Baylor #4?

by **Treadway21** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 1:38 am

Hard to believe Baylor is so highly ranked, but more so it just didn't seem we were over matched like in past games against Baylor and with their high ranking, we still looked like we belonged.

This game was so much different that the last few games against Baylor. In those I was demoralized, which was particularly bad given those were the openers. This game had such a different feel that is hard to describe. I never thought I would walk away from a loss in a better frame of mind.

Look out.

by **Stallion** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 1:43 am

our defense looked completely overmatched-what did they get 750 yards? The offense has had a greater infusion of young talent which was really something Morris had to do to get freshman that fit the needs of his offense. Without those guys (including redshirt freshman Sutton we would have looked pretty much the same as last year). This recruiting class we are signing more defensive players including 6-7 DBs. Its pretty obvious why they are signing so many DBs because we are awful in the secondary

by **Treadway21** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 1:54 am

Stallion wrote:our defense looked completely overmatched-what did they get 750 yards? The offense has had a greater infusion of young talent which was really something Morris had to do to get freshman that fit the needs of his offense. Without those guys (including redshirt freshman Sutton we would have looked pretty much the same as last year). This recruiting class we are signing more defensive players including 6-7 DBs. Its pretty obvious why they are signing so many DBs because we are awful in the secondary

All true - but minus the stats, it just didn't feel like we were overmatched - we couldn't say that the last couple of meetings. To hang with a team that is #4 in our first year is so encouraging compared to past years. It truly is a new era and may actually take less time than we all thought.

I actually had fun at the game - certainly didn't expect that.

by **Stallion** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:00 am

722 yards but only 1 yard in 2nd Q-otherwise they were on pace for about 1,000 yards

by **Treadway21** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:06 am

Stallion wrote:722 yards but only 1 yard in 2nd Q-otherwise they were on pace for about 1,000 yards

What ever. If you feel like this was any where remotely like what we watched last year - and I know you don't - stats don't tell the whole story - you were;t watching the same game I was. It was far and away better than anything we have seen in years. Even June's best teams would not have been that competitive tonight.

You can throw those stats at me all day long, but this team passed the eye test.

by **jpe747** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 4:50 am

At least 6 of their scores were created by long pass plays. The first two scores came were DBs couldn't stay with receivers. The last 3 Baylor TDs came from SMU plays where DBs either hit receivers or should have hit receivers and missed their plays. That is 25 points. Granted the Baylor receivers are big, strong and fast. That might not have happened with any other college team. The running game of Baylor was tackle to tackle. The offensive and defensive lines of Baylor are tremendous. Perhaps that won't happen with any other defense. You have to be happy with the way SMU played. I do agree that the freshman were a big reason for any optimism we might have this eve.

by **Charleston Pony** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 5:58 am

We couldn't put pressure on their QB and our secondary was no match for their WR. Don't know about that #4 ranking, but that may have been a top 10 team we played last night

by **LA_Mustang** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 7:11 am

CM and Van have got to find a recruit who can get to the QB, and I'm sure they will.

by **jpe747** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 12:18 pm

I guess to much celebration at late night let me hit the wrong key on the keyboard. SORRY What I wished to relay was that five plays mentioned above gave Baylor 35 POINTS. However, we were playing what may be the best set of wide outs in college football this year. Hopefully we wouldn't have made those mistakes against a lesser opponent.

by **Stallion** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 12:23 pm

I think Baylor looked like the No. 4 team with 2 All Big 12 players out

by **Puckhead48E** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 12:53 pm

Pretty sure we witnessed 2 teams playing in their first game...where one believed it was light-years ahead of the other and came out soft, and one has a much improved offense and a defense that is better than 1-11 but still learning.

We'll see how we we do based on the TCU game.

by **skyscraper** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 1:09 pm

I wouldn't consider TCU a metric for this season. UNT will be far more indicative of how we can compete against AAC opponents, which is why that game will be so interesting.

by **Charleston Pony** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 1:09 pm

pre-season rankings are based way too much on what happened last year. I look around the country and see a lot of really good football programs. Hard for me to believe TCU & Baylor are 2 of the 4 best teams in the country. It's a long season and maybe both will show they are top 10 caliber teams, but as I sit here watching Clemson today (and realizing they are not even ranked in the top 10), it's hard for me to believe we played the 4th best team in the country pretty much dead even for 30 minutes last night.

by **Stallion** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 1:21 pm

Baylor's offense was one of the few that put up a lot of points in Week 1 other than Georgia Tech playing against the local YMCA. I'm sure Baylor is easily leading Country in Total Offense.

by **Puckhead48E** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 1:28 pm

UNT will give us a solid indication on our season...TCU result will give a better understanding of how Baylor should be viewed.

Baylor #4?

Baylor #4?

Re: Baylor #4?

Re: Baylor #4?

Re: Baylor #4?

Re: Baylor #4?

Re: Baylor #4?

Re: Baylor #4?

Re: Baylor #4?

Re: Baylor #4?

Re: Baylor #4?

Re: Baylor #4?

Re: Baylor #4?

Re: Baylor #4?

Re: Baylor #4?

Re: Baylor #4?

Who is online