Jake Waters basket so we could rough ridin' go 9-3.

^this pisses me off more than anything and I hope you Jake Waters lovers are happy with yourselves.
You think he would have stayed healthy? He split time this year at a different level and couldn't stay on the field. :frown:

this year? absolutely. especially splitting time.

He would've done Charles Jones stuff slightly more than Jones did. It certainly wouldn't have been like last year.

That would have been fine as long as Daniel was getting a fair shot and getting maximum QB reps in practice. Jake could have been able to rehab after he tore his shoulder up and started running like a fraidy-cat.

And without a doubt we'd be monumentally better off going into next season, but we had a 9-3 season at our fingertips that we just couldn't pass up!

I agree with that.

Offline Benja

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 6365
    • View Profile
Re: 9-3
« Reply #238 on: December 08, 2014, 06:47:57 PM »
Well that schedule flip should really help next season given the rebuild discussion.
can't tell if you're serious or not, but next year we'd ideally have the easy games at home and toughies on the road.

Depends what kind of team you think you have. Having toughies at home probably gives you a better shot at having an exceptional season.

Offline Benja

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 6365
    • View Profile
Re: 9-3
« Reply #239 on: December 08, 2014, 06:49:18 PM »
Well that schedule flip should really help next season given the rebuild discussion.
can't tell if you're serious or not, but next year we'd ideally have the easy games at home and toughies on the road.

Depends what kind of team you think you have. Having toughies at home probably gives you a better shot at having an exceptional season.

so yeah i'd agree with you dlew

Offline wetwillie

  • goEMAW Poster of the WEEK
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 32550
    • View Profile
Re: 9-3
« Reply #240 on: December 08, 2014, 07:35:47 PM »
I wish rusty would stop bringing up SAMs.  It hurts too much. 
When the bullets are flying, that's when I'm at my best

Online chum1

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 22457
    • View Profile
Re: 9-3
« Reply #241 on: December 08, 2014, 07:40:54 PM »
I honestly had no preference between Sams and Waters last year.

Offline Hurricane Cat

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1478
    • View Profile
Re: 9-3
« Reply #242 on: December 08, 2014, 08:23:40 PM »
Well that schedule flip should really help next season given the rebuild discussion.
can't tell if you're serious or not, but next year we'd ideally have the easy games at home and toughies on the road.

Depends what kind of team you think you have. Having toughies at home probably gives you a better shot at having an exceptional season.

Agreed.  Next year's schedule is great for a good/ great team and scary for a mediocre / bad team.

Offline The Whale

  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 975
    • View Profile
Re: 9-3
« Reply #243 on: December 08, 2014, 08:42:14 PM »
our schedule didn't do us any favors this year either.  TCU and Baylor were juggernauts at home, but considerably worse on the road (especially TCU).  we played 4 out of our toughest 5 conference games on the road. 

wonder if we could've knocked one of them off had we played'em in the BSFS.

We got to play Baylor in the last game of the season rather than early in conference season.  Swap the order of the Baylor and the TTech games, and we lose the "in the conference race until the last game of the season" talking point.

Offline Benja

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 6365
    • View Profile
Re: 9-3
« Reply #244 on: December 08, 2014, 08:49:07 PM »
our schedule didn't do us any favors this year either.  TCU and Baylor were juggernauts at home, but considerably worse on the road (especially TCU).  we played 4 out of our toughest 5 conference games on the road. 

wonder if we could've knocked one of them off had we played'em in the BSFS.

We got to play Baylor in the last game of the season rather than early in conference season.  Swap the order of the Baylor and the TTech games, and we lose the "in the conference race until the last game of the season" talking point.

he didn't say anything about the order, just mentioned the fact that our two toughest games were on the road. That was the reason anything but an exceptionally good team was going to have at least a couple losses this year.