Brett Smith: Greatest QB in WYO history.

[Cuttslam]

Again...the wins argument or lack of wins is on DC. not Brett.
If you put Brett on any of the great teams who has had, then those teams are even better. That's what makes him the best. Put some of the more winning QBs on this team and we still don't have a 5th win.

Come on Beaver, the lack of wins is on everybody, EVERYBODY.

 

[kansasCowboy]

Again...the wins argument or lack of wins is on DC. not Brett.
If you put Brett on any of the great teams who has had, then those teams are even better. That's what makes him the best. Put some of the more winning QBs on this team and we still don't have a 5th win.

Not according to your self-appointed protector, resident high school football coach, and all-around football expert kanasasCowboy...

And there ya go being a dick again. I'm not even in this conversation, don't be trying to start shit with me.

 

[kansasCowboy]

Wonder what Walwork's numbers would look like if he would have had 4 years with Tiller.

I wonder what Wallworks numbers would be if he played for this team? You know, the surrounding cast is vastly different from the 96 offense. We have some good WRs, but none are at the level of Marcus Harris. Wallwork was a one deminsional QB as well, he couldn't run away from a slug. If Brett was throwing to Harris 10 to 14 times a game like Wallwork did plus continued with his mobility, Smith would've been unstoppable in 96.

 

[Pokes Forever]

A snapshot of Wyo Quarterbacks.....note that in this table, Smith is at 23 games while Wallwork had 22 in his career......this does not include this seasons stats so the coaching should not be a factor and the way some of you keep dissing Tiller, coaching should be moot.

http://www.totalfootballstats.com/PassingLeaders_Career.asp?id=172" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[BeaverPoke]

Again...the wins argument or lack of wins is on DC. not Brett.
If you put Brett on any of the great teams who has had, then those teams are even better. That's what makes him the best. Put some of the more winning QBs on this team and we still don't have a 5th win.

Not according to your self-appointed protector, resident high school football coach, and all-around football expert kanasasCowboy...

And there ya go being a dick again. I'm not even in this conversation, don't be trying to start shit with me.

+1.

There are a handful of people on here who are constantly looking for posts made by certain members just to start a fight.
And everyone knows who they are.

 

[Wyovanian]

Again...the wins argument or lack of wins is on DC. not Brett.
If you put Brett on any of the great teams who has had, then those teams are even better. That's what makes him the best. Put some of the more winning QBs on this team and we still don't have a 5th win.

Not according to your self-appointed protector, resident high school football coach, and all-around football expert kanasasCowboy...

And there ya go being a dick again. I'm not even in this conversation, don't be trying to start shit with me.

+1.

There are a handful of people on here who are constantly looking for posts made by certain members just to start a fight.
And everyone knows who they are.

Or another way to look at it is there are a few people on here who make some pretty dumb-ass comments, then when challenged on them, resort to name calling and circular logic. And everyone knows who they are.

Have you ever intelligently defended something you've said without getting butt-hurt about it? Ever?

 

[wyokoke]

Again...the wins argument or lack of wins is on DC. not Brett.
If you put Brett on any of the great teams who has had, then those teams are even better. That's what makes him the best. Put some of the more winning QBs on this team and we still don't have a 5th win.

Not according to your self-appointed protector, resident high school football coach, and all-around football expert kanasasCowboy...

And there ya go being a dick again. I'm not even in this conversation, don't be trying to start shit with me.

+1.

There are a handful of people on here who are constantly looking for posts made by certain members just to start a fight.
And everyone knows who they are.

Or another way to look at it is there are a few people on hear who make some pretty dumb-ass comments, then when challenged on them, resort to name calling and circular logic. And everyone knows who they are.

Have you ever intelligently defended something you've said without getting butt-hurt about it? Ever?

opcorn: opcorn:

 

[BeaverPoke]

Again...the wins argument or lack of wins is on DC. not Brett.
If you put Brett on any of the great teams who has had, then those teams are even better. That's what makes him the best. Put some of the more winning QBs on this team and we still don't have a 5th win.

Not according to your self-appointed protector, resident high school football coach, and all-around football expert kanasasCowboy...

And there ya go being a dick again. I'm not even in this conversation, don't be trying to start shit with me.

+1.

There are a handful of people on here who are constantly looking for posts made by certain members just to start a fight.
And everyone knows who they are.

Or another way to look at it is there are a few people on hear who make some pretty dumb-ass comments, then when challenged on them, resort to name calling and circular logic. And everyone knows who they are.

