goemaw.com

TITLETOWN - A Decade Long Celebration Of The Greatest Achievement In College Athletics History => Kansas State Football => Topic started by: Stevesie60 on October 07, 2012, 02:49:55 PM

Title: -7.5
Post by: Stevesie60 on October 07, 2012, 02:49:55 PM
Will take.
Title: -7.5
Post by: steve dave on October 07, 2012, 02:58:56 PM
Nice
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: kim carnes on October 07, 2012, 03:01:24 PM
if we can't beat a paul rhodes coached football team by at least 2 TD's, we shouldn't even show up in morgantown
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: MixBerryCrunch on October 07, 2012, 03:03:37 PM
if we can't beat a paul rhodes coached football team by at least 2 TD's, we shouldn't even show up in morgantown
Why do you hate K-State Kim squawk?
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: Pendergast on October 07, 2012, 03:11:15 PM
It's just Kim's defense mechanism, low expectations.
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: Pete on October 07, 2012, 03:11:36 PM
http://www.vegasinsider.com/college-football/odds/las-vegas/

OU -2.5 vs Texas

Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: Shacks on October 07, 2012, 03:12:38 PM
if we can't beat a paul rhodes coached football team by at least 2 TD's, we shouldn't even show up in morgantown

Winning a close game @Flood Aggie will cause West Virginia's coaches and players to take us lightly.  They will not expect to receive a through mindfucking from OB's schemes if they believe we are garbage for only beating Flood Aggie by a few points.
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: Pendergast on October 07, 2012, 03:13:35 PM
I just like to win.  Don't care by how much.

JK, I want to win by a lot.
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: catzacker on October 07, 2012, 03:15:55 PM
Dogfight.
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: Pendergast on October 07, 2012, 03:18:07 PM
So what if one dog is a lot bigger than the other?  Seems like dog fight is kind of a terrible phrase.
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: ednksu on October 07, 2012, 03:21:41 PM
So what if one dog is a lot bigger than the other?  Seems like dog fight is kind of a terrible phrase.
Doberman cats
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: 3maw on October 07, 2012, 03:23:07 PM
this seems appropriate for the 11 am start. meh, it's good.
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: pissclams on October 07, 2012, 03:26:55 PM
we're going to roll them, i'm sure of it
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: MixBerryCrunch on October 07, 2012, 03:52:56 PM
I think we play better after playing poorly the week before.  OU and OSU last year.  Miami after MO state and OU after UNT this year. I wouldn't mind having a close game where we play like crap and still win. Shows our focus is right where it needs to be...on WVU.
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: Katpappy on October 07, 2012, 04:07:42 PM
if we can't beat a paul rhodes coached football team by at least 2 TD's, we shouldn't even show up in morgantown
Why do you hate K-State Kim squawk?
:lol:
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: Frankenklein on October 07, 2012, 04:36:20 PM
So what if one dog is a lot bigger than the other?  Seems like dog fight is kind of a terrible phrase.
That a common LDFIQ misconception. It isn't the size of the dog in the fight,It's the size of the fight in the dog.
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: PowercatPat on October 07, 2012, 04:39:41 PM
if we can't beat a paul rhodes coached football team by at least 2 TD's, we shouldn't even show up in morgantown

We haven't even beaten Rhoads by 2 TD's yet.
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: sys on October 07, 2012, 04:53:07 PM
So what if one dog is a lot bigger than the other?  Seems like dog fight is kind of a terrible phrase.

it's pretty accurate.  wolf v. cavalier king charles spaniel is what i told my brother last night.
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: Stevesie60 on October 07, 2012, 05:07:21 PM
I think we play better after playing poorly the week before.  OU and OSU last year.  Miami after MO state and OU after UNT this year. I wouldn't mind having a close game where we play like crap and still win. Shows our focus is right where it needs to be...on WVU.

Agreed. I told everyone the past two weeks that best case scenario is to come out and play awful the first half of KU, then we'll be amped for ISU. I'm pretty happy that @ISU wasn't our first game after the OU game.
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: MixBerryCrunch on October 07, 2012, 05:22:01 PM
I think we play better after playing poorly the week before.  OU and OSU last year.  Miami after MO state and OU after UNT this year. I wouldn't mind having a close game where we play like crap and still win. Shows our focus is right where it needs to be...on WVU.

Agreed. I told everyone the past two weeks that best case scenario is to come out and play awful the first half of KU, then we'll be amped for ISU. I'm pretty happy that @ISU wasn't our first game after the OU game.

I also hope wvu obliterates ttu. Want their ego as big as possible.
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: yoEMAW on October 07, 2012, 06:44:42 PM
So what if one dog is a lot bigger than the other?  Seems like dog fight is kind of a terrible phrase.
That a common LDFIQ misconception. It isn't the size of the dog in the fight,It's the size of the fight in the dog.

