Is there a possibility that UCLA might be good, and UT is not that bad?

#26
#26
If anything, UCLA's defense will give some teams a fit this year. However, their offense isn't much to brag about. This only makes them a decent team, so no.
 
#27
#27
Mr. Two Bits said:
Last time I checked, a football game consisted of 4 quarters. You might want to consider this: How good is Florida if they can take a nap for one quarter and then score 42 points the next two?

UT ran over one patsy and got shut down by a second tier PAC Ten team at home.
Click to expand...

Charleston Southern and Troy are not as good as UCLA. If only we had a decent QB you guys would be toast this wknd. Instead we will be stuck with 8 in the box and Crompton. He may throw more touchdown for Florida then Tebow does.
 
#28
#28
GmanTN said:
Charleston Southern and Troy are not as good as UCLA. If only we had a decent QB you guys would be toast this wknd. Instead we will be stuck with 8 in the box and Crompton. He may throw more touchdown for Florida then Tebow does.
Click to expand...


I appreciate how frustrated you are with Crompton, but saying that if it weren't for him you'd be an easy winner is delusional. You could have PM at the helm and you'd still probably get beat, given all of the other factors across the field.
 
#31
#31
offense than we did, so what does that tell you!? Some people here thought they might be good last year after beating us--and the next game byu beat the bruins 35-0 or somesuch!
 
#33
#33
How many of UCLA's points came off turnovers? Do they even score without Crompton gift wrapping them great field position? Maybe the first drive and that's it...

And for whoever said Florida looked awful against Troy in the first quarter...may I remind you that the score at the end of the first against WKU was 0-0...
 
#34
#34
Here is a real assesment of the game.

Last years game was pitiful and we lost due to coaching period. Don't feel like saying why but if you watched the game you would know

This year. UT and UCLA played head to head. UCLA is better. The only difference in the game is some will say Crompton but the thing I noticed more is the inexperince of our coaching.

Example was running the exact same play on the goal line 3 times in a row. They should at least did a Play action or something. Did Crompton suck? yes he missed a wide open Stocker in the endzone on top of other things. but head to head UCLA was better on all sides.

I will say I am very impressed with how our team looks now but now we just need to fill those positions with talent especialy at the qb position.

Here is one more thought. Maybe UT saw the stats and thought they would just coast thru UCLA looking to UF. Who knows but I hope it's that.
 
#35
#35
UCLA struggled at home against SDSU (one of the worst FBS teams). Now that their QB is probably out a few weeks look for them to drop a few in a row.
 
#39
#39
If UCLA is at the bottom of the Pac 10 what does that make for us?

UCLA's fresman qb outplayed our 5th year senior. Their qb looked stable. ours had his head between his legs at one point.
 
#40
#40
strongtower said:
Here is a real assesment of the game.

Last years game was pitiful and we lost due to coaching period. Don't feel like saying why but if you watched the game you would know

This year. UT and UCLA played head to head. UCLA is better. The only difference in the game is some will say Crompton but the thing I noticed more is the inexperince of our coaching.

Example was running the exact same play on the goal line 3 times in a row. They should at least did a Play action or something. Did Crompton suck? yes he missed a wide open Stocker in the endzone on top of other things. but head to head UCLA was better on all sides.

I will say I am very impressed with how our team looks now but now we just need to fill those positions with talent especialy at the qb position.

Here is one more thought. Maybe UT saw the stats and thought they would just coast thru UCLA looking to UF. Who knows but I hope it's that.
Click to expand...

Considering we turned it over 5 times to their 1 and still were right there at the end to win makes the bolded statement pretty hard for me to understand...
 
#41
#41
VOLinthaATL said:
Considering we turned it over 5 times to their 1 and still were right there at the end to win makes the bolded statement pretty hard for me to understand...
Click to expand...

It's easy for me to see. UCLA hands down looked better period. 5 turnovers were due to their playing. Their goal line stance means they were just a little better than us. I never said they were dominant. They just played and looked better. Their 4 point difference is just that, a few points better then us.
 
#42
#42
strongtower said:
It's easy for me to see. UCLA hands down looked better period. 5 turnovers were due to their playing. Their goal line stance means they were just a little better than us. I never said they were dominant. They just played and looked better. Their 4 point difference is just that, a few points better then us.
Click to expand...

Did you watch the game? Perhaps you missed the garbage passes Crompton made right to their guys...he stared at recievers the whole game...it really stems incredibly more from him than UCLA. The only place I saw where UCLA seemed to have an upper hand was on the defensive line of scrimmage. How many of Crompton's INT's were caused by a pass rush, I can't remember 1...

I think in the words of the great pumpkin, "you need to watch some tape"
 
#44
#44
VOLinthaATL said:
Did you watch the game? Perhaps you missed the garbage passes Crompton made right to their guys...he stared at recievers the whole game...it really stems incredibly more from him than UCLA. The only place I saw where UCLA seemed to have an upper hand was on the defensive line of scrimmage. How many of Crompton's INT's were caused by a pass rush, I can't remember 1...

I think in the words of the great pumpkin, "you need to watch some tape"
Click to expand...

LOL oh I watched the game. Head to head they were better. WHY? did you see our QB? Their qb was better then ours period. At least he was able to drive them down the field for 19 points. Crompton had a chance to win a the end of the game with 1:48 left. He didn't even get a first down. UCLA head to head beat UT period.

5 turnovers who cares. Crompton missed a wide open Stocker in the end zone and had a chance to drive for a winning td and failed again.
 
#45
#45
GmanTN said:
Charleston Southern and Troy are not as good as UCLA. If only we had a decent QB you guys would be toast this wknd. Instead we will be stuck with 8 in the box and Crompton. He may throw more touchdown for Florida then Tebow does.
Click to expand...

This is beyond stupid.
 
#46
#46
strongtower said:
LOL oh I watched the game. Head to head they were better. WHY? did you see our QB? Their qb was better then ours period. At least he was able to drive them down the field for 19 points. Crompton had a chance to win a the end of the game with 1:48 left. He didn't even get a first down. UCLA head to head beat UT period.

5 turnovers who cares. Crompton missed a wide open Stocker in the end zone and had a chance to drive for a winning td and failed again.
Click to expand...

Thanks much for proving my point. Everything you pointed out revolved around Crompton. A team can only do so much when thier leader is stinking up the joint...
 
#47
#47
strongtower said:
LOL oh I watched the game. Head to head they were better. WHY? did you see our QB? Their qb was better then ours period. At least he was able to drive them down the field for 19 points. Crompton had a chance to win a the end of the game with 1:48 left. He didn't even get a first down. UCLA head to head beat UT period.

5 turnovers who cares. Crompton missed a wide open Stocker in the end zone and had a chance to drive for a winning td and failed again.
Click to expand...

You said they were head to head better and our turnovers were due to their playing. Now you're talking about how bad Crompton is. Which is it? And their QB didn't exactly drive them down the field for their fgs. They had great field position and their kicker didn't miss.
 
#48
#48
buckeyevol23 said:
You said they were head to head better and our turnovers were due to their playing. Now you're talking about how bad Crompton is. Which is it? And their QB didn't exactly drive them down the field for their fgs. They had great field position and their kicker didn't miss.
Click to expand...

UM yeah they were better. Cromptons turnovers were due to their defense. Crompton sure didn't have a problem against WKU. Their defense was all over the field. They made our O line look mediocre. Just look at our running game alone. Did we even break 100 yards? I never looked at the stats on running.

Yeah their qb did get them down the field. How many points did Crompton get us? Point made. Crompton had a chance for a game winning drive near the 50. We netted zero first downs.
 
#49
#49
strongtower said:
UM yeah they were better. Cromptons turnovers were due to their defense. Crompton sure didn't have a problem against WKU. Their defense was all over the field. They made our O line look mediocre. Just look at our running game alone. Did we even break 100 yards? I never looked at the stats on running.

Yeah their qb did get them down the field. How many points did Crompton get us? Point made. Crompton had a chance for a game winning drive near the 50. We netted zero first downs.
Click to expand...

Crompton's first INT when he overthrew it 10 yds to a wide open Gerald Jones was because of UCLA's defense? The o-line looked mediocre because they're banged up and dealt with 8-9 men in the box most of the game. They still rushed for over 100.

I think you mean UT's QB got UCLA down the field. If you're gonna say they were better head to head, you need another example besides the QB position.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top