Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Give us Dixon, Paysinger, Colvin, Johnson and Bacon back and we will beat a fully healthy USC 7 times out of 10 on a neutral site.

[/ QUOTE ]
doubt that very much. i'd say they're maybe even, but usc probably has the edge. remember oregon only won by 7 at home against usc who was missing most of their front line and was starting sanchez. oregon has too many defensive liablities.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you're underestimating how badly Oregon was hurt in that game. Sure we still had Dixon, but the offense with Paysinger, Colvin, and Johnson healthy is WAY better than what we had on the field against USC. I think Oregon was playing at least as far below their peak capabilities as USC was in that game, due to injuries, and I think Oregon was more dominant than the 7 point final margin indicated.

*Maybe* I'm being overconfident, and Oregon only wins 6 of 10, but there is no question in my mind that the Ducks are better than USC if both are 100% healthy.

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Give us Dixon, Paysinger, Colvin, Johnson and Bacon back and we will beat a fully healthy USC 7 times out of 10 on a neutral site.

[/ QUOTE ]
doubt that very much. i'd say they're maybe even, but usc probably has the edge. remember oregon only won by 7 at home against usc who was missing most of their front line and was starting sanchez. oregon has too many defensive liablities.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you're underestimating how badly Oregon was hurt in that game. Sure we still had Dixon, but the offense with Paysinger, Colvin, and Johnson healthy is WAY better than what we had on the field against USC. I think Oregon was playing at least as far below their peak capabilities as USC was in that game, due to injuries, and I think Oregon was more dominant than the 7 point final margin indicated.

*Maybe* I'm being overconfident, and Oregon only wins 6 of 10, but there is no question in my mind that the Ducks are better than USC if both are 100% healthy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oregon was the best team in the Pac this year with Dixon healthy.

USC is deeper, talentwise, but I think Oregon had a better team.

b

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i've been saying it for weeks but usc is he best two loss team in the nation. anyone still doubting?

[/ QUOTE ]

UGA (slightly)> USC. Would be an awesome game though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cmon. USC is the best team in the country right now, and obviously the best 2 loss team. Its a shame it took Booty this long to become the QB everybody wanted him to be, because the last 2 games he has played wonderfully.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Obviously"?

No.

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Give us Dixon, Paysinger, Colvin, Johnson and Bacon back and we will beat a fully healthy USC 7 times out of 10 on a neutral site.

[/ QUOTE ]
doubt that very much. i'd say they're maybe even, but usc probably has the edge. remember oregon only won by 7 at home against usc who was missing most of their front line and was starting sanchez. oregon has too many defensive liablities.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you're underestimating how badly Oregon was hurt in that game. Sure we still had Dixon, but the offense with Paysinger, Colvin, and Johnson healthy is WAY better than what we had on the field against USC. I think Oregon was playing at least as far below their peak capabilities as USC was in that game, due to injuries, and I think Oregon was more dominant than the 7 point final margin indicated.

*Maybe* I'm being overconfident, and Oregon only wins 6 of 10, but there is no question in my mind that the Ducks are better than USC if both are 100% healthy.

[/ QUOTE ]

6 out of 10? Are you kidding me? Do you have any idea how injured our offense was for that game?

Our defense was injured too and missing some key starters, but we didn't lose the game on defense, so I wont complain about it.

USC would be a 3 point favorite at least on a neutral field against a healthy Oregon.

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i've been saying it for weeks but usc is he best two loss team in the nation. anyone still doubting?

[/ QUOTE ]

UGA (slightly)> USC. Would be an awesome game though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cmon. USC is the best team in the country right now, and obviously the best 2 loss team. Its a shame it took Booty this long to become the QB everybody wanted him to be, because the last 2 games he has played wonderfully.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Obviously"?

No.

[/ QUOTE ]
FWIW Sagarin predictor agrees. USC is 8 and Georgia is 19. Oregon is the best two loss team according to the predictor, but it obviously has no of accounting for them missing Dixon unless they lose again.

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i've been saying it for weeks but usc is he best two loss team in the nation. anyone still doubting?

[/ QUOTE ]

UGA (slightly)> USC. Would be an awesome game though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cmon. USC is the best team in the country right now, and obviously the best 2 loss team. Its a shame it took Booty this long to become the QB everybody wanted him to be, because the last 2 games he has played wonderfully.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Obviously"?

No.

[/ QUOTE ]
FWIW Sagarin predictor agrees. USC is 8 and Georgia is 19. Oregon is the best two loss team according to the predictor, but it obviously has no of accounting for them missing Dixon unless they lose again.

[/ QUOTE ]
and this is before usc beat down the predictor #9. i wouldn't be surprised if after this they jump oregon (if they lose), LSU (previous predictor #4), ASU obviously, florida and oklahoma to take over the 4 spot, with the only better teams being WVU, Ohio State and Kansas.

EDIT* and for all the people who think georgia is the best two loss team in the country, i don't even think they are as good as oklahoma. the question should be whether usc is better than oklahoma, and i obviously think they are.

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

We all know USC = best team in the country is LOL. However, we also all know that UGA > USC is also lol.

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BTW, this is exactly why I don't like the idea of a playoff. A two loss USC team, including one at home to Stanford, would be a favorite going in.

[/ QUOTE ]
why not? you think a team should be punished for losing when they had 5 starters out and their QB broke his thumb and threw 4 picks in the second half after throwing none?

[/ QUOTE ]

team
–noun 1. a number of persons forming one of the sides in a game or contest: a football team.

Dealing with the adversity of losing starting players to injury is all part of having a successful season, especially in regards to how a coaching staff prepares their team (not just the starters) during the course of a season. Coaching staffs don't just recruit the starters on each side of the ball, they recruit over 100 players to suit up each week...it's called DEPTH.

A team comprised solely of USC second string players should (and would) beat Stanford, but they didn't on 10/6. There aren't any do-overs in College Football when you lose. Get over it.

Yeah, it sucks that injuries potentially changed the course of what could have been a special USC season, but at least you have recent success to look back upon. Just think how us Oregon fans feel.

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

I love this time of year. Delusional SC fans get excited about one win and start forgetting about losing to stanford at home, losing to Oregon, beating Arizona by 1TD at home, beating Washington by a FG, Cal by a TD, and focus on the most recent victory. The best was walking out of the Rose Bowl last year and hearing some SC fan say, "so there's a real chance we'll be #1!!

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
Give us Dixon, Paysinger, Colvin, Johnson and Bacon back and we will beat a fully healthy USC 7 times out of 10 on a neutral site.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is the homer in you talking. USC is significantly better at 20 of the 22 starting positons on the field. Stewart isn't that far ahead of the guys USC throws out there. Dixon is a huge edge over Booty, but I'd still make USC a 6 point favorite against Oregon on a neutral field. The times Booty plays as well as Dixon, which would be many, Oregon would have no chance.