This. Small dogs have the angle on a big dog's jugular if they've got the balls to go for it.
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: eastcat on October 07, 2012, 06:52:35 PM
I feel like Snyder is more comfortable playing ISU as they play a more conventional style of football than most B12 school's spread air raid crap.
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: CHONGS on October 07, 2012, 07:17:14 PM
CHIRP/ORCHID says Cats should win by 18

KansasSt.  41
IowaSt.  23 


 
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: Mixed-Nutz on October 07, 2012, 07:20:27 PM
And the DICE:

      AT IOWA STATE (WIN) 41-16

Say bet the farm.  :billdance:
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: Cartierfor3 on October 07, 2012, 09:04:03 PM
Probably be a lot like yesterday but we won't be down 14-7 ever
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: kim carnes on October 07, 2012, 09:06:47 PM
CHIRP/ORCHID says Cats should win by 18

KansasSt.  41
IowaSt.  23

 :dance:
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: catzacker on October 07, 2012, 09:20:33 PM
All those fancy stats in the CHIRP/ORCHID won't make a bit of difference when you find yourself in a goddamn dogfight.
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: yoEMAW on October 07, 2012, 09:47:53 PM
All those fancy stats in the CHIRP/ORCHID won't make a bit of difference when you find yourself in a goddamn dogfight.

Amen. Similar to Trim vs KSM. Size/notoriety don't mean crap. First one to get ahold of the other's throat is gonna choke 'em out PDQ.
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: doom on October 07, 2012, 09:50:45 PM
Probably be a lot like yesterday but we won't be down 14-7 ever

ISU isn't great, but their WAY better than KU.
Title: Re: Re: -7.5
Post by: 8manpick on October 07, 2012, 10:29:32 PM
All those fancy stats in the CHIRP/ORCHID won't make a bit of difference when you find yourself in a goddamn dogfight.

Amen. Similar to Trim vs KSM. Size/notoriety don't mean crap. First one to get ahold of the other's throat is gonna choke 'em out PDQ.

:lol: can you imagine those little T-Rex arms in a choke-out battle with choke-out expert Trim? :lol:
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: Trim on October 07, 2012, 10:39:33 PM
All those fancy stats in the CHIRP/ORCHID won't make a bit of difference when you find yourself in a goddamn dogfight.

Amen. Similar to Trim vs KSM. Size/notoriety don't mean crap. First one to get ahold of the other's throat is gonna choke 'em out PDQ.

:lol: can you imagine those little T-Rex arms in a choke-out battle with choke-out expert Trim? :lol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GDPZpRmTg0
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: AbeFroman on October 07, 2012, 11:32:33 PM
Jesus,, another week where we'll play nice the first half and then crush their souls in the second half
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: wetwillie on October 08, 2012, 12:01:21 AM
If you believe bill let's rocky rhoads take a crap on his swan song, then I'm not sure what to do for you.
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: sys on October 08, 2012, 12:04:35 AM
That a common LDFIQ misconception. It isn't the size of the dog in the fight,It's the size of the fight in the dog.

i've been involved with fighting dogs for over 15 years, and while i agree with the statement, the size of fight a dog has is almost always closely correlated with the size of size he has. 
Title: -7.5
Post by: felix rex on October 08, 2012, 03:56:50 AM
Jesus,, another week where we'll play nice the first half and then crush their souls in the second half

I will probably spend AT LEAST 15 minutes on Sunday morning reading Iowa State moral victory threads.
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: CHONGS on October 08, 2012, 07:28:15 AM
All those fancy stats in the CHIRP/ORCHID won't make a bit of difference when you find yourself in a goddamn dogfight.
I expect a closer game than the stats predict.  This game scares me.
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: kso_FAN on October 08, 2012, 07:36:35 AM
All those fancy stats in the CHIRP/ORCHID won't make a bit of difference when you find yourself in a goddamn dogfight.
I expect a closer game than the stats predict.  This game scares me.

Iowa State seems to be a poor man's version of our team last year, they are finding ways to win.

I do notice that they have an average running game and while Barnett seemed to give them a spark this weekend, I'm not real worried about him. They have a negative turnover margin on the season and really their 2 Big 12 games were decided largely by TO margin. -2 vs Tech in the loss and +4 vs TCU in the win. IMO if we can run the ball and win TO margin we'll be fine and win by 14 or so.
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: yoEMAW on October 08, 2012, 08:04:00 AM
That a common LDFIQ misconception. It isn't the size of the dog in the fight,It's the size of the fight in the dog.

i've been involved with fighting dogs for over 15 years, and while i agree with the statement, the size of fight a dog has is almost always closely correlated with the size of size he has.

I respect your opinion, but you've never fought toy breeds have you? Those delusional little bastards just don't care. I'm telling you, sys, it's a real eye-opener.
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: 8manpick on October 08, 2012, 08:36:19 AM

Iowa State seems to be a poor man's version of our team last year, they are finding ways to win.


So far it looks like the ways they have found to win are:
1. Play against garbage teams
2. If you are stuck playing a good team, get their star QB drunk, tip off the police, and make him drive around
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: kso_FAN on October 08, 2012, 08:38:57 AM

Iowa State seems to be a poor man's version of our team last year, they are finding ways to win.


