Jump to content

BYU @ The University of Texas


whatnamecanipick

Recommended Posts

Epinosa is out.

 

Ash is out too.

 

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/09/01/charlie-strong-starting-qb-david-ash-out-against-byu/

 

Look out world here comes Swoopes and Heard.

Look out world, here comes Taysom Hill and much of the same personnel on both the BYU offense and the Texas defense as last year.  Doesn't bode well for the Horns.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think BYU will have to pass the ball some and be successful at it in order to come a way with a win. No way longhorns allow them to run the ball on them like last year. They will do everything they can to stop that rush attack.


Taysom Hill's numbers against UConn last week

28-36. 308 yards. 3tds
12 rushes 97 yards. 2tds

The kid can play
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Texas defense will not want a repeat of last year, so I expect their best effort here.  With Ash out, the Texas defense may have to win the game.  With the majority of the BYU offense back from last year, BYU is probably the better team right now.  The coaches may be different, but the players remain the same.  Certainly, Texas can win but my money is on BYU.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel more confident with this coaching staff and Swoopes/Heard than I did with last years staff and Case McCoy. Notice the second coaching is missing.

 

"We have a football team, and we have to go play," Strong said. "You have players and that's why you have scholarships. It's not all about one person. Other players have got to step up, other players have got to play. It can happen to any team at any second."

 

Wrote Espinosa: "Tough times don't last, tough people do..even though I won't be on the field going to battle, you can count on me leading this team in the right direction from the sideline. I have faith in the direction this ship is headed, and we aren't turning back now. The mouthpiece has been traded in for the whistle. Now let's get to work."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined



  • Posts

    • We'll see. I don't trust us. 
    • Starting pitching has been shaky the last few weeks due to some injuries outside of Hagen Smith.  He goes tomorrow, so y’all should be fine 
    • Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
    • MODS please remove that ISD twitter link! I had no idea it would copy the whole posting. I only highlighted the portion about the venue change. Sorry about that!
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...