The problem with the 4 int data point is that McCoy threw 3 ints against Nebraska, the only other good defense Texas played. However, the counter to this is that Alabama did not get much pressure on the Texas QB most of the night, so it’s unclear what would have happened.
Touche. :rolleyes:
No. What I’m saying is that you cannot assert that had McCoy NOT been injured, Texas was going to win. In other words, the fact of the injury did not establish the outcome, nor did it establish an outcome contrary to what would have been the case absent the injury.
Apparently I misread you then. I took: “It is stupid to assert that anything different in the way of who won would have happened with McCoy in the game” as an assertion that nothing would have been different if McCoy was in the game. Silly words.
And, regardless of how stupid you find it, I do assert that had McCoy been able to play the entire game healthy, that he wouldn’t have had 5 turnovers, that he would have done a better job than a freshman quarterback, and that the game would have been much closer.
LOL! I was about to post the same thing.
Stereotypes are bad… except when they’re not.
" I think that Bama dominated Texas ,and would have by a bigger margin if Colt stayed healthy."
If their first string QB was in the game they would have dominated more. Could you face your illogic. Perhaps you think Bama did them a favor, gave them a better chance to win ,by removing their No. 1 QB. It makes no sense. The logic flaw is yours.
I think what he is trying to say is that it also threw Alabama for a loop when McCoy was injured. Instead of the expected offense of Texas, they were now playing a team they had not prepared for… a team with a worse QB that would change their entire gameplan.
I think he also was saying that, in the 3rd Q, Alabama simply shut itself down, confident that the rookie QB couldn’t come from behind. Had they not, he is positing that 'Bama would have continued to smash its way through Texas to make points.
The error in this analysis seems to be the fact that, whatever else it did in the game, the 'Bama offense didn’t exactly smash its way to a lot of points. Most of its points came from short field possessions (I do remember one lengthy drive in the 4th Q that resulted in a missed FG of 52 yards, I think).
End of the story says something about being part of sponsorship deal. It’s not clear on whose deal. If it’s with the BCS, maybe they have to display it there.
Even if not, what’s wrong with fans getting a close look at it. Sounds cool.
<<aside>> Just imagine what a great world this would be if Walmart were a force for good rather than … well, you know
But back to the game.
For all me, Knute Rockne, you or anyone else knows **Garret Gilbert **is a better quarterback than McCoy.
So it was an advantage to Texas to have Gilbert in instead of McCoy. Or not. You never know. Look how the Titans improved when Young replaced Collins. Sports if full of examples of backups being better when they get a chance.
Think Kurt Warner igniting the Greatest Show on Turf.
Or dare I say, Tom Brady coming in when Bledsoe went down.
Even Johnny Unitas was a backup.
Etc.
Johnny Bench wasn’t though (loving on my boyhood hero)
I thought is was a very dramatic game in its way. Better than no football, which we are about to get a 7 month taste of
Only for very limited definitions of “football.” :rolleyes: 
5 turnovers. A 37.5% completion percentage. 186 yards total passing on 40 attempts. I think it’s pretty fair to say that Gilbert maybe become a better quarterback than McCoy, but in no way shape or form was he a better quarterback for that game.
He had 2 more touchdowns than McCoy for that game. 
McCoy 20/36 184 3int
You keep using a stat that is easily countered. Your point is valid that McCoy would certainly have done better, but we don’t know how much better and your stat is not that far from McCoy’s most recent other game.
Stats aside, McCoy has won more games than any quarterback in NCAA history and Gilbert hasn’t won any.
The McCoy injury threw both teams for a loop. Texas’s defense came out after halftime motivated and focused, Alabama’s offense completely shut it down after halftime, not wanting to do anything stupid. And Alabama’s defense began playing a prevent-type defense to which they were not accustomed, and completely screwed up plays that allowed Shipley to run free in the 3rd quarter.
My point is that the McCoy injury caused the game to progress in a completely divergent manner, relative to how it would have. Alabama prepared a whole month for a McCoy-led offense. It’s not crazy to believe that their primary target’s absence took the wind out of their sails, at least temporarily. And Alabama’s offense played “not to lose”, and never fully recovered.
Before the game, I thought that Alabama was about 14 points better per half than Texas, with both teams at full strength; i.e. Alabama wins by 4 TD’s. Since we will never know if I was correct, I stick with my pre-game belief.
Pot. Kettle.
You cherry pick one game out of his entire career and pretend it nullifies every other game he played. Yes, great point. Colt McCoy has had a bad game or two.
Great point. Wow. I’m stunned. Who’d thunk it. Why, I’m shocked that he was even considered the starter with Gilbert behind him, or in the running for the Heisman, or any of the dozens of awards he got. Or that he’s won more games than any quarterback in history. Because he had that game against Nebraska.
It is absolutely surprising to me that so many people seem to think that losing McCoy was no big deal, that Alabama would have won anyway, and that having to play a rookie quarterback who, in his only game so far, was absolutely horrible somehow was worse for Alabama. It’s just so nonsensical.
You misunderstand me. I think it was a big deal to lose McCoy. But the Nebraska point was not to say that McCoy had 1 bad game, it was to point out that against a very good defense, the Texas offense as a whole had difficulty. It’s not that McCoy threw 3 passes straight into the arms of defenders because he was having a bad game, the Nebraska defense created a high-pressure difficult situation in which those mistakes happen more easily.
And having watched Alabama play a number of other games, I was assuming going into the game that they too would do what Nebraska did by pressuring the Texas offense. Whether they actually would have or not is certainly up in the air because McCoy is a different person than the 2nd stringer.
Having said all of that, your initial comparison of McCoy’s year long interception rate is not the best stat to look at when trying to predict what would have happened in this game. A better stat would be to look at a team recently played with a similarly strong defense instead of other teams with much weaker defenses.
What the hell is wrong with you people? No one can say if Colt McCoy would have made any difference. IT DOES NOT MATTER. Alabama played the Texas team that was fielded against them, and beat them.