Concerns

by **Corso** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 9:06 am

[quote="GoRedGoBlue] .... Do you realize how many games I have been to over the past 14 years that SMU was a turnover away from winning the damn game? .... [/quote]Thank you, GRGB -- I think we've got the market cornered on such games. Hell, even when we went 0-fer a couple of years ago, we were "a turnover away" from winning a few of them. That includes the UTEP game and that little mishap in Waco, where we had fumbles inside the 5, as I recall.

by **EastStang** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 9:34 am

Bad teams find bad ways to lose. Good teams find bad ways to win. Turnovers can be forced or unforced. Sometimes a fumble is caused by a poor handoff or a mental error or by a really great hit at the perfect spot (helmet to ball). Sometimes an interception is caused by a bad pass or a bad reception or a really great read by a DB. But the constant is that a bad teams tend to find ways to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and good teams find ways to overcome mistakes. Look at last years game at Boise. We played a decent game and forced some turnovers, yet Boise found a way to overcome that and win.

by **jtstang** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 10:01 am

EastStang wrote:But the constant is that a bad teams tend to find ways to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and good teams find ways to overcome mistakes. Look at last years game at Boise. We played a decent game and forced some turnovers, yet Boise found a way to overcome that and win.

Yes, and we are a bad team. That is why anybody who has any expectations for a win in any game this season is begging to be disappointed. Once again.

by **BaylorGuy314** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 10:23 am

Oakley, I think top half of the conference is a little optimistic, don't you?

The Bears had two games that they should've won last year but lost because of turnovers and those were Iowa State (lost 26-25) and Missouri (lost 30-10). In both of those games, we had as many or more yards than the opposition, but had a turnover margin of +4.

Even if we had won those two games, we would've only had a 5-6 (3-5) record in the B12 and that's not enough for top half. If we improve dramatically, I can see us earning a spot as 5th in the B12 South, but beating out OU, TX, A&M, Tech, CU, and a team like Nebraska, Missouri, or Iowa State for a spot in the top 6 (top half) is a far stretch.

The absolute best I think this Baylor team can hope for is a 6-5 (3-5) record. That would require us beating SMU, Samford, Army, and three of the following: Iowa State, Missouri, Nebraska, OkSt. I just don't see that happening unless we've improved dramatically.

I'll go down as saying we'll be better and we'll have 4-5 wins and finish somewhere in the 4-7 (1-7) or 5-6 (2-6) range to put us 5th in the B12 South (if we beat OkSt) and about 8th or 9th in conference overall. That would be dramatic improvement and would really boost confidence and recruiting for the 2006 & 2007 campaigns.

If you wanna talk about blown opportunities, look at our 2003 campaign. We ended the season 3-9 but lost to UAB 19-24 in the last minute of the game and lost to Kansas 21-28 in the last 2 minutes of the game. We win those two games and we are 5-7 (2-6) with the game against OkSt as our possibility at a .500 record. As you know, the score of that game was 24-21 going into the 4th Q when OSU scored two very late TDs. My point, of course, is that we were very close to having a winning record that year. That was a blown opportunity at immediate improvement.

by **Nacho** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 10:28 am

Baylor is going 1-10 too.

by **JudgeChamber** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 10:40 am

Nacho wrote:Baylor is going 1-10 too.

Name the amount and I'll put money on it. I'll give you 10-1 odds on it, too.

by **Nacho** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 10:53 am

Get behind me Satan.

by **Stallion** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 11:08 am

Oklahoma St is going to kick your butt upside one side of the field and down the other. You better go search somewhere else for a victory. Like the Big 12 North.

by **JasonB** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 11:43 am

Stallion wrote:Oklahoma St is going to kick your butt upside one side of the field and down the other. You better go search somewhere else for a victory. Like the Big 12 North.

Not only that, but Nebraska is going to be improved this year, as is Mizzou. The North won't be as bad this year as it was last year.

Baylor might be a better team this year, but will end up with a worse record, only one win in conference.

As for the SMU-Baylor game, I don't know who will win, but it will be competitive. The game two years ago was a joke. One of the worst games I have seen from two horrible programs. The talent at both schools has gone up since then, and I think it will be a well played game. Whoever turns the ball over less wins the game.

For SMU's record, I think we will go .500 in conference with one win out of conference. So 5-6.

by **JudgeChamber** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 11:46 am

Nacho wrote:Get behind me Satan.

That's about what I thought.

by **jtstang** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 12:09 pm

JasonB wrote:For SMU's record, I think we will go .500 in conference with one win out of conference. So 5-6.

Jason, you had me on everyting right up until that. I hope you are right, but I seriously doubt it.

by **Nacho** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 12:36 pm

Judge Chamber is not acting very "Christian." I hereby implore the webmasters to ban him from this board. He has come on this board and demanded that I bet him on the Baylor 1-10 record. He must have gone to the Pat Robertson school of theology. Gambling and assisination are apparently now not only ok but good with the Baptists. Deplorable. Webmasters I beseech thee to smite JC (Judge Camber), not the real JC, as a burnt offering or a wave offering (your choice). Go Old Testament on him. Yours in humility and goodness. Nacho. BTW I have no money. I gave it all to some Baptist TV evangilist.

by **BaylorGuy314** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 12:42 pm

Gambling is against Christian theology? Not the last time I checked. Baptist, maybe, but a lot of people at Baylor are not baptist, just like a lot of people at SMU aren't necessarily methodist.

And the assassinations comment is just a patheticly low come back to his call on your dumb post.

by **Nacho** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 12:53 pm

Gambling is definitely proscribed by Baptists. I'm sure plenty of Baptists gamble. That doesn't make it right. Somehow they rationalize it. Ask any Baptist theologian/preacher. They will tell you that gambling is a sin. Geez. If you want to talk theology and Baptist hypocrisy, bring it. I love a hypocrite.

You might want to read the following.

http://www.bible.ca/s-gambling.htm

by **BaylorGuy314** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 1:02 pm

Nacho wrote:Gambling is definitely proscribed by Baptists. I'm sure plenty of Baptists gamble. That doesn't make it right. Somehow they rationalize it. Ask any Baptist theologian/preacher. They will tell you that gambling is a sin. Geez. If you want to talk theology and Baptist hypocrisy, bring it. I love a hypocrite.

I know that it is against Baptist theology. I am a Baptist myself. I also drink, dance, and gamble. I'm open about it, but I don't look down on others for doing the same. How does that make me a hypocrite?

Concerns

Who is online