Have you ever intelligently defended something you've said without getting butt-hurt about it? Ever?

:lol:
Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Wyovanian]

Again...the wins argument or lack of wins is on DC. not Brett.
If you put Brett on any of the great teams who has had, then those teams are even better. That's what makes him the best. Put some of the more winning QBs on this team and we still don't have a 5th win.

Not according to your self-appointed protector, resident high school football coach, and all-around football expert kanasasCowboy...

And there ya go being a dick again. I'm not even in this conversation, don't be trying to start shit with me.

+1.

There are a handful of people on here who are constantly looking for posts made by certain members just to start a fight.
And everyone knows who they are.

Or another way to look at it is there are a few people on hear who make some pretty dumb-ass comments, then when challenged on them, resort to name calling and circular logic. And everyone knows who they are.

Have you ever intelligently defended something you've said without getting butt-hurt about it? Ever?

:lol:
Thanks for proving my point.

You had a point? Wow. Mark this day on the calendar and pin this post!

:dance:

 

[kansasCowboy]

Again...the wins argument or lack of wins is on DC. not Brett.
If you put Brett on any of the great teams who has had, then those teams are even better. That's what makes him the best. Put some of the more winning QBs on this team and we still don't have a 5th win.

Not according to your self-appointed protector, resident high school football coach, and all-around football expert kanasasCowboy...

And there ya go being a dick again. I'm not even in this conversation, don't be trying to start shit with me.

+1.

There are a handful of people on here who are constantly looking for posts made by certain members just to start a fight.
And everyone knows who they are.

Or another way to look at it is there are a few people on hear who make some pretty dumb-ass comments, then when challenged on them, resort to name calling and circular logic. And everyone knows who they are.

Have you ever intelligently defended something you've said without getting butt-hurt about it? Ever?

Every time I've discussed something and you come in calling me out. Then you just resort to your movie and book quotes without bringing logic into your own reasoning.

 

[Wyovanian]

Again...the wins argument or lack of wins is on DC. not Brett.
If you put Brett on any of the great teams who has had, then those teams are even better. That's what makes him the best. Put some of the more winning QBs on this team and we still don't have a 5th win.

Not according to your self-appointed protector, resident high school football coach, and all-around football expert kanasasCowboy...

And there ya go being a dick again. I'm not even in this conversation, don't be trying to start shit with me.

+1.

There are a handful of people on here who are constantly looking for posts made by certain members just to start a fight.
And everyone knows who they are.

Or another way to look at it is there are a few people on hear who make some pretty dumb-ass comments, then when challenged on them, resort to name calling and circular logic. And everyone knows who they are.

Have you ever intelligently defended something you've said without getting butt-hurt about it? Ever?

Every time I've discussed something and you come in calling me out. Then you just resort to your movie and book quotes without bringing logic into your own reasoning.

Perhaps the oblique sub-reference was a bit too oblique for someone who dislikes sub-reference?

"Say when."

 

[Pokes Forever]

"Playing against the "worst" schedule of opponents in the last 50 plus years. Seriously, even BYUs 14-1 record that year still gave our opponents a combined 60-80 record. Other than BYU who else did we play with even a significant record that year? SDS 8-3, and AFA 6-5. Pretty much everyone else was 0 to 4 win teams. I'm serious we haven't had a scheduled season like that since. Thank God! We've actually gained in our SOS. This years team probably would have had 8 to 10 wins playing 96's competition."

And the logic here is????? The teams that we have beaten a combined 7 total wins this year and we have been rolled by everyone else with the exception of Neb and SJSU....still losses none the less. In 96 AFA, Idaho and CSU all had winning records and we beat them....and by the way ended the year ranked 22nd.....when was the last time we have beaten a team with a winning record? How can you even consider that this team would have 8 to 10 wins? Not following the logic?

 

[Pokes Forever]

"Playing against the "worst" schedule of opponents in the last 50 plus years. Seriously, even BYUs 14-1 record that year still gave our opponents a combined 60-80 record. Other than BYU who else did we play with even a significant record that year? SDS 8-3, and AFA 6-5. Pretty much everyone else was 0 to 4 win teams. I'm serious we haven't had a scheduled season like that since. Thank God! We've actually gained in our SOS. This years team probably would have had 8 to 10 wins playing 96's competition."