So far it looks like the ways they have found to win are:
1. Play against garbage teams
2. If you are stuck playing a good team, get their star QB drunk, tip off the police, and make him drive around

True. They found a way against TCU, Tulsa, and Iowa. None of those are great teams, but they are decent wins.
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: pissclams on October 08, 2012, 09:06:53 AM
remember when we were trying to be good and would be ranked like 23 or something and we thought we were good but we really weren't and then somwhere in the top 10 ranked OU or NU would come into BSFS and kill us in all aspects of the game and win by like 35? 
Title: Re: Re: -7.5
Post by: raquetcat on October 08, 2012, 09:31:15 AM
All those fancy stats in the CHIRP/ORCHID won't make a bit of difference when you find yourself in a goddamn dogfight.
I expect a closer game than the stats predict.  This game scares me.

Iowa State seems to be a poor man's version of our team last year, they are finding ways to win.

I do notice that they have an average running game and while Barnett seemed to give them a spark this weekend, I'm not real worried about him. They have a negative turnover margin on the season and really their 2 Big 12 games were decided largely by TO margin. -2 vs Tech in the loss and +4 vs TCU in the win. IMO if we can run the ball and win TO margin we'll be fine and win by 14 or so.

Confidence rising!

Title: Re: Re: -7.5
Post by: kitten_mittons on October 08, 2012, 10:43:22 AM
remember when we were trying to be good and would be ranked like 23 or something and we thought we were good but we really weren't and then somwhere in the top 10 ranked OU or NU would come into BSFS and kill us in all aspects of the game and win by like 35?
Yeah, I do.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: Stevesie60 on October 08, 2012, 10:44:34 AM
remember when we were trying to be good and would be ranked like 23 or something and we thought we were good but we really weren't and then somwhere in the top 10 ranked OU or NU would come into BSFS and kill us in all aspects of the game and win by like 35? 

This is such a great point. My confidence is getting really, really high!
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: kso_FAN on October 08, 2012, 10:48:29 AM
The predicted margin is understandable when you look at the numbers. ISU has advantages in only two areas that I see; interceptions and yards per play allowed on defense. But points per play given up is pretty much the same, and K-State has huge advantages when you compare offensive efficiency, return games, and turnover margin. Granted, the game isn't played on paper, but K-State has advantages across the board and unless ISU can force turnovers, its unlikely they should beat us, even in Ames. K-State should win by 10-14; I see this game being similar to our game against Tech last year.
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: steve dave on October 08, 2012, 10:49:39 AM
The predicted margin is understandable when you look at the numbers. ISU has advantages in only two areas that I see; interceptions and yards per play allowed on defense. But points per play given up is pretty much the same, and K-State has huge advantages when you compare offensive efficiency, return games, and turnover margin. Granted, the game isn't played on paper, but K-State has advantages across the board and unless ISU can force turnovers, its unlikely they should beat us, even in Ames. K-State should win by 10-14; I see this game being similar to our game against Tech last year.

That game against Tech was scary as crap. This one will not be like that. Cats coast to easy win and we all party.
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: catzacker on October 08, 2012, 10:50:37 AM
While each team/year is different, the game last year was even, save for ISU’s two turnovers.  ISU ran on us with efficiency and I am still not sold on this our defense’s ability to stop the run.  We have lived/benefited off turnovers (our TO margin is top 5 nationally – however I recognize that ISU has certainly benefited from turnovers as well).  I mean, what happens if KU doesn’t fumble that ball on the kickoff following the safety?  At that point, our defense was still on its heels – even the pick was a poorly, underthrown ball as KU was driving to score. 

Moving forward, the talent discrepancy between ksu and its opponent is either a push or in favor of the opposition.  I don’t understand the unbridled optimism (albeit some of it a facade) about this team.    This team is good, but every single game moving forward will be based on us executing  - we simply don’t have the talent to cover mistakes – and it’s tough to expect them to play at the “perfect” level game in and game out.  In many ways, I liken it to Frank’s teams – they require(d) consistent effort and when it wasn’t there then we were going to lose, regardless of the opponent because we didn’t have the talent to make up for it. 
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: steve dave on October 08, 2012, 10:51:03 AM
Score Predicto:

ISU: 17
KSU:  45
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: pissclams on October 08, 2012, 10:53:09 AM
While each team/year is different, the game last year was even, save for ISU’s two turnovers.  ISU ran on us with efficiency and I am still not sold on this our defense’s ability to stop the run.  We have lived/benefited off turnovers (our TO margin is top 5 nationally – however I recognize that ISU has certainly benefited from turnovers as well).  I mean, what happens if KU doesn’t fumble that ball on the kickoff following the safety?  At that point, our defense was still on its heels – even the pick was a poorly, underthrown ball as KU was driving to score. 

