Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
53 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

Of course its theoretically possible, especially with key injuries, but if we go 7-5 and are losing to teams like BYU or Houston we should just burn all the NIL money in a big pyramid like The Joker and find new hobbies. 

If they piled all that money up and it collapsed would it kill 12 people? Asking for an Aggie friend.

Posted
9 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

Saw comments about our elite offensive roster. Was curious to compare it to 2005.

 

image.png.8b869dd4e92971a82804f1e240289fad.png

I'm not sure I agree with all your math there, buddy.

For starters, there's a great shot Banks isn't even with Scott, he's better. And Campbell is probably better tan Dockery. And Xavier Mitchell ends up better than Limas Sweet. But I'd take either Brooks or Baxter over Selvin Young, based only on talent. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted
2 hours ago, Had Enough said:


Yes. 11-3 in that case is acceptable.

But will 7-2 get you in the championship game? That’s assuming that 3rd loss is to Bama. With 14 teams, we’d need a tie breaker most likely to get there. Odds would be decent that at least one loss is against another championship game front runner.

IF OU is a win?  Probably.  You'd also probably need one of those wins to be Tech or KState.  So, if your losses were Bama, Tech or Kstate and at Baylor?  Yeah, that'd probably do it.  You really wouldn't want to lose to Tech AND Kstate. 

If your losses were TCU and Baylor I think it would almost be a certainty that 7-2 gets you in.  

Posted
2 hours ago, gmr548 said:

 

 


Well, BOW originally used a 12 game record so I was using that same frame. Y’all are wildin’ claiming the first league title in 14 years would be a failure.

 

 

I thought that was what you meant when you said 9-3 Big 12 championship

Posted

I suppose it's probably too late to bail and play 11 OOC games and OU, huh. 

If it's not too much to ask, it would be nice for the conference office to not publicly root for us to fail. Thanks. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
17 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

Saw comments about our elite offensive roster. Was curious to compare it to 2005.

 

image.png.8b869dd4e92971a82804f1e240289fad.png

I don't think so man.  

I don't even think it's arguable at this point that Banks is better than J. Scott.  I loved David Thomas but Sanders should clearly get the check over him- much more dynamic as an athlete.  S. Young was a JAG- I'm pretty sure I'd take Brooks over him.  I'd give the check to Worthy over Sweed as well.  

I've got it 2005- Vince, Taylor, Charles, Blalock RG, Sendelein, Studdard, 2023- Brooks, Worhty, Whittington, Mitchell, Sanders, Banks.  7-6 for 2023.  Skill players big 2023 edge.  OLine decent sized 2005 check.  I imagine VY over Ewers is a massive 2005 edge but if Ewers plays really really well and makes a darkhorse Heisman push maybe it's just "large" advantage to VY.

This offense should be better than any we've fielded since 2005 if they stay healthy.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
9 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I'm not sure I agree with all your math there, buddy.

For starters, there's a great shot Banks isn't even with Scott, he's better. And Campbell is probably better tan Dockery. And Xavier Mitchell ends up better than Limas Sweet. But I'd take either Brooks or Baxter over Selvin Young, based only on talent. 

 

6 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Worthy over Sweed for sure.

I knew this would be like dropping a grenade into Surly and fully expect the arguing to take this thread to infinity and beyond. With that said, I didn't rate Banks/Scott because it's too difficult at this point. Multiyear NFL veteran vs a guy who might be best ever. Same with Campbell Dockery. NFL player vs a guy with tremendous potential.  Agree on Xaiver ending up better than Sweed. I'm just punishing him for last year.  I fully expect him to recover.  Sweed was a 2 year and done NFL dude.

Posted
4 minutes ago, Red Five said:

I suppose it's probably too late to bail and play 11 OOC games and OU, huh. 

If it's not too much to ask, it would be nice for the conference office to not publicly root for us to fail. Thanks. 

Should've done that starting in 2016, so yeah now it's a bit late to leave this shithole conference. 

Best we can do is throw trash at the refs all year at all away stadiums. 🤘

Posted
I knew this would be like dropping a grenade into Surly and fully expect the arguing to take this thread to infinity and beyond. With that said, I didn't rate Banks/Scott because it's too difficult at this point. Multiyear NFL veteran vs a guy who might be best ever. Same with Campbell Dockery. NFL player vs a guy with tremendous potential.  Agree on Xaiver ending up better than Sweed. I'm just punishing him for last year.  I fully expect him to recover.  Sweed was a 2 year and done NFL dude.