And the logic here is????? The teams that we have beaten a combined 7 total wins this year and we have been rolled by everyone else with the exception of Neb and SJSU....still losses none the less. In 96 AFA, Idaho and CSU all had winning records and we beat them....and by the way ended the year ranked 22nd.....when was the last time we have beaten a team with a winning record? How can you even consider that this team would have 8 to 10 wins? Not following the logic?

Also Kansas, the 96 team did not go bowling as back then 6-6 and 7-5 teams were not invited to third tier BS bowls!

 

[kansasCowboy]

"Playing against the "worst" schedule of opponents in the last 50 plus years. Seriously, even BYUs 14-1 record that year still gave our opponents a combined 60-80 record. Other than BYU who else did we play with even a significant record that year? SDS 8-3, and AFA 6-5. Pretty much everyone else was 0 to 4 win teams. I'm serious we haven't had a scheduled season like that since. Thank God! We've actually gained in our SOS. This years team probably would have had 8 to 10 wins playing 96's competition."

And the logic here is????? The teams that we have beaten a combined 7 total wins this year and we have been rolled by everyone else with the exception of Neb and SJSU....still losses none the less. In 96 AFA, Idaho and CSU all had winning records and we beat them....and by the way ended the year ranked 22nd.....when was the last time we have beaten a team with a winning record? How can you even consider that this team would have 8 to 10 wins? Not following the logic?

Also Kansas, the 96 team did not go bowling as back then 6-6 and 7-5 teams were not invited to third tier BS bowls!

Are you sure? Yup, we were 10-2, we were 22 in the polls... And we are the only ranked team to not go to a bowl game (pinning not taking an invite or be ineligible due to infractions). Why? Because of our week schedule and low attendance. Do you know who did get our bowl game???? If we would have beat BYU we were supposed to go to the Cotton Bowl, if we lost we were projected invites to Copper Bowl or the Sun Bowl. The Copper Bowl took two good teams : 8-4 Utah and 8-5 Wisc. The Sun never even gave us the invite to play 7-5 Stanford, they instead gave it to (6-5) Mich St!!! According to you neither of them should've been in a bowl game... And 10-2 WYO, ranked 22 in the nation stayed home.

Just to let you know Stanford killed Mich St. 38-0. Making MSU tied with Cal that year as the bowl teams with the worst records at 6-6...

Have you had enough logic and facts?

 

[Pokes Forever]

"Playing against the "worst" schedule of opponents in the last 50 plus years. Seriously, even BYUs 14-1 record that year still gave our opponents a combined 60-80 record. Other than BYU who else did we play with even a significant record that year? SDS 8-3, and AFA 6-5. Pretty much everyone else was 0 to 4 win teams. I'm serious we haven't had a scheduled season like that since. Thank God! We've actually gained in our SOS. This years team probably would have had 8 to 10 wins playing 96's competition."

And the logic here is????? The teams that we have beaten a combined 7 total wins this year and we have been rolled by everyone else with the exception of Neb and SJSU....still losses none the less. In 96 AFA, Idaho and CSU all had winning records and we beat them....and by the way ended the year ranked 22nd.....when was the last time we have beaten a team with a winning record? How can you even consider that this team would have 8 to 10 wins? Not following the logic?

Also Kansas, the 96 team did not go bowling as back then 6-6 and 7-5 teams were not invited to third tier BS bowls!

Are you sure? Yup, we were 10-2, we were 22 in the polls... And we are the only ranked team to not go to a bowl game (pinning not taking an invite or be ineligible due to infractions). Why? Because of our week schedule and low attendance. Do you know who did get our bowl game???? If we would have beat BYU we were supposed to go to the Cotton Bowl, if we lost we were projected invites to Copper Bowl or the Sun Bowl. The Copper Bowl took two good teams : 8-4 Utah and 8-5 Wisc. The Sun never even gave us the invite to play 7-5 Stanford, they instead gave it to (6-5) Mich St!!! According to you neither of them should've been in a bowl game... And 10-2 WYO, ranked 22 in the nation stayed home.

Just to let you know Stanford killed Mich St. 38-0. Making MSU tied with Cal that year as the bowl teams with the worst records at 6-6...

Have you had enough logic and facts?