Moving forward, the talent discrepancy between ksu and its opponent is either a push or in favor of the opposition.  I don’t understand the unbridled optimism (albeit some of it a facade) about this team.    This team is good, but every single game moving forward will be based on us executing  - we simply don’t have the talent to cover mistakes – and it’s tough to expect them to play at the “perfect” level game in and game out.  In many ways, I liken it to Frank’s teams – they require(d) consistent effort and when it wasn’t there then we were going to lose, regardless of the opponent because we didn’t have the talent to make up for it. 


there's a lot of ifs in there catzacker, A LOT of ifs.
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: kso_FAN on October 08, 2012, 10:54:25 AM
The predicted margin is understandable when you look at the numbers. ISU has advantages in only two areas that I see; interceptions and yards per play allowed on defense. But points per play given up is pretty much the same, and K-State has huge advantages when you compare offensive efficiency, return games, and turnover margin. Granted, the game isn't played on paper, but K-State has advantages across the board and unless ISU can force turnovers, its unlikely they should beat us, even in Ames. K-State should win by 10-14; I see this game being similar to our game against Tech last year.

That game against Tech was scary as crap. This one will not be like that. Cats coast to easy win and we all party.

I mean the way the game went down. Tech led much of the first half, some of the 3rd quarter, then we took control. I could see ISU doing that as well. Tech hit a FG late to make a 7 point game, but most of the 4th quarter felt like we were going to win. JMO.
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on October 08, 2012, 10:56:03 AM
The predicted margin is understandable when you look at the numbers. ISU has advantages in only two areas that I see; interceptions and yards per play allowed on defense. But points per play given up is pretty much the same, and K-State has huge advantages when you compare offensive efficiency, return games, and turnover margin. Granted, the game isn't played on paper, but K-State has advantages across the board and unless ISU can force turnovers, its unlikely they should beat us, even in Ames. K-State should win by 10-14; I see this game being similar to our game against Tech last year.

That game against Tech was scary as crap. This one will not be like that. Cats coast to easy win and we all party.

I mean the way the game went down. Tech led much of the first half, some of the 3rd quarter, then we took control. I could see ISU doing that as well. Tech hit a FG late to make a 7 point game, but most of the 4th quarter felt like we were going to win. JMO.

I don't think ISU will outgain us by 100 yards like Tech did. We were very fortunate to win that ball game, and I think ISU would be very fortunate to keep the game within 14.
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: kso_FAN on October 08, 2012, 10:57:09 AM
Moving forward, the talent discrepancy between ksu and its opponent is either a push or in favor of the opposition.  I don’t understand the unbridled optimism (albeit some of it a facade) about this team.    This team is good, but every single game moving forward will be based on us executing  - we simply don’t have the talent to cover mistakes – and it’s tough to expect them to play at the “perfect” level game in and game out.  In many ways, I liken it to Frank’s teams – they require(d) consistent effort and when it wasn’t there then we were going to lose, regardless of the opponent because we didn’t have the talent to make up for it. 


I think there is some optimism because this team has shown its pretty damn good at executing, especially offensively.
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: kso_FAN on October 08, 2012, 10:58:24 AM
I don't think ISU will outgain us by 100 yards like Tech did. We were very fortunate to win that ball game, and I think ISU would be very fortunate to keep the game within 14.

I agree with this.

I suppose Tech was a poor choice; the main comparison was that for 3 quarters or so it was very close, but I really felt like we took control in the 4th quarter of that game. I think we'll do the same in Ames b/c that's what good teams do.
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: steve dave on October 08, 2012, 11:01:19 AM
I mean, we beat OU in Norman who destroyed TTech in Lubbock who destroyed ISU in Ames. 
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: steve dave on October 08, 2012, 11:03:53 AM
That garbage TTech team outgained ISU 395 to 189 in Ames
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: MixBerryCrunch on October 08, 2012, 11:10:50 AM
Not nervous at all about ISU.  Easy win.
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: kso_FAN on October 08, 2012, 11:15:29 AM
Here's the thing about our team; our defense is putting up good numbers, average YPP and above average PPP. But our offense and special teams are not just above average, they are elite. And IMO the sample size is big enough now to register those marks as elite. Iowa State is solid, and they had the upset of OK St last year, so respecting them is understandable. But the point is simple; if we come to play and minimize mistakes we'll win convincingly in Ames. Period.
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: sys on October 08, 2012, 11:17:07 AM
I respect your opinion, but you've never fought toy breeds have you? Those delusional little bastards just don't care. I'm telling you, sys, it's a real eye-opener.

i think you mean aggression, not fight.  a smaller dog can be as aggressive as eff but he's not going to have the fight of a larger dog.  by fight, i mean the ability of a dog to negatively impact another dog's morale through the application of force.  just the other day i had a toy pit bull that was super aggressive, so i put him up against a friend's standard staffordshire.  needless to say, the toy spent his aggression on the larger dog, but to no avail, and the staffy was able to apply his superior fight to destroy the toy pb's morale.  i've seen that same scenario over and over again, so i remain convinced that there is indeed a very strong correlation between a dog's size and his fight.
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: Dugout DickStone on October 08, 2012, 11:18:19 AM
TCU was reeling Saturday and ISU jumped on them early.
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: XocolateThundarr on October 08, 2012, 11:18:48 AM
Here's the thing about our team; our defense is putting up good numbers, average YPP and above average PPP. But our offense and special teams are not just above average, they are elite. And IMO the sample size is big enough now to register those marks as elite. Iowa State is solid, and they had the upset of OK St last year, so respecting them is understandable. But the point is simple; if we come to play and minimize mistakes we'll win convincingly in Ames. Period.

