BrassBulls12

On 9/30/2017 at 8:53 PM, 206BULL said:

If Eason leaves UGA I’d imagine he heads back west being that he’s from Seattle and all. 

Yeah, I see him wearing a shade of purple here soon. 

10 hours ago, Mama_Bull said:

I watched Boise win @BYU 24-7 yesterday. They looked pretty good. You might be able to find a replay of it online. 

Boise is a 7 point underdog @SDSU, but I think they might very well upset them.

 

57 minutes ago, NewEnglandBull said:

I would not put too much stock into that game, BYU is terrible and will most likely finish the year with 3 wins.

Yeah, Rypien struggled to get that offense going. If he starts, I think the Aztecs take the game. If Harsin gives the keys to Cozart, the Broncos could pull the upset because he provides something more to the offense with his athleticism. He made a pretty good throw last week in the one chance they gave him too.  

11 hours ago, bullsfan1983 said:

Believe Memphis over Navy might be preferable. If they win I think at worst they go 9-2 and have a decent shot of being 10-1 heading into a CCG with their remaining schedule. Navy faces a tough road and could lose any of their next 7 games based on the way they have been playing. I think the 5-0 start will fade to likely 3 or more losses.

8 hours ago, Mama_Bull said:

Navy has been at least a TD favorite in every game they played. So, it's not surprising that they are 5-0.

Navy is once again a favorite @Memphis, but only by 4.5 points.

I don't see Navy putting a great deal of pressure on Ferguson, because they have just seven sacks and two interceptions for the season. So, I expect Memphis to be able to throw the ball successfully and to put up a lot of points.

I think Memphis wins this game outright.

If Memphis does win, Navy will be out of the polls and Memphis will likely take their place.

 

I'm not sure either defense is all that good. Navy cant pressure Ferguson but I also don't have a lot of faith in Memphis stopping the option attack. I think its going to come down to whether or not Navy and play keep away. 

1 hour ago, Joe said:

Not to be a ****, but SDSU went 11-3 last year with a bowl win over a Houston. They beat a really good Stanford team. They're pretty good, and would challenge us (and UCF and Navy) for the AAC title

I agree that they are pretty good as well.  However, our front seven could contain Penny, and I don't think they have receivers to find space for Chapman to throw, especially with our pass rush. They are good and Penny is special, but we have the better athletes across the entire depth chart. USFvSDSU would be a good game, until the fourth.

5 minutes ago, Mama_Bull said:

Now SDSU 17 - UNLV  10.

 

If they respond with a stop and get the last score before the half, watch out

UNLV might hang around in this one. Rogers is dynamic and showing some accuracy. 

This QB for UNLV isn't bad. Just hit a pretty tight window for that big play

UNLV seems to selling out to stop Penny. Chapman might be enough to top them though. 

UNLV is putting something together here

Just now, NewEnglandBull said:

SDSU makes UNLV punt after a fumble inside the five

Big stop, but they won't be able to operate backed up deep. UNLV needs to find a way to flip the field. 

2 minutes ago, &rew Bull said:

I plan on watching the first half. The Washington/Cal game should provide some good #Pac12AfterDark too

I'm also interested Stanford/Utah. But that just because of ESPN pick'em and to see what Bryce Love is all about. 

7 minutes ago, NewEnglandBull said:

Anybody staying up for the SDSU game? Ugh 10:45 start...

I'm going to watch at least the first half, all if its still competitive. 

Bulls

47-24

Flowers

MVS

550

Established conference all the way. 

I'd prefer the ACC, we would get a annual game with one of the big three FL schools and some years two maybe three. 

41 minutes ago, George_Bullnard_Shaw said:

I suspect many southern teams will have boosters who have the exact same problem with Charlie as the Texas boosters reportedly had.

That could be true, I don't want to assume that about anyone. However, I do believe Texas could be one the last remaining states in which that issue can be successfully danced around. 

I could be wrong, but I think I remember people form ESPN saying that CCS's outing from Texas had more to do the boosters not wanting him and thus not giving him enough time to complete his process.  If that's the case, would P5 teams really hold that against him? Considering what else is out there? which after Frost is what? Harsin? idk, I think he will get offered this offseason. LSU, Mizzu, Texas A&M, and Kentucky (a place he succeeded at UL) could all be looking, although A&M might hold his reported relations with Texas high school coaches against him. 

