• You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.

HuskerMax readers can save 50% on  Omaha Steaks .

Locked due to no posts in 60 days. Report 1st post if need unlocked Congratulations, Huskers!

Status
Not open for further replies.
gypsyhusker said:
Just an observation, but since the Utah game, it seemed that Stanford had pulled back on the passing game slightly. MSU was determined not to get beat by the run.
Click to expand...

Very astute. Shaw showed his inexperience (insecurity?) a little in the post-game presser when asked about his continuing to not go away from the run despite the lack of success, when he said something to the effect of "well, the way everyone jumped on me for going away from what we do best against Utah ...". (Fwiw, many got on him after Utah, when the Cardinal had third and one at the Utah 3 yard line with 50 seconds left, down five points, with Utah's D on its heels and gasping for breath after a long drive, and Shaw decided to throw the ball twice and lost the game. That situation, obviously, is much different than what they faced yesterday with the sellout to stop the run, which should have mandated a mid-game change in the game plan. Like many in the coaching profession, Shaw seems to have trouble pointing the finger at himself when appropriate.)
 
Last edited:

ThotDoc said:
I would imagine that all those bettors on Stanford that drove the line from -3 to -7 would have a few things to say about the play calling too. I had no doubt that Stanford would win or that they had the better team. I just didn't figure the coach would refuse to adjust.
Click to expand...

That was the one redeeming aspect of the game. I let the line get to -7, then I made a rather sizable toothpick wager on MSU on the money line at -200 (i.e., I got paid 2-1 for the outright win). Two reasons: (1) I thought all along that MSU was an even match for Stanford, so why not risk 1 to win 2 on the green? (2) With all that money pouring in on Stanford, that meant I was sitting with the wise guys in Vegas, which is always the side to be on, if possible, over the long run.

ThotDoc said:
Thought those Stanford types were smarter than that. :)
Click to expand...

He was a schollie athlete in his playing days there, which is a possible *. ;)
 
ChitownHusker said:
Agree on all counts. As much as it must have sucked to have been on the losing end of the Rose Bowl, I hope Cardinal that you can take some solace in that it was an extremely hard-fought and well-played game by both sides. From the perspective of a (relatively) disinterested observer, I thought it was an excellent football game.
Click to expand...

Yes, thanks Chi and cm. You win some, you lose some. And Shaw still has a long leash, as far as I am concerned, despite my bashing the job he did yesterday, unless yesterday becomes no longer an aberration. We all have bad days.
 
Last edited:
That was a helluva Rose Bowl....too bad somebody had to lose....

Congrats on a great season my friend....
 
Last edited:



Cardinal,
I'd like to hear your opinion
Seeing the 4th down play over and over again at the end of the Rose Bowl one thing kept going through my mind. Elsworth of Mich St. (1) left his feet (2) launched, and (3) made helmet-to-helmet contact. While probably not considered a defenseless player, it appears to me that the new rules regarding the making a tackle are enforced in an arbitrary fashion given the scenario being played out on the field. If Elsworth's hit was on a defenseless player it would have been a personal foul and disqualification. But, since it was on a player not considered defenseless you'd think that the launching helmet-to-helmet hit could be called a personal foul.

Maybe my weird brain is going down the wrong path....but...it does that often.
What say you?
 
bentNblue said:
Cardinal,
I'd like to hear your opinion
Seeing the 4th down play over and over again at the end of the Rose Bowl one thing kept going through my mind. Elsworth of Mich St. (1) left his feet (2) launched, and (3) made helmet-to-helmet contact. While probably not considered a defenseless player, it appears to me that the new rules regarding the making a tackle are enforced in an arbitrary fashion given the scenario being played out on the field. If Elsworth's hit was on a defenseless player it would have been a personal foul and disqualification. But, since it was on a player not considered defenseless you'd think that the launching helmet-to-helmet hit could be called a personal foul.

Maybe my weird brain is going down the wrong path....but...it does that often.
What say you?
Click to expand...

:)

Technically, I think you are probably correct. But practically, almost every RB that runs between the tackles frequently gets hit by the crown of the helmet of a LB or safety charging right at him. Maybe there is an unwritten rule that "what happens between the tackles, stays between the tackles." ;)
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
:)

Technically, I think you are probably correct. But practically, almost every RB that runs between the tackles frequently gets hit by the crown of the helmet by a LB or safety charging right at him. Maybe there is an unwritten rule that "what goes on between the tackles, stays between the tackles." ;)
Click to expand...

Not to mention there is helmet on helmet contact every play at the line of scrimmage.
 




It was a good game, I tell you what; MSU is going to be tough next season at MSU, I can see their recruiting class gaining MO after that win...
 



Status
Not open for further replies.

GET TICKETS


Get 50% off on Omaha Steaks

Back
Top