 :emawkid: :ksu: :emawkid:
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: catzacker on October 08, 2012, 11:22:01 AM
Moving forward, the talent discrepancy between ksu and its opponent is either a push or in favor of the opposition.  I don’t understand the unbridled optimism (albeit some of it a facade) about this team.    This team is good, but every single game moving forward will be based on us executing  - we simply don’t have the talent to cover mistakes – and it’s tough to expect them to play at the “perfect” level game in and game out.  In many ways, I liken it to Frank’s teams – they require(d) consistent effort and when it wasn’t there then we were going to lose, regardless of the opponent because we didn’t have the talent to make up for it. 


I think there is some optimism because this team has shown its pretty damn good at executing, especially offensively.

I am (cautiously) optimistic, however I don’t think we are winning games by larger than a 1 score margin from here on out.  I simply can’t see us executing like we need to in order to win every…single…week.  It’s extraordinarily difficult to do and the idea that not only will we execute, but so well that we can just say “yeah, we’re going to win by 2 scores on the road” is absurd to me.  When I see the cockiness without some type of caveat it makes me think people don’t understand how this team wins ball games.  They have to squeeze every ounce of talent out of themselves AND then couple that with consistent (and relatively speaking near optimal) execution. I may not be giving this team as much credit as it deserves, but it just seems like we are operating beyond our means and at some point we have to come back down.
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: steve dave on October 08, 2012, 11:22:58 AM
catzacker, I think you are underestimating the talent we have on this team. we are a very talented team.
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: Dugout DickStone on October 08, 2012, 11:24:55 AM
Moving forward, the talent discrepancy between ksu and its opponent is either a push or in favor of the opposition.  I don’t understand the unbridled optimism (albeit some of it a facade) about this team.    This team is good, but every single game moving forward will be based on us executing  - we simply don’t have the talent to cover mistakes – and it’s tough to expect them to play at the “perfect” level game in and game out.  In many ways, I liken it to Frank’s teams – they require(d) consistent effort and when it wasn’t there then we were going to lose, regardless of the opponent because we didn’t have the talent to make up for it. 


I think there is some optimism because this team has shown its pretty damn good at executing, especially offensively.

I am (cautiously) optimistic, however I don’t think we are winning games by larger than a 1 score margin from here on out.  I simply can’t see us executing like we need to in order to win every…single…week.  It’s extraordinarily difficult to do and the idea that not only will we execute, but so well that we can just say “yeah, we’re going to win by 2 scores on the road” is absurd to me.  When I see the cockiness without some type of caveat it makes me think people don’t understand how this team wins ball games.  They have to squeeze every ounce of talent out of themselves AND then couple that with consistent (and relatively speaking near optimal) execution. I may not be giving this team as much credit as it deserves, but it just seems like we are operating beyond our means and at some point we have to come back down.

Agreed.  We are like smallish 8th graders playing in the SEC.  It's a wonder there aren't at least 5 of our players killed every game.  Just a miracle.  One misstep and it is certain death for most of these little fellows.

T's & P's.
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: "storm"nut on October 08, 2012, 11:27:56 AM
My tornado in a snow storm prediction.

We beat ISU this weekend. We beat WV Next Saturday, ISU beats WV this year.   :billdance:
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: steve dave on October 08, 2012, 11:29:39 AM
My tornado in a snow storm prediction.

We be WV Sunday, ISU beats WV this year. We beat ISU this weekend.  :billdance:

welp
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: kso_FAN on October 08, 2012, 11:29:54 AM
catzacker, I think you are underestimating the talent we have on this team. we are a very talented team.

The efficiency numbers on offense are clear. We had two game last year where we averaged 6.0 YPP or better, 7.4 YPP against KU and 6.42 against Miami. This year we have one game UNDER 6.0; 5.8 YPP at OU, every other game is 7.0 YPP or better. That 5.8 YPP vs OU would've been our 4th best output all of last season.

And then I look at how we faired against ISU last year; 5.98 YPP was our third best game of the year. While I think ISU might be slightly better than last year, I think we are considerably better. I believe you are being skewed by last year's results, and I definitely agree our win total by far exceeded what we should've been able to accomplish. However, this year I think we are just a really good team. Now, I think its likely we lose a couple games because our schedule is really hard, I just don't think in Ames will be one of them.
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: Stevesie60 on October 08, 2012, 11:30:55 AM
Moving forward, the talent discrepancy between ksu and its opponent is either a push or in favor of the opposition.  I don’t understand the unbridled optimism (albeit some of it a facade) about this team.    This team is good, but every single game moving forward will be based on us executing  - we simply don’t have the talent to cover mistakes – and it’s tough to expect them to play at the “perfect” level game in and game out.  In many ways, I liken it to Frank’s teams – they require(d) consistent effort and when it wasn’t there then we were going to lose, regardless of the opponent because we didn’t have the talent to make up for it. 


I think there is some optimism because this team has shown its pretty damn good at executing, especially offensively.

