Reply With Quote
whoops lol
whoops lol
FkLA
That was nice tbh.
Game
Thanks for the jinx thread UTSA
Why would it be lol Arizona, anyways. There wasnt a PAC-12 team that wanted to go to this bowl, especially when Arizona was so linked to Vegas. In addition, it's right after Finals week, so you have a ty bowl at a ty time vs. a lesser opponant and it didn't surprise me they nearly lost ala Alabama vs. Utah in 2009 and so many other examples.
smh utsa per par
A PAC12 team losing to a middle tier MWC team is lol worthy regardless of when and where its played imo. Especially since Arizona was actually pretty good this year. Nice comeback though.
Anywho, good game to end a pretty up and down year. 8-5 was a lot more than I expected from a team that had several walk ons starting on defense every week but they lost two games that should have easily been wins. Next year the offense will probably be around as lethal as it was this year but more like what Rich Rod wants the offense to be. The defense getting better with almost every major piece returning and hopefully more talent coming in is what determines how much (if any) improvement well see.
Chucky Keaton is legit too tbh. Probably the best college player to step foot in the Alamodome.
They were ranked at times and hung with Oregon St and Stanford, not sure what was expected of them this year but that not bad for a basketball school like Arizona imo.
Don't try to change your argument from "they were pretty good" to "they were pretty good for a school like Arizona" they were a mediocre team that went 4-5 in the Pac and was starting 5 walk ons on defense every weak. 7-5 going into this game isn't "very good" regardless of what the school is.
I agree they weren't bad given the cir stances but that doesn't make them good. It makes them a mediocre team people expected to be flat out horrible.
They lost a game 66-10, how good could they possibly be?
I said 'they were actually pretty good' for a reason. The 'actually' entails that the fact that theyre usually terrible is being taken into account. Lets not turn this into another stupid argument though tbh.
Better than they normally are tbh.
And a game 49-0
They had one of the worst defenses in the country and were pretty abysmal on the road. It would have been a small upset if Nevada won but not really a big deal.
What's the stupid argument is pretending this was some historically great season for them or that they were much better than recent UA teams, they weren't at all. You're talking out of your ass.
If that's what you truly meant with "actually" (when it obviously wasn't), then why does the fact they're pretty good compared to the usually 'terrible' team they have relevant? It would mean all you're saying is they're a mediocre team that's only 'pretty good' compared to terrible teams, which wouldn't deserve to be lol'ed for losing to Nevada. You're talking out of both ends of your mouth trying to cover your tracks.
They have finished the regular season 7-5 or better 4 of the last 5 years and have had a final record of 8-5 3 of the last 5 years. This wasn't some historically good season for them like you seem to think it was. I'm not sure why you keep pretending to know so much about Arizona's football program.
OP his pants, now trying to act like it doesn't smell that bad
Where did historical season come from?
I never claimed or pretended to be an expert on Arizona football. Chill out and enjoy your bowl win .They have finished the regular season 7-5 or better 4 of the last 5 years and have had a final record of 8-5 3 of the last 5 years. This wasn't some historically good season for them like you seem to think it was. I'm not sure why you keep pretending to know so much about Arizona's football program.
Oh cool, semantics because you're pretending to not see hyperbole.
The way you've said, "They were much better than they normally are," multiple times you seem to know something about Arizona football no one else does.
In FkLA's world, a team going 8-5 that when that's been its finish 3 of the last 5 years is "much better than they normally are"
Huge difference between historic and good tbh.
I dont need to pretend to be an expert on them to know they havent been that good. I also said I didnt know what was expected of them this season, suggesting I dont follow them closely.The way you've said, "They were much better than they normally are," multiple times you seem to know something about Arizona football no one else does.
...and that was 4-8 and got destroyed by every ranked team they played last season.In FkLA's world, a team going 8-5 that when that's been its finish 3 of the last 5 years is "much better than they normally are"
Damn another crazy comeback for UA. Must be a great day to be a Wildcat tbh.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