If a coach wants to win a National Title he has to go to the P5. The deck for the CFP is just stacked to high against the G5 to get a team in. until the playoff expands and the G5 gets a spot, coaches will continuously leave in search of the grand prize. Attendance and money might keep them here for a few years but we can't expect anything more than one or two years depending on the quality of the coach the demand for them in the P5. 

They would hold bigger wins than us, and its not like there aren't one loss teams ahead of us already. Plus beating a reigning and defending Heisman winner can hold some weight in the voting. I think its possible. 

5 hours ago, Triple B said:

Unless you have specific criteria, "best" is pretty subjective based on one's opinion ...

This is why I said there was a lot of reasons to end this discussion. 

1 hour ago, The Great 8 said:

Sure. Best is such a vague statement. If someone is going to claim Flowers is our "best" player ever it's only going to be based on recorded stats. Furthermore a QB is the only candidate position to ever be considered in this vacuum.

I mean Flowers has more total yards than Jerry Rice in his junior and senior years. He's obviously better right? /Sarcasm

Nevermind that a QB and WR have different levels of utilization and should he weighted appropriately. What's more, players play against different talent levels.

I just think his argument is flawed. But if wants to claim he's the best based on stats, sure. I won't argue that. In the end, that argument doesn't hold water, though.

My argument ignores utilization and yours ignores the difference in how much more difficult some positions are. I Sorry, but it's a lot harder to be successful as a QB than any other position on the field. So yeah a QB will get more love if your are good at it. But it's much easier to fail. 

I'm gonna watch Saquon Barkely and see what freakish moves he puts on display against northwestern. Hes's been a human highlight reel. 

I think coming from such a talent rich state and such a talent rich area brings on more expectations. 

1 hour ago, The Great 8 said:

If you can't just intuitively say "Yes, Charles Woodson (no idea why I'm picking him) was a better college player than Flowers" despite "no way to compare them" then there's no point in me even having this debate because youre just being a Flowers homer.

There's a lot more to "best" than high utilization and stats. I actually think Flowers has some merits to include those other things too. If Mack and Jenkins never played here (or JPP played here longer) he'd likely be that guy you're assigning him to be. I'm not trying to **** on Flowers. I'm trying to show you it's laughable to essentially narrow down "best" to QVs only, which is what you've implicitly done. But, to be fair, many fall victim to it too (see Heisman every year).

There's a lot of reason to end this discussion and it has nothing to do with Q vs Charles Woodson. I'm sorry that QB's get more love, its just the nature of the game. The level of difficulty at the position is higher and that has a lot to do with it. I mean, as you said there's a reason right? well there's a reason why QB's get the highest salaries in the NFL and why QB's that aren't first round talents go in the first round. 

7 hours ago, Bourbon Bull said:

 

Methinks you totally missed his point.

No understand his point, I just don't agree with it. His original post said best player, not player with then most talent. You can't measure a colleges best player based  on how talented a player is because of his draft stock or how much he used or is not used. Again it's a factor but in the conversation of greatness results matter more to me than measurables. and QB to CB refernce I just ignored because there no way to compare them even for a reference. 

19 minutes ago, The Great 8 said:

QB's have high utilization rates, especially in college, especially if you're dual threat. If utilization/stats is your only criterion then literally only QB's can ever be in the discussion as best player. Is Charles Woodson a better player than Flowers? Not based on utilization or stats. But, he's an all-time great corner in football history.

"Highest utilization" is not equal to "best". There's a reason Mack was our highest drafted offensive player in history and a reason why Flowers probably won't be drafted at all. Likewise, there's a reason Jenkins was a 1st rounder and pro bowler. He'd never get the "utilization" of a Flowers while playing at CB, but his mere presence stopped people throwing to an entire side of the field. Even though Trae Williams put up better "stats" because that's the direction the ball went.

There's more to "best" than stats. But, yes, Flowers is our "best" statistical player. That's not the same as the most talented, the most skilled at his position relative to his peers, the most likely to succeed post-USF, etc. Mack and Jenkins very obviously held more of those qualities than Flowers does, IMHO.

So you're criteria for best USF player has more to do with what happens in the NFL?