I am (cautiously) optimistic, however I don’t think we are winning games by larger than a 1 score margin from here on out.  I simply can’t see us executing like we need to in order to win every…single…week.  It’s extraordinarily difficult to do and the idea that not only will we execute, but so well that we can just say “yeah, we’re going to win by 2 scores on the road” is absurd to me.  When I see the cockiness without some type of caveat it makes me think people don’t understand how this team wins ball games.  They have to squeeze every ounce of talent out of themselves AND then couple that with consistent (and relatively speaking near optimal) execution. I may not be giving this team as much credit as it deserves, but it just seems like we are operating beyond our means and at some point we have to come back down.

100% agreed. It's like we took Manhattan's worst pee wee league team and expect them to play college football. If you ask me, Stoops threw the game in Norman for us. I just don't see how we could have won it any other way.

Guys, it was a fun ride. When we go winless through the rest of our schedule, at least we'll still have each other.
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: MixBerryCrunch on October 08, 2012, 11:31:46 AM
Moving forward, the talent discrepancy between ksu and its opponent is either a push or in favor of the opposition.  I don’t understand the unbridled optimism (albeit some of it a facade) about this team.    This team is good, but every single game moving forward will be based on us executing  - we simply don’t have the talent to cover mistakes – and it’s tough to expect them to play at the “perfect” level game in and game out.  In many ways, I liken it to Frank’s teams – they require(d) consistent effort and when it wasn’t there then we were going to lose, regardless of the opponent because we didn’t have the talent to make up for it. 


I think there is some optimism because this team has shown its pretty damn good at executing, especially offensively.

I am (cautiously) optimistic, however I don’t think we are winning games by larger than a 1 score margin from here on out.  I simply can’t see us executing like we need to in order to win every…single…week.  It’s extraordinarily difficult to do and the idea that not only will we execute, but so well that we can just say “yeah, we’re going to win by 2 scores on the road” is absurd to me.  When I see the cockiness without some type of caveat it makes me think people don’t understand how this team wins ball games.  They have to squeeze every ounce of talent out of themselves AND then couple that with consistent (and relatively speaking near optimal) execution. I may not be giving this team as much credit as it deserves, but it just seems like we are operating beyond our means and at some point we have to come back down.

I think you're completely wrong. I think everyone who thinks this team is only as talented as an ISU team is completely wrong. To think this team needs to execute perfectly to win games against the likes of ISU or TTU is absurd. We have an elite offensive line, a very good d-line, very good linebackers, elite special teams, talented skills players, and a Heisman contender for QB. All around we are one of the top three most talented teams in the Big 12.
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: 8manpick on October 08, 2012, 11:33:31 AM
Moving forward, the talent discrepancy between ksu and its opponent is either a push or in favor of the opposition.  I don’t understand the unbridled optimism (albeit some of it a facade) about this team.    This team is good, but every single game moving forward will be based on us executing  - we simply don’t have the talent to cover mistakes – and it’s tough to expect them to play at the “perfect” level game in and game out.  In many ways, I liken it to Frank’s teams – they require(d) consistent effort and when it wasn’t there then we were going to lose, regardless of the opponent because we didn’t have the talent to make up for it. 


I think there is some optimism because this team has shown its pretty damn good at executing, especially offensively.

I am (cautiously) optimistic, however I don’t think we are winning games by larger than a 1 score margin from here on out.  I simply can’t see us executing like we need to in order to win every…single…week.  It’s extraordinarily difficult to do and the idea that not only will we execute, but so well that we can just say “yeah, we’re going to win by 2 scores on the road” is absurd to me.  When I see the cockiness without some type of caveat it makes me think people don’t understand how this team wins ball games.  They have to squeeze every ounce of talent out of themselves AND then couple that with consistent (and relatively speaking near optimal) execution. I may not be giving this team as much credit as it deserves, but it just seems like we are operating beyond our means and at some point we have to come back down.

I think you are confusing the 2012 K-State 'Cats with the 2011 K-State 'Cats.
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: "storm"nut on October 08, 2012, 11:33:39 AM
My tornado in a snow storm prediction.

We be WV Sunday, ISU beats WV this year. We beat ISU this weekend.  :billdance:

welp

please update quote as I have correct my thread to something a little less Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). Thank You.
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: GoodForAnother on October 08, 2012, 11:34:39 AM
http://web1.ncaa.org/football/exec/rankingSummary?year=2012&org=311

 :barf:

http://web1.ncaa.org/football/exec/rankingSummary?org=327&year=2012&week=6

 :driving:
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: Mixed-Nutz on October 08, 2012, 11:35:26 AM
When looking at last years numbers it is shocking we only won by 7. Someone needs to explain this, witchcraft?
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: XocolateThundarr on October 08, 2012, 11:55:15 AM
catzacker, I think you are underestimating the talent we have on this team. we are a very talented team.

The efficiency numbers on offense are clear. We had two game last year where we averaged 6.0 YPP or better, 7.4 YPP against KU and 6.42 against Miami. This year we have one game UNDER 6.0; 5.8 YPP at OU, every other game is 7.0 YPP or better. That 5.8 YPP vs OU would've been our 4th best output all of last season.