Still not quite following your logic? The SOS for this team is around 110, pretty daunting I guess according to your logic....the fact remains that the 96 team lined up every week against the teams that they were scheduled against and won 10 times 6 of which were double digit wins.....this years team has been out scored 349-309 and over the last four games 199-83 and been pummeled by teams they were favorites over! They easily could have won 8-10 games against the 96 schedule......not! The 96 team did finish the season ranked and whether you think they were deserving or not is your opinion.....I think they were screwed as even back then the super conferences had ins with the limited number of bowls available...thanks for the recap BTW. Big difference in being bowl eligible and bowl worthy! Here are some facts that you failed to address.....Fact, Last time Wyo beat a team with a winning record was Nov 2011, Air Force. Fact, Wyoming's win this year came against teams with a combined total of 7 wins. Fact, this team is not worthy of playing in a bowl. Fact, great players compete every week and lately, Smith has not fit that bill....I said in an earlier post he has the numbers but right now he is not the greatest.
That is what I think of your facts and logic.

 

[kansasCowboy]

Still not quite following your logic? The SOS for this team is around 110, pretty daunting I guess according to your logic....the fact remains that the 96 team lined up every week against the teams that they were scheduled against and won 10 times 6 of which were double digit wins.....this years team has been out scored 349-309 and over the last four games 199-83 and been pummeled by teams they were favorites over! They easily could have won 8-10 games against the 96 schedule......not! The 96 team did finish the season ranked and whether you think they were deserving or not is your opinion.....I think they were screwed as even back then the super conferences had ins with the limited number of bowls available...thanks for the recap BTW. Big difference in being bowl eligible and bowl worthy! Here are some facts that you failed to address.....Fact, Last time Wyo beat a team with a winning record was Nov 2011, Air Force. Fact, Wyoming's win this year came against teams with a combined total of 7 wins. Fact, this team is not worthy of playing in a bowl. Fact, great players compete every week and lately, Smith has not fit that bill....I said in an earlier post he has the numbers but right now he is not the greatest.
That is what I think of your facts and logic.

Oh, forgive me. I didn't bring up the latest win against a winning team. I'm not saying our schedule this year is daunting. What I was getting at was the winning teams we've played this year are far stronger than the winning teams we played in 96. Seriously, BYU was our only good opponent. Well let's say they match Fresno this year. Who else compares? I don't think an 8-3 SDSU compares to a 7-3 Neb. And a 7-5 CSU doesn't compare to a 7-3 Boise. Now a 6-5 AFA and current 6-4 USU, maybe. But not a first year Division 1 team 6-5 Idaho compare to either a 6-5 CSU or a 6-4 Tex St. Our competition is actually stronger this year.
And for your other "facts", I never argued against those points. I don't think we are now worthy this year. I think Smith has done as good a job as he possibly can. You want to call him shaky, but, if the guy can't get 3 seconds to throw the football and has to scramble for his life EVERY play, even your "greatest" QB is going to look "shaky" that's why I said to think of the "Great" Wallwork on this years team. Yes it's a speculation, but seriously, Wallworks numbers I really dnt think would come close to matching Smiths right now. That's why I brought up the surrounding cast between what each player had available to them.
You know, facts, logic, speculation, opinion. These are what people come here for. Not the personal attacks to which I witnessed earlier above with Wyovanian, to which you then started in on me. Are you Wyovanians personal protector? Like I apparently am to Beave (as mentioned in a previous post, made as a snide comment to try and ruffle feathers).

 

[Pokes Forever]

Still not quite following your logic? The SOS for this team is around 110, pretty daunting I guess according to your logic....the fact remains that the 96 team lined up every week against the teams that they were scheduled against and won 10 times 6 of which were double digit wins.....this years team has been out scored 349-309 and over the last four games 199-83 and been pummeled by teams they were favorites over! They easily could have won 8-10 games against the 96 schedule......not! The 96 team did finish the season ranked and whether you think they were deserving or not is your opinion.....I think they were screwed as even back then the super conferences had ins with the limited number of bowls available...thanks for the recap BTW. Big difference in being bowl eligible and bowl worthy! Here are some facts that you failed to address.....Fact, Last time Wyo beat a team with a winning record was Nov 2011, Air Force. Fact, Wyoming's win this year came against teams with a combined total of 7 wins. Fact, this team is not worthy of playing in a bowl. Fact, great players compete every week and lately, Smith has not fit that bill....I said in an earlier post he has the numbers but right now he is not the greatest.
That is what I think of your facts and logic.

