Cannonball Craig III said:
And the sips are something like 2-7 vs Vandy. So what does that mean?
SEsee said:Cannonball Craig III said:
And the sips are something like 2-7 vs Vandy. So what does that mean?
They haven't played since 1928? To put that in perspective, 11 years after they last played, A&M won their NC. There is no one alive today who witnessed either.
Madman said:
I heard that the sips are going to build a SEC style defense a couple years ago.
How is that coming along?
SEsee said:
Texas is 7-1-1 against Alabama and would have been 8-1-0 had Colt not gotten hurt.
Les Appelt 1999 said:
Remember, Colt played defense too and would have easily stopped both Mark Ingram and Trent Richardson from getting 100 rushing yards each.
They had less than 300 yards because they only threw the ball 12 times. They drained the clock and ran the ball 51 times because they could. In contrast, Texas threw the ball 42 times. They ran it 28 times for 2.9 yards a carry. Texas was physically dominated in that game. Colt wouldn't have mattered that much. You're revising history in your head. Alabama was clearly the better team.Texan1976 said:Les Appelt 1999 said:
Remember, Colt played defense too and would have easily stopped both Mark Ingram and Trent Richardson from getting 100 rushing yards each.
Texas defense gave up less than 300 yards that night. And it would have been less had the offense not repeatedly went 3 and out and turned it over 5 times.
So Colt playing would've helped the defense tremendously.
MemoriesTexan1976 said:Les Appelt 1999 said:
Remember, Colt played defense too and would have easily stopped both Mark Ingram and Trent Richardson from getting 100 rushing yards each.
Texas defense gave up less than 300 yards that night. And it would have been less had the offense not repeatedly went 3 and out and turned it over 5 times.
So Colt playing would've helped the defense tremendously.
.Flexbone said:They had less than 300 yards because they only threw the ball 12 times. They drained the clock and ran the ball 51 times because they could. In contrast, Texas threw the ball 42 times. They ran it 28 times for 2.9 yards a carry. Texas was physically dominated in that game. Colt wouldn't have mattered that much. You're revising history in your head. Alabama was clearly the better team.Texan1976 said:Les Appelt 1999 said:
Remember, Colt played defense too and would have easily stopped both Mark Ingram and Trent Richardson from getting 100 rushing yards each.
Texas defense gave up less than 300 yards that night. And it would have been less had the offense not repeatedly went 3 and out and turned it over 5 times.
So Colt playing would've helped the defense tremendously.
I swear, some Big 12 fans just can't seem to get their head away from the idea that the "best offense" isn't determined by how many yards a team puts up. The best teams realize that both units compliment each other. Alabama ran they ball like that because they COULD. When you can dominate on the ground, you're an idiot to throw it everywhere. Big 12 fans' ideas about offensive football are like people that still think pitchers should be judged by wins.
Flexbone said:They had less than 300 yards because they only threw the ball 12 times. They drained the clock and ran the ball 51 times because they could. In contrast, Texas threw the ball 42 times. They ran it 28 times for 2.9 yards a carry. Texas was physically dominated in that game. Colt wouldn't have mattered that much. You're revising history in your head. Alabama was clearly the better team.Texan1976 said:Les Appelt 1999 said:
Remember, Colt played defense too and would have easily stopped both Mark Ingram and Trent Richardson from getting 100 rushing yards each.
Texas defense gave up less than 300 yards that night. And it would have been less had the offense not repeatedly went 3 and out and turned it over 5 times.
So Colt playing would've helped the defense tremendously.
I swear, some Big 12 fans just can't seem to get their head away from the idea that the "best offense" isn't determined by how many yards a team puts up. The best teams realize that both units compliment each other. Alabama ran they ball like that because they COULD. When you can dominate on the ground, you're an idiot to throw it everywhere. Big 12 fans' ideas about offensive football are like people that still think pitchers should be judged by wins.
BVAg85 said:
And they all act like the game was just played. Completely ignoring it was almost 10 years ago. They just can't wrap their heads around the idea that the longhorns are just one of many, many bad to mediocre teams in this country. In their eyes, they're still one of the elites. Even that elite image was built on them being in a conference that really didn't have any other schools that compared with size and money. I wonder what their all time record would be if they had been in the Big 10 or the SEC all those years instead of the SWC.
BVAg85 said:
And they all act like the game was just played. Completely ignoring it was almost 10 years ago. They just can't wrap their heads around the idea that the longhorns are just one of many, many bad to mediocre teams in this country. In their eyes, they're still one of the elites. Even that elite image was built on them being in a conference that really didn't have any other schools that compared with size and money. I wonder what their all time record would be if they had been in the Big 10 or the SEC all those years instead of the SWC.
Thucydides1. said:
Serious question...who do the Aggies root for when they play Alabama?
you know, cuz taking that SOS hit by losing to A&M would ruin Bama's year.
Texan1976 said:
A&M is slightly above .500 in conference play. In the SEC. In the Big 12. In the SEC. That's who you are. And the midget who Candi embarrassed won't change that.
Texan1976 said:
A&M is slightly above .500 in conference play. In the SEC. In the Big 12. In the SEC. That's who you are. And the midget who Candi embarrassed won't change that.
Texan1976 said:BVAg85 said:
And they all act like the game was just played. Completely ignoring it was almost 10 years ago. They just can't wrap their heads around the idea that the longhorns are just one of many, many bad to mediocre teams in this country. In their eyes, they're still one of the elites. Even that elite image was built on them being in a conference that really didn't have any other schools that compared with size and money. I wonder what their all time record would be if they had been in the Big 10 or the SEC all those years instead of the SWC.
You can look up our record against the SEC.
BVAg85 said:
I don't know why sips will never acknowledge that they were the one school in a football crazy state that was given almost all the money and power. Of course they won a lot of games. They were just set up to succeed. It's just the way it was. But for they act like they weren't given those advantages. I'm a big Cowboys fan and look what happened to them once the NFL put in rules to even out the competition.
The debt of gratitude that they owe to Vince Young is incalculable. It gives them cover to still consider themselves among the elite of college football. Make no mistake; they're one of the better programs, no doubt, though they're down now, but it's been a lot of futility for all the talent they've had.BVAg85 said:
I don't know why sips will never acknowledge that they were the one school in a football crazy state that was given almost all the money and power. Of course they won a lot of games. They were just set up to succeed. It's just the way it was. But for they act like they weren't given those advantages. I'm a big Cowboys fan and look what happened to them once the NFL put in rules to even out the competition.
