Would you trade
Comments
-
Classy reparteednc said:
This team is a lot closer to being a title team than 89 was. I think we're more like 90 than 89. I just don't think we're good enough to hang with Bama or Clemson at their place.theknowledge said:Colorado was the champ in 90. Get over it. That was the landscape at that time. Not and apples to apples debate. I am attempting to squish a round peg into a square opening. You are a very smart poster. Line up the two eras, it makes sense. We aren't 90' because our talent isn't old enough. We are more akin to 89'. This year we should be better than 8-4 because Pete didn't crater out like James did in the late 80's. In 20' we should make a final four with a legit shot at winning a game and in 21' we should be one of the four teams with a real shot at winning it all. Different times. Expand your idea of what apples to oranges would look like.
Regardless, I have always appreciated your classy poasts.
Your point that we'll be better than 8-4 is well taken. We agree. -
You are correct and I was bleary eyed drunk. I don't even remember writing that.1to392831weretaken said:
Unless you own a time machine, you're going to want to move the apostrophes to the other side of those years. The apostrophe takes the place of the assumed numbers that are dropped.theknowledge said:If you think we are ready for a title this year then go-ahead. I feel this young team much like 89' will learn to be bad ass before the year is done. Our? schedule is easy. We should win a bunch. Probably enough for a NY6 but not final four. Beat a good, quality Power five school in a bowl. How about Florida? This year is about getting a leg up on next year and building for a title. This team is almost (almost, don't twist) as far from a title as the 89' team was. #Notreadyyet
Apparently I was #notreadyyet
-
Jesus, I feel like shit. We are on the same page, maybe just different paragraphs. I must have had sand in my vag last night. Even my apostrophe game was lacking. I'm going back to bed. I'm hoping when I wake up that Eason is officially named starter and I don't puke.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Classy reparteednc said:
This team is a lot closer to being a title team than 89 was. I think we're more like 90 than 89. I just don't think we're good enough to hang with Bama or Clemson at their place.theknowledge said:Colorado was the champ in 90. Get over it. That was the landscape at that time. Not and apples to apples debate. I am attempting to squish a round peg into a square opening. You are a very smart poster. Line up the two eras, it makes sense. We aren't 90' because our talent isn't old enough. We are more akin to 89'. This year we should be better than 8-4 because Pete didn't crater out like James did in the late 80's. In 20' we should make a final four with a legit shot at winning a game and in 21' we should be one of the four teams with a real shot at winning it all. Different times. Expand your idea of what apples to oranges would look like.
Regardless, I have always appreciated your classy poasts.
Your point that we'll be better than 8-4 is well taken. We agree.
-
Chinned for "fifth downed a game"dnc said:That Colorado team lost a game, tied a game and fifth downed a game.
They would get curb stomped by Clemson or Bama this year.
