|
Post by jackedforlife on Nov 23, 2017 17:16:15 GMT -6
I haven't seen so much of the classless SDSU folks until I just saw on twitter the SDSU line coach touting his QB as #therealMVP. His theory is that TC has more TD's in conference play...25 to Streveler's 20. I'm all for coaches standing up for their players but to go on social media and make that statement is truly mindboggling. You want to do that behind the scene, AMEN I'm all for it. But for a coach to go on social media is in my opinion completely and totally classless. You don't see NDSU or WIU or any other school out there acting like that. Coach Eck act like an adult and leave the social media bashing to the fans. You should be ashamed of yourself. Classless? Please...he’s supporting his QB, nothing he’s saying is disrespectful of your QB...Strevie has had a great season no doubt, Eck states facts and gave his opinion. The other part of it was the fact Zimmer voted for Streveler and they gave him guff over it. Teasing Zim and making their case for TC who’s had a pretty decent season so far as well. There are classless things like standing over an injured player and more...but standing up for a guy who’s led your team to a 9-2 record on social media is not classless. smh
|
|
|
Post by jackedforlife on Nov 19, 2017 22:37:53 GMT -6
The main difference here is Gray launched with the crown of the helmet upward with about 4-5 yards head of steam, coupled with Genant's head of steam. Normally head to head collisions are from a 3 point stance a yard apart from each other. I believe if Gray makes contact but doesn't drive upward there's no foul. It's his upward momentum that looks and is bad and ultimately causes the injury. The upward thrust I agree stands out. But think of all the blitz pickup blocks OL have against LB'ers and Safeties - almost all are helmet to helmet and running start hits. Never (almost) called. Then maybe we are in agreement that the upward thrust with the crown is the bad part of this play. I'll call out one of our guys now with the play at 2:33:56. Your RB was down, whistle blown and 95 Stacker tried to punch the ball out. Bush league there...but I also saw the DB do that to Goedert after his highlight catch, I believe it was Gray(9) trying to punch it out of TC's hands when we were backed up after the goalline stand and 44 do it to TC after the final kneel down. Frustrating to lose but that's unnecessary. Chippy play on both sides at times...rivalry, sure but we are both better than that.
|
|
|
Post by jackedforlife on Nov 19, 2017 22:21:23 GMT -6
He drives upward with the crown of the helmet...But yes, if it knocks the player out or is injured and the reply official has that time to see it. Hits that look similar to that may happen but might not get called because the other guy doesn't get injured and plays go on. That may also mean it wasn't as egregious if it didn't injure someone, that's a good thing. Look, if it was reversed and it was a Jacks player that had this hit I be arguing this point just the same on our board. I don't doubt you would be consistent with your view. My challenge to you would be to watch a complete game of just the OL and watch how many hits (helmet to helmet similar to that) happen in the course of a game. Just like your example of being able to review holding after the fact there would be a hold every play. I would say there would be a helmet to helmet targeting several times a game. The main difference here is Gray launched with the crown of the helmet upward with about 4-5 yards head of steam, coupled with Genant's head of steam. Normally head to head collisions are from a 3 point stance a yard apart from each other. I believe if Gray makes contact but doesn't drive upward there's no foul. It's his upward momentum that looks and is bad and ultimately causes the injury.
|
|
|
Post by jackedforlife on Nov 19, 2017 22:05:53 GMT -6
And that type of Helmet to Helmet contact happens every game multiple times between LBers Safeties and OL - Never gets called. Technically I agree with you - it fits the definition. It is just never called. So it should only be called if the receiving party is injured and play stops long enough for the refs to check the film? He drives upward with the crown of the helmet...But yes, if it knocks the player out or is injured and the reply official has that time to see it. Hits that look similar to that may happen but might not get called because the other guy doesn't get injured and plays go on. That may also mean it wasn't as egregious if it didn't injure someone, that's a good thing. Look, if it was reversed and it was a Jacks player that had this hit I be arguing this point just the same on our board.
|
|
|
Post by jackedforlife on Nov 19, 2017 21:57:52 GMT -6
Targeting is such a dumb rule. They've gone way too far with it. There wasn't even a flag on the play (right?), it's too much for me that they can review for something that wasn't even called on the field and then eject the player for the next half of a game. Well I think when it comes to player safety they're going to be able to look it over. Just be thankful they can't use replay to call holds. There'd be a penalty on almost every play. There are many who think they've gone too far with it. But it's a rule for now and until it gets evaluated and changed it's here to stay. We had one called earlier in the season on our Safety Farina...it's part of the game.
