There are those on the message boards infuriated that reporters, commentators and commenters believe that Brigham Young won that game because Sam Bradford went down with an injury. What part of one-point difference don't they understand? If you were talking about any team losing its starting quarterback in the first half, any rational person would deduce that was the crucial factor in a one-point loss. If the starting quarterback doesn't make more than a one-point difference in the game, there is no logical justification for him to be starting instead of the number two quarterback. Does anybody really believe that if the BYU quarterback had been injured in the first half, and Brigham Young lost by one point, that a single Brigham Young fan, or any other fan, wouldn't be arguing until their face turned blue that Brigham Young would have beaten OU if their quarterback had not gone down? And Hall didn't win the Heisman Trophy last year.
Those who say Bradford had not done much in the first half by looking at statistics are ignoring the fact that the OU offensive gameplan was bent, rightly or wrongly, on establishing the run, at least in the first half, probably to give the new offensive line a chance to get their feet under them. Bradford only threw 14 passes, five of which were on that final drive before the half when clock management dictated throwing the ball.
Of course they are right in one respect. Even with second string quarterback Landry Jones, Oklahoma was the better team and should have won the game. Without an obscene number of penalties and uncharacteristic fumbles, OU could have had a two touchdown cushion for Jones. No doubt, Oklahoma self-destructed. Even before Bradford went down, I told my son that we didn't deserve to win this game. Shoddy play proved to be OU's undoing. It is sadly ironic that despite playing the worst football I think I have ever seen from an OU team, we had a chance to win that game on a field goal in the final seconds, only to turn what would have been a longshot into something that would have required a miracle because of yet another stupid penalty, the sixth by the same offensive lineman.
When you lose like that, there are no excuses. But saying losing a Heisman Trophy quarterback affected the outcome of a one point game isn't an excuse, it is simply reasonable.
Daniella Sarahyba
Kim Cloutier
Sled Hockey
Heisman Moments: Closest Finishes
Comments (11) Add A Comment
Suck it up you guys lost. The pats lost tom brady and we went on. The sooners are not done.
Army of Adam
Total Comments (6990)
Did losing Brady affect your won loss record? Did it keep you from the SuperBowl?
RMutt
Chesapeake , VA
Total Comments (33)
Actually no, other teams in that division, playing good football did.
BYU's defense was the winner of that game, out right. It held a team that averaged 50+ points a game last year, to 10 in the first half, with your heisman QB and 14 all game.
No doubt that Bradford's injury made an impact on the game, heck BYU's coach even said so, but that's part of the game, nothing you can do but move on.
Steveo16220 says:…
Total Comments (6142)
Steve,
So you are saying that Tom Brady doesn't make even one game's difference? Then why all the adulation heaped upon Brady? Hell, if that is the case he doesn't even belong in the HOF. Great QBs are difference makers.
Which was, of course, my point.
Injuries are part of the game, and OU should have been more prepared. But to insist that BYU would have won that game with Bradford in the game is just plain asinine.
RMutt
Chesapeake , VA
Total Comments (33)
Who really cares IF they would have won? They simply didn't.
And, if BYU loses another game this year in their tremendously difficult conference, OU will look like a sucker. I suspect Bradford should have gone pro last year, and I am sure he is second guessing his decision.
The OU line is not what it was last year. I bet OU loses 3 games this year, and that will not happen entirely while Bradford is absent.
OU's 2009 Losses
BYU
Miami
Texas
their bowl game
gatorlonghorn
Washington, DC
Total Comments (429)
It's ok as an OU fan to not truly respect what the BYU defense had done all game, and that was dominate the line. Even with Bradford, the BYU defense would have stuffed the run at the line, forcing the FG. It was a well played defensive game. But when it really counted, BYU and Max Hall stepped up and made the plays.
Injuries are a part of the game. You can speculate all you want about how important Bradford is to OU, but consider that BYU was without their #1 RB, and 2 starting DBs for that game. Had Harvey played, I think it would have taken more than a healthy Bradford to win that game.
Stand UP
Corpus Christi, TX
Total Comments (102)
Actually I do respect how the BYU defense played. They dominated a line that was confused and inept. As the BYU coach noted, OU didn't have a true center to handle the line calls (both of OU's centers were injured) and his scheme was designed to exploit that.
OU was out a number of other players as well, not the least of which our All American TE, so the injury situation to start with was probably a wash.
While we are at it, let's mention that the OU defense held BYU to just 14 points.
RMutt
Chesapeake , VA
Total Comments (33)
Holding BYU to 14 was expected. It was OU not scoring 55 that was the surprise for most. I think the odds had OU at +22.
I am glad OU didn't fall any more than they did in the polls, it will be beneficial to both teams to have them ranked higher at the end of the season.
Stand UP
Corpus Christi, TX
Total Comments (102)
Yeah but you have a team and not one guy injures happen a good coach will get around them.
Army of Adam
Total Comments (6990)
I think OU was fortunate the score was not a more lop-sided in BYU's favor. Didn't BYU turn it over four times? If you can win with four turnovers then you are a pretty good team, especially defensively.
ESPNSUCKS
Total Comments (5)
Comment
Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.