Oh, forgive me. I didn't bring up the latest win against a winning team. I'm not saying our schedule this year is daunting. What I was getting at was the winning teams we've played this year are far stronger than the winning teams we played in 96. Seriously, BYU was our only good opponent. Well let's say they match Fresno this year. Who else compares? I don't think an 8-3 SDSU compares to a 7-3 Neb. And a 7-5 CSU doesn't compare to a 7-3 Boise. Now a 6-5 AFA and current 6-4 USU, maybe. But not a first year Division 1 team 6-5 Idaho compare to either a 6-5 CSU or a 6-4 Tex St. Our competition is actually stronger this year.
And for your other "facts", I never argued against those points. I don't think we are now worthy this year. I think Smith has done as good a job as he possibly can. You want to call him shaky, but, if the guy can't get 3 seconds to throw the football and has to scramble for his life EVERY play, even your "greatest" QB is going to look "shaky" that's why I said to think of the "Great" Wallwork on this years team. Yes it's a speculation, but seriously, Wallworks numbers I really dnt think would come close to matching Smiths right now. That's why I brought up the surrounding cast between what each player had available to them.
You know, facts, logic, speculation, opinion. These are what people come here for. Not the personal attacks to which I witnessed earlier above with Wyovanian, to which you then started in on me. Are you Wyovanians personal protector? Like I apparently am to Beave (as mentioned in a previous post, made as a snide comment to try and ruffle feathers).

Pretty sure Wyovanian does a fine job by himself....my concern was your reference to logic. It's great thet BP has YankPoke and yourself covering his 6!

 

[kansasCowboy]

Still not quite following your logic? The SOS for this team is around 110, pretty daunting I guess according to your logic....the fact remains that the 96 team lined up every week against the teams that they were scheduled against and won 10 times 6 of which were double digit wins.....this years team has been out scored 349-309 and over the last four games 199-83 and been pummeled by teams they were favorites over! They easily could have won 8-10 games against the 96 schedule......not! The 96 team did finish the season ranked and whether you think they were deserving or not is your opinion.....I think they were screwed as even back then the super conferences had ins with the limited number of bowls available...thanks for the recap BTW. Big difference in being bowl eligible and bowl worthy! Here are some facts that you failed to address.....Fact, Last time Wyo beat a team with a winning record was Nov 2011, Air Force. Fact, Wyoming's win this year came against teams with a combined total of 7 wins. Fact, this team is not worthy of playing in a bowl. Fact, great players compete every week and lately, Smith has not fit that bill....I said in an earlier post he has the numbers but right now he is not the greatest.
That is what I think of your facts and logic.

Oh, forgive me. I didn't bring up the latest win against a winning team. I'm not saying our schedule this year is daunting. What I was getting at was the winning teams we've played this year are far stronger than the winning teams we played in 96. Seriously, BYU was our only good opponent. Well let's say they match Fresno this year. Who else compares? I don't think an 8-3 SDSU compares to a 7-3 Neb. And a 7-5 CSU doesn't compare to a 7-3 Boise. Now a 6-5 AFA and current 6-4 USU, maybe. But not a first year Division 1 team 6-5 Idaho compare to either a 6-5 CSU or a 6-4 Tex St. Our competition is actually stronger this year.
And for your other "facts", I never argued against those points. I don't think we are now worthy this year. I think Smith has done as good a job as he possibly can. You want to call him shaky, but, if the guy can't get 3 seconds to throw the football and has to scramble for his life EVERY play, even your "greatest" QB is going to look "shaky" that's why I said to think of the "Great" Wallwork on this years team. Yes it's a speculation, but seriously, Wallworks numbers I really dnt think would come close to matching Smiths right now. That's why I brought up the surrounding cast between what each player had available to them.
You know, facts, logic, speculation, opinion. These are what people come here for. Not the personal attacks to which I witnessed earlier above with Wyovanian, to which you then started in on me. Are you Wyovanians personal protector? Like I apparently am to Beave (as mentioned in a previous post, made as a snide comment to try and ruffle feathers).

Pretty sure Wyovanian does a fine job by himself....my concern was your reference to logic. It's great thet BP has YankPoke and yourself covering his 6!

I don't cover anyone on here except myself. I just happen to agree with Beav most of the time. I don't come on here to have confrontation. I come on here to talk Cowboy athletics. You and whoever else don't have to get a bee in your bonnet just because we don't happen to agree on different subjects. I generally take it with a grain of salt and when I need to offer my own opinion, speculation, logic and I also reach into the books and bust out the facts.

 

[BeaverPoke]

This board is so intense lol.
I wonder what the USC board was like earlier this season, or the Alabama board during losing seasons.

 

[Wyovanian]

This board is so intense lol.
I wonder what the USC board was like earlier this season, or the Alabama board during losing seasons.

Kind of speaks to the findings of Sternberg's commission, no? A culture lacking in expectations of excellence.