|
|
|
Post by jackedforlife on Nov 19, 2017 21:45:27 GMT -6
It's a defensive back taking on a block from a charging offensive lineman who outweighs him by 100 pounds. Holy Christ, are we really debating this? That is the kind of bizzaro call that only a MVFC officiating crew can make. Has anybody ever seen a call like that made in any football game ever? Yeah, can't quite let it go I guess. Yes we're debating this or at least I will as sensibly as possible if you're open to said debate. Go to the espn3 replay, 2:21:13 mark is when the play happens. First off it was your LB 6'3 225# vs an OL 6'4 300#, he gave up some weight but could have chosen not to engage. He was a pulling guard looking to kick out the LB which would be Gray. Gray diagnoses it rather well and engages Genant, turning the RB inside. The trouble is as Gray engages he leads and launches with the crown of his helmet, delivering what is essentially an uppercut punch. Hence Genant dropping to his knees. A hit like that is as dangerous for Gray in regards to neck and spinal cord injuries. What I find interesting is that at the conclusion of the play Gray immediately turns and looks back to where Genant is. I believe he knows that hit was a hard hit. Do I think Gray was fully intentional in trying to injure, not at all. He did intend to deliver a blow though, he wasn't trying to shed the block. The speed of the game is crazy. Bizarro call? No, it was the correct call, that's why it is reveiwed. Someone mentioned the Backhaus hit should've been targeting. I'd like to know when that happened to see the replay. I'm remembering he was blocked into that play. I'd like to see it again though The definition of the targeting rule: "No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI) Note 1: "Targeting" means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to: Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area. Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet"
|
|
|
Post by jackedforlife on Nov 19, 2017 13:59:36 GMT -6
Hmmm, maybe he puts his head to the side or maybe he avoids contact. Regardless he engaged, drove up through the contact under the face mask with the crown of his helmet. If it was a Jack I’d see it the same. Maybe he didn’t have a choice to avoid the contact but he has the option not to drive upward.
I do not believe there is an appeal on this call, that’s why they review it during the game.
I’m out on this subject now...
|
|
|
Post by jackedforlife on Nov 19, 2017 10:02:38 GMT -6
In regards to the Gray targeting call, in the slow motion replay there is the collision and he drives up with his helmet into the chin, uppercut style. That is targeting, I’m amazed an official saw it in real time. There were plenty of holds on both teams yesterday that they failed to see. Cramping issue, I can only remember different 2 guys that cramped up. The fact that Cox was the one that cramped several times is your indicator. Even your former player/color commentator said in a high stakes rival game your juices are flowing. Anyone who’s played or exercised should know once you cramp you’re susceptible to them the rest of the game. 3rd and long Cox generally isn’t in there so that’s why you wouldn’t see it then. There’s a difference beteeen cramping and injury. To suggest a player sits a certain amount of time is asinine. By rule the Gray hit was targeting, but so was the late hit by Logan Backhaus it was targeting as well. Hmmm, not sure. I was thinking he was blocked into the play. Thats at least what I remember. But if he wasn’t blocked into it I may agree with you there.
|
|
|
Post by jackedforlife on Nov 19, 2017 10:00:30 GMT -6
If a player cannot go a few plays without cramping up then he should be held out of the game. It's a safety issue. I don't believe any of it though. It was a planned tactic used to slow our tempo offense and throw us off. It was obvious the deceit going on there. Would a majority of trainers or MDs agree that it’s a safety issue? It’s not like concussion protocol, it’s a muscle cramp. I know marathon runners that cramp up...they stop, stretch it out...continue on and stop when they cramp again. They don’t quit the race...neither should a football player. Believe what you want, but Cox has battled his way to get playing time. He’s not the kind of kid to want to sit out plays.
|
|
|
Post by jackedforlife on Nov 19, 2017 8:56:12 GMT -6
In regards to the Gray targeting call, in the slow motion replay there is the collision and he drives up with his helmet into the chin, uppercut style. That is targeting, I’m amazed an official saw it in real time. There were plenty of holds on both teams yesterday that they failed to see.