And then I look at how we faired against ISU last year; 5.98 YPP was our third best game of the year. While I think ISU might be slightly better than last year, I think we are considerably better. I believe you are being skewed by last year's results, and I definitely agree our win total by far exceeded what we should've been able to accomplish. However, this year I think we are just a really good team. Now, I think its likely we lose a couple games because our schedule is really hard, I just don't think in Ames will be one of them.

I think the toughest games left on the schedule for us are @WVU and Texas.  Not too worried about the others.  Pretty sure we handle ISU by at least two scores.

 :bill:
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: 8manpick on October 08, 2012, 12:00:28 PM

I think the toughest games left on the schedule for us are @WVU and Texas.


O rly?
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: kso_FAN on October 08, 2012, 12:02:19 PM
When looking at last years numbers it is shocking we only won by 7. Someone needs to explain this, witchcraft?

KO return yardage given up and 3rd down conversions (both offense and defense).
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: Stevesie60 on October 08, 2012, 12:04:37 PM
When looking at last years numbers it is shocking we only won by 7. Someone needs to explain this, witchcraft?

KO return yardage given up and 3rd down conversions (both offense and defense).

Without our punt return and KO return we would be #1 in offensive YPP and #2 wouldn't even be close.
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: Mixed-Nutz on October 08, 2012, 12:09:50 PM
Fan do you know the breaking point for yard per play from manageable offense to shitty crap offense?
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: Clevey 2 Times on October 08, 2012, 12:11:49 PM
We won't be sleeping on the 'Clones. Barnett is really not that great. I'd be surprised if he throws the ball any better than Crist - meaning he is prone to turn it over if we keep him in the pocket. Bill has plenty of historic evidence of the Cats nearly (once we did, '93 I believe) losing to an Iowa State team in Ames. He'll have their attention.We will roll them...44-17.
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: kso_FAN on October 08, 2012, 12:14:50 PM
Fan do you know the breaking point for yard per play from manageable offense to shitty crap offense?

You really have to compare/contrast yards per play in correlation with points per play IMO. And I haven't come up with any formulas to do that, I suppose Chingon could and would be better at it than me.

Right now ISU is #98 in YPP (tied with KU) at 5.10. And they are #74 in PPP at .37.  We average nearly 2 more yards per play and nearly double them in efficiency for points. We are significantly better offensively.
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: kso_FAN on October 08, 2012, 12:20:01 PM
We won't be sleeping on the 'Clones. Barnett is really not that great. I'd be surprised if he throws the ball any better than Crist - meaning he is prone to turn it over if we keep him in the pocket. Bill has plenty of historic evidence of the Cats nearly (once we did, '93 I believe) losing to an Iowa State team in Ames. He'll have their attention.We will roll them...44-17.

The fact that we don't really know 100% whether Barnett or Janz will play says plenty about ISU's offense. Sure, Rhodes rolled the dice and won by throwing Barnett out for the start and his most significant action at TCU. We have some advantage in knowing that either could play and some of the new things ISU might be doing offensively this year with Barnett as opposed to last year. There is some confidence for them because they won, but I think just as much advantage for us in prep because we have an idea what either QB can do. Granted, we have to prep for both.
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: pissclams on October 08, 2012, 12:21:13 PM
bottom line analysis is that if you're scared of the isu clones, you're a complete pud
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: Clevey 2 Times on October 08, 2012, 12:29:00 PM
We won't be sleeping on the 'Clones. Barnett is really not that great. I'd be surprised if he throws the ball any better than Crist - meaning he is prone to turn it over if we keep him in the pocket. Bill has plenty of historic evidence of the Cats nearly (once we did, '93 I believe) losing to an Iowa State team in Ames. He'll have their attention.We will roll them...44-17.

The fact that we don't really know 100% whether Barnett or Janz will play says plenty about ISU's offense. Sure, Rhodes rolled the dice and won by throwing Barnett out for the start and his most significant action at TCU. We have some advantage in knowing that either could play and some of the new things ISU might be doing offensively this year with Barnett as opposed to last year. There is some confidence for them because they won, but I think just as much advantage for us in prep because we have an idea what either QB can do. Granted, we have to prep for both.

Didn't realize he was still considering Jantz. Figured after the game in Fort Worth they'd go with Barnett. Either way, Jantz is a bit freewheeling and will force the ball at times. Nigel takes one to the house. I'm still a bit concerned about Chapman when we play WVU. I really think he is a weak link in the defense that just hasn't been effectively exploited. To his credit, he wasn't a liability too much in Norman, but I think Landry only looking at 1 receiver most of the game probably helped.
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: kso_FAN on October 08, 2012, 12:32:58 PM
Didn't realize he was still considering Jantz.

He may be done, but IMO we've got to prep for both. Its probably all Barnett's now, but its hard to know for sure.
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: Bookcat on October 08, 2012, 12:33:33 PM
That garbage TTech team outgained ISU 395 to 189 in Ames

Barnett>>Janz

The fact that Roades ever thought Janz was the go to guy shows how outmatched he will be on Saturday.

Protect the ball and we win this one. Simple as that.
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: XocolateThundarr on October 08, 2012, 12:34:07 PM

I think the toughest games left on the schedule for us are @WVU and Texas.


