Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > Other Topics > Sporting Events

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #241  
Old 11-23-2007, 10:30 PM
BobJoeJim BobJoeJim is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ashland, OR
Posts: 1,450
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #242  
Old 11-23-2007, 11:34 PM
bernie bernie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Muckleshoot! Usually rebuying.
Posts: 15,163
Default 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
Reply With Quote
  #243  
Old 11-24-2007, 02:18 AM
pvn pvn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: back despite popular demand
Posts: 10,955
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #244  
Old 11-24-2007, 03:02 AM
pokergrader pokergrader is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,792
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #245  
Old 11-24-2007, 04:04 AM
Semtex Semtex is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: LA
Posts: 1,539
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #246  
Old 11-24-2007, 05:56 AM
Semtex Semtex is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: LA
Posts: 1,539
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #247  
Old 11-24-2007, 06:09 AM
lastchance lastchance is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Don\'t edit my location
Posts: 22,856
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #248  
Old 11-24-2007, 11:50 AM
ReDeYES88 ReDeYES88 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: pdx west
Posts: 731
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #249  
Old 11-24-2007, 12:17 PM
CardSharpCook CardSharpCook is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: kingputtlv
Posts: 7,328
Default 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!!
Reply With Quote
  #250  
Old 11-24-2007, 12:25 PM
rwperu34 rwperu34 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 1,955
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.