Cramping issue, I can only remember different 2 guys that cramped up. The fact that Cox was the one that cramped several times is your indicator. Even your former player/color commentator said in a high stakes rival game your juices are flowing. Anyone who’s played or exercised should know once you cramp you’re susceptible to them the rest of the game. 3rd and long Cox generally isn’t in there so that’s why you wouldn’t see it then. There’s a difference beteeen cramping and injury. To suggest a player sits a certain amount of time is asinine.
|
|
|
Post by jackedforlife on Nov 17, 2017 6:39:23 GMT -6
I would tend to think that most fans with a talented team would be confident enough to say when. I guarantee players are saying it in the lockeroom. Both teams should be expecting a win. So if you take offense to the confident tone of Zims chat I urge you to read past posts on this board about your team. I expect the Jacks to hoist the “little brown jug” just as confidently as thebacksackdad expects his son and the Yotes to raise it. Do some people become negative about their teams chances? Sure, but if you’re a fan of a ranked team, you expect to win. If u were a chic I'd kiss ya! Nice comment! if you were a chick (and a Jacks fan, jk, I wouldn’t want my arrogance to shine through) I might let you. To answer the arrogance point. I feel confident almost every game, I honestly feel they have the chance. Last year against TCU they hung in for a while...the MBB hung in with Gonzaga for the most part. A few years ago I thought the FB team would get their first FBS win over Illinois. It ended up being a trouncing. It didn’t matter what I thought. There are plenty of doom and gloom Jack fans, expecting the team to lay an egg. Are there arrogant fans as well? Sure, as I stated in an earlier post on this board, every fan base has their share of jerks. I was on the chat yesterday, call it blue glasses but I saw fans chatting about what aspects the Jacks need to do to win the game. I did not read Mick’s chat so immcant speak to that. Again, here’s to a competitive contest with little to no injury.
|
|
|
Post by jackedforlife on Nov 16, 2017 22:49:39 GMT -6
I would tend to think that most fans with a talented team would be confident enough to say when. I guarantee players are saying it in the lockeroom. Both teams should be expecting a win. So if you take offense to the confident tone of Zims chat I urge you to read past posts on this board about your team. I expect the Jacks to hoist the “little brown jug” just as confidently as thebacksackdad expects his son and the Yotes to raise it. Do some people become negative about their teams chances? Sure, but if you’re a fan of a ranked team, you expect to win.
|
|
|
Post by jackedforlife on Nov 16, 2017 7:21:08 GMT -6
I still can't believe this is a thing: It is kinda cheesy and I'm not sure when it started, maybe it was 2013 when the video was made, or if it is even still a thing. This I do know, starting in 2012 we began our string of making the playoffs. Soooooo, maybe flannel Friday isn't/wasn't all bad.
*yes I'm fully aware that we haven't gone all the way in the playoffs or won it all.
**yet,
|
|
|
Post by jackedforlife on Nov 15, 2017 22:14:23 GMT -6
If it wasn't for the coyote cape... i'd be dressing up as Elmer Fudd this coming Saturday. Any volunteers??? LETS GO YOTES!!! BOOM!!! SHAKALAKA!!! ummm...you do remember that generally Elmer loses to Bugs in the end...same with any interaction between Wile E. and Bugs. ....by all means I encourage any cosplay necessary.
|
|
|
Post by jackedforlife on Nov 15, 2017 11:40:08 GMT -6
This is off the current topic, 59 years to be exact, but I'm sitting here looking at a program from the 1958 USD vs SDSC Dakota Days game. A few interesting tidbits: USD's roster comprised of 33 players, the largest weighing in at 215 pounds, SDSC (actual name) had a larger roster, carrying 34 players, the giant being a 248 pounder who wasn't a starter, USD's starting offensive tackles both weighed 210 with the offensive line averaging 195, SDSC's offensive tackles were 210 and 197 and, unbelievably the guards were 179 and 188. Not sure what year platoon football became a thing. Late 50's early 60's? I think it's safe to say that neither of these squads would fare very well this Saturday. Any questions on any of this stuff just ask away and I'll do my best to answer. I wasn't at this game...but I could have been. Wouldn't have known what was going on, but some would probably say I still don't. Crazy to think that at 100 or more pounds heavier that most the lineman are probable as fast if not faster than the lineman 50-60 years ago. The Yotes starting lineman would barely qualify in size to be safeties in today's world.
|
|