O rly?

Do you not agree?  :dunno:
Title: -7.5
Post by: felix rex on October 08, 2012, 12:52:20 PM
catzacker, I think you are underestimating the talent we have on this team. we are a very talented team.

The efficiency numbers on offense are clear. We had two game last year where we averaged 6.0 YPP or better, 7.4 YPP against KU and 6.42 against Miami. This year we have one game UNDER 6.0; 5.8 YPP at OU, every other game is 7.0 YPP or better. That 5.8 YPP vs OU would've been our 4th best output all of last season.

And then I look at how we faired against ISU last year; 5.98 YPP was our third best game of the year. While I think ISU might be slightly better than last year, I think we are considerably better. I believe you are being skewed by last year's results, and I definitely agree our win total by far exceeded what we should've been able to accomplish. However, this year I think we are just a really good team. Now, I think its likely we lose a couple games because our schedule is really hard, I just don't think in Ames will be one of them.

Just think of it this way: if we'd lost 2-3 of those close games last year, we would have been everyone's pick for a breakout team ready to turn the corner. But since we didn't, we went from being underrated/dangerous last year to carry-over overrated this year.
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: 8manpick on October 08, 2012, 12:57:00 PM

I think the toughest games left on the schedule for us are @WVU and Texas.


O rly?

Do you not agree?  :dunno:

I totally agree, same as water is wet, and probably flooding Ames.
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: yoEMAW on October 08, 2012, 12:59:55 PM
i think you mean aggression, not fight.  a smaller dog can be as aggressive as eff but he's not going to have the fight of a larger dog.  by fight, i mean the ability of a dog to negatively impact another dog's morale through the application of force.  just the other day i had a toy pit bull that was super aggressive, so i put him up against a friend's standard staffordshire.  needless to say, the toy spent his aggression on the larger dog, but to no avail, and the staffy was able to apply his superior fight to destroy the toy pb's morale.  i've seen that same scenario over and over again, so i remain convinced that there is indeed a very strong correlation between a dog's size and his fight.

Ah, I read ya. We're on the same page.  :cheers:

Hey by the way, I've got this mutt you may be interested in. He's got a bit of flandoodle in him, so we just call him a "fla-daggy." He's fairly scrappy, but he got into a little scrum with a horny toad last weekend in the backyard, and he hasn't bit quite the same ever since. He's done alright in the past (4-1), but I was just going to put him down. He's ugly as sin and half Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). My sister's kids don't even want anything to do with him. But anyway, if you'd like to let one of your champions tune up on him a bit, just let me know.
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: XocolateThundarr on October 08, 2012, 01:00:44 PM

I think the toughest games left on the schedule for us are @WVU and Texas.


O rly?

Do you not agree?  :dunno:

I totally agree, same as water is wet, and probably flooding Ames.

Understood.  I thought there would be some retards that would reply with some bullshit about Baylor or TCU.
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: kostakio on October 08, 2012, 01:07:52 PM
When looking at last years numbers it is shocking we only won by 7. Someone needs to explain this, witchcraft?

KO return yardage given up and 3rd down conversions (both offense and defense).

Also David Garrett as good of a tackler as he was couldn't tackle the punter on a fake punt.  He sniffed it out and played it pefectly.   Then he missed about the only tackle of his entire career on a freaking punter.   
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: steve dave on October 08, 2012, 01:09:41 PM

I think the toughest games left on the schedule for us are @WVU and Texas.


O rly?

Do you not agree?  :dunno:

I totally agree, same as water is wet, and probably flooding Ames.

Understood.  I thought there would be some retards that would reply with some bullshit about Baylor or TCU.

TCU is the 2nd worst team in the conference (ISU third). @Baylor will be tough though.
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: XocolateThundarr on October 08, 2012, 01:13:49 PM

I think the toughest games left on the schedule for us are @WVU and Texas.


O rly?

Do you not agree?  :dunno:

I totally agree, same as water is wet, and probably flooding Ames.

Understood.  I thought there would be some retards that would reply with some bullshit about Baylor or TCU.

TCU is the 2nd worst team in the conference (ISU third). @Baylor will be tough though.

As long as our offense doesn't suddenly stall, I don't think they will be problem.  Snyds will ball control the crap out of them.   :bill:
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: Emo EMAW on October 08, 2012, 02:18:47 PM
I'd be curious to hear what our 4th quarter efficiency looked like compared to first 3 quarters.  Was Sams and improvement?  :horrorsurprise: (probably not, but still)
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: Stevesie60 on October 08, 2012, 02:22:13 PM
I'd be curious to hear what our 4th quarter efficiency looked like compared to first 3 quarters.  Was Sams and improvement?  :horrorsurprise: (probably not, but still)

Considering we scored 28 points in the 3rd and 7 in the 4th, probably not.
Title: Re: -7.5
Post by: sys on October 08, 2012, 07:43:20 PM
Hey by the way, I've got this mutt you may be interested in. He's got a bit of flandoodle in him, so we just call him a "fla-daggy." He's fairly scrappy, but he got into a little scrum with a horny toad last weekend in the backyard, and he hasn