one more preview of CUSA teams

by **White Helmet** » Wed Jul 30, 2008 2:48 pm

Last year they had 2 JR on the all conference Honorable mention list, none on the 1st or 2nd team and no one on the preseason team this year.

by **White Helmet** » Wed Jul 30, 2008 2:52 pm

And per rivals they signed 1 3 star OL in 2004 and 1 3 star OL in 2007 all other OL2004 forward were 2 stars or none.

by **Stallion** » Wed Jul 30, 2008 7:42 pm

Tulsa's unproven players(Nos 6,7 and

- Whitmore and the two transfers were alll 3 Stars-had bushels of BCS offers. SMU's unproven players some of which will have to start on the other hand were largely not rated high and didn't receive the quality offers Tulsa's kids did. I feel pretty confident that was fully justified in saying Tulsa is 8 deep at Receiver. Tulsa gets an A at Receiver SMU a C+ only because of Sanders-otherwise a C. And I repeat all of Tulsa's starters at receiver are All-CUSA recognition caliber. Last year two won Freshman All-American honors and another was Conference USA Newcomer of the Year. You really don't want to argue this point do you?

by **ponyboy** » Wed Jul 30, 2008 10:41 pm

Keep digging.

by **White Helmet** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 5:53 am

Once again you admit that 3 have potential not proven. I am not arguing they do not have lots of potential at receiver I am just commenting on your hyperbole that they have 8 proven receivers which even you admit they dont.

by **Stallion** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 9:20 am

"Tulsa has about 8 quality receivers."

" Nevetheless Tulsa is 8 deep in quality receivers."

"I feel fully justified in saying Tulsa is 8 deep at Receiver"

This is what I said. Nice attempt to change an argument in which you were soundly beaten.

by **White Helmet** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 9:23 am

So you can count Tulsa's unproven quality but SMU only has one proven quality ie Sanders...you are taking two different definitions to stretch your comparison farther, either it is 5-1 or 8-3 not 8-1.

by **Stallion** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 9:27 am

The only people rating some of these "great" SMU recievers high is PonyFans.com and MustangCheerleaders.com. Guys like you who can not objectively analyze facts which are right in front of your face.

by **White Helmet** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 9:32 am

Where did I say we have quality receivers, I said we have 3 as did you...You said we had 1 proven quality WR, I agree. Tulsa has 5 proven quality receivers agree and 8 qualtiy guys 3 unproven. So it 5-1 or 8-3 not 8-1.

by **Stallion** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 9:37 am

I showed you the 3 times I mentioned 8 receivers. Sorry pal I never said 8 "proven" receivers. Get It? I said exactly what I meant.

by **White Helmet** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 9:42 am

Yes I do get it. But by your admission SMU has 3 quality receivers...Get It.

by **MustangStealth** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 10:07 am

Stallion wrote:MustangCheerleaders.com

Why have I not heard of this site until now?!?!

by **Mustangsabu** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 10:18 am

Put the handbags down ladies, Please.

Tulsa can have eight, nine, any number of good WRs, they still struggle to beat us. There is no reason we can't beat them this year. Last year we gave it a good try, away from home and with a terrible game-day management.

Talking up the opposition on this board is pointless. JJ's assessment of the other team matters until gameday is what matters. Then we win, or we lose. The only question of any interest is did Tulsa's WRs play well IN THAT GAME? And we can't answer that until the game is over.

one more preview of CUSA teams

Who is online