So are we basing it off what they will do beyond college or just college?
Posted
We're going to get so fucked by the refs this year.

Pretty sure these antics are for show and intended to talk up the strength of the remaining members, but goddamn if the Big 12 hasn’t laid the table for accusations of bias if Texas ends up losing a game due to officiating
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, gmr548 said:


Pretty sure these antics are for show and intended to talk up the strength of the remaining members, but goddamn if the Big 12 hasn’t laid the table for accusations of bias if Texas ends up losing a game due to officiating

It's never bothered them in the past.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 3
Posted
I thought that was what you meant when you said 9-3 Big 12 championship

Well, BOW said, paraphrasing “9-3 is the floor and anything less than 10 wins is failure”

I read that as
Maybe I’ve just been BOW’ed
Posted

Sanders is probably the second best TE in the country going into the season, and Banks potentially could be the best LT in the country this year

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, kwood4408 said:


So are we basing it off what they will do beyond college or just college?

Based on who is more of an elite overall player, considering long-term potential. It's a little unfair to the college guys because they haven't gotten to the pros yet, but also an advantage because their college greatness gets projected into the future.  Sanders and Banks, might be way better than their counterparts.  But, both counterparts played in the NFL for several years. That's a pretty big bar.

Edit: the reason I did this comparison is that I wanted to understand what Sark is working with vs. what Greg Davis had to work with in 2005. It's pretty clear Davis still had quite a bit more talent, but this year's team is no slouch.

Edited by Dbeasy
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
22 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

 

I knew this would be like dropping a grenade into Surly and fully expect the arguing to take this thread to infinity and beyond.


Shit, infinity? All you needed was through Sunday.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

Based on who is more of an elite overall player, considering long-term potential. It's a little unfair to the college guys because they haven't gotten to the pros yet, but also an advantage because their college greatness gets projected into the future.  Sanders and Banks, might be way better than their counterparts.  But, both counterparts played in the NFL for several years. That's a pretty big bar.

Edit: the reason I did this comparison is that I wanted to understand what Sark is working with vs. what Greg Davis had to work with in 2005. It's pretty clear Davis still had quite a bit more talent, but this year's team is no slouch.

Vince being QB throws everything out of whack. Xavier would have had 1600 receiving yards running open across the field.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
4 minutes ago, Ricky Butler said:

Vince being QB throws everything out of whack. Xavier would have had 1600 receiving yards running open across the field.

Counterpoint: Sweed and Pittman would've held onto the ball when it hit their hands.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 3
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

Based on who is more of an elite overall player, considering long-term potential. It's a little unfair to the college guys because they haven't gotten to the pros yet, but also an advantage because their college greatness gets projected into the future.  Sanders and Banks, might be way better than their counterparts.  But, both counterparts played in the NFL for several years. That's a pretty big bar.

Edit: the reason I did this comparison is that I wanted to understand what Sark is working with vs. what Greg Davis had to work with in 2005. It's pretty clear Davis still had quite a bit more talent, but this year's team is no slouch.

And yet despite this, you gave a nod to sweed when you already knew his NFL career was a dumpster fire in a pool of hot grease, and that Worthy's stats after 2 years are basically equal to what Sweed did in 3.5 (he was injured his senior year, i believe). You don't get to ding guys who project better than their counterparts, thereby effectively ignoring their long term potential, while at the same time crediting Sweed for getting to the NFL and promptly being arguably the worst UT draft pick of all time.

Posted
1 minute ago, SydneyCarton said:

And yet despite this, you gave a nod to sweed when you already knew his NFL career was a dumpster fire in a pool of hot grease, and that Worthy's stats after 2 years are basically equal to what Sweed did in 3.5 (he was injured his senior year, i believe). You don't get to ding guys who project better than their counterparts, thereby effectively ignoring their long term potential, while at the same time crediting Sweed for getting to the NFL and promptly being arguably the worst UT draft pick of all time.

Sure I can. I can do whatever I like. I’m also the guy who proclaimed 24 months ago that Worthy would be the best receiver to ever play at Texas. Seriously, Worthy does look far better. 

  • Haha 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...