Can the UT haters stop getting their panties in a wad? Alabama won fair and square and no one is putting an asterisk on their national championship. Injuries are part of the game and no one is b!tching or whining. We're just discussing whether UT could/would have won...that's all. Bringing up Bradford's injury in the RRS is irrelevant. Do you want to start a thread asking Would OU have won if Bradford played? Go right ahead. Cause I would agree with you.
This, what we saw on the field was about Alabama reacting to what was going on with the other team. I'm not saying Texas loses if Colt plays, but I can't without a doubt say that simply having him in the game changes the outcome from a L to a W. Does Bama get to play the same card with their Heisman winning RB who was shredding the UT defense who sat out about half the game??
LOL, whether you think it should be is up for debate. But if you truly think no one will care or remember, you are absolutely clueless. Did you look at the front pages of Yahoo and ESPN yesterday? Lead stories weren't that Alabama won. It was the missed opportunities - Colt in particular - of Texas. If you don't think it should be remembered that way, that's your opinion and I respect that. But this is the winningest quarterback in the history of college football, a two-time Heisman finalist, and if you think "no one" will care or remember that he was injured and didn't get to play in his final game, that's just plain wrong. Sorry.
Or we could ask what if Alabama's QB was healthy this game. What if questions get you know where when you can't go rewind the situation.
I have NO idea why discussion of one hypothetical situation necessarily means several completely unrelatd ones must also be discussed - but... You've been pushing this inapt comparison for days, the answer: He would have still sucked. Alabama's receivers couldn't get open, and its line couldn't really pass block. hence the fact that he was sacked 5 times despite attempting only 20 passing plays. Combine that with the fact that his role all season was as a game manager whose major job was to hand off to INgram and Richardson, and try to compare it with Colt, who happens to be both the sole focus, both on passes and runs, of the entire offense, and you have a case of trying to compare a big giant watermelon with a grape. Not the same thing. That's why nobody is saying "well if Texas had starting LB Jared Norton, the whole thing would have been differnet!" - He has a different role than McCoy, and McElroy. You could have put in Gilbert for McElroy and Alabama probably would have won by even more. The answer to this question, one that pretty much has been unanimous among people everywhere that I've both talked to and read (not texas fans), is that the outcome would have been different, insofar as Texas' chance for victory would be enhanced, had the most accurate, most winningnest, most decorated, best quarterbacks in recent history been at the helm who was responsible for an abusrd share of his teams total offense rather than an 18 year old true freshman with almost no experience. It is not a crazy absurd off-base assumption to say this. As much as it might offend you as a horn hater.
That OU team lost to Florida if I recall. That Tim Tebow-led team that this year's Alabama squad trounced easily. And for the person who said McCoy "out-dueled" Bradford, I believe Bradford threw 5 TDs in that game to Colt's 1.
That Tim Tebow-led team had better weapons a year ago and beat Alabama. And if you're seriously using TD/INT ratio as evidence of anything, come on. You're better than that. Do you realize how ridiculous you sound? No impressive wins in his entire career? He beat the number one team in the country on a neutral site - a team that went on to play in the national championship game - and led his offense to 45 points in doing so. Can you please explain how that is not an "impressive" win? Seriously, what meets your criteria as impressive if that does not?
Bruh what in the hell are you talking about? I posted the article that he was hurt and did not mention anything after that until now so how have I been pushing this story all over the board? I haven't even been in the Texas/Bama debate.
How in the hell is what I said pathetic? I basically said the "what if" question get you know where because you can't prove anything. Did I say McElroy playing hurt is the equivalent to McCoy getting knocked out after throwing 2 passes?
I honestly just hate Colt McCoy, thats what this is about. I think he's way overrated and sucks mad. He's probably also a homo, but thats irrelevant.
You're saying McElroy would have been different if he was fully healthy... The man got sacked 5 times... 2 of those times IMO.. it was because of the Texas defense... the other 3 I would blame the offensive line for Bama. Still, I don't see how he could've been any better if he was fully healthy... it wasn't like he was doing terrible, the Texas D was just awesome.
I did not say he would be different. I said "what if" questions are pointless since you can't prove or go back and change the actual results. I'm still trying to figure out how I am a Texas Longhorns hater based off what I said in this thread. Nothing I said was hateful.
I don't know nor do I care. If was healthy I can't prove that he would be better and neither can you prove that he would be the same.
Don't worry Shaud, apparently if you aren't of the opinion that Colt McCoy was the 2nd coming of Vince Young and UT's Divine Right to the throne was unfairly stripped away from them by this horned god not being able to participate, then you must be a person whose sole purpose in life is to bring immense ill-will to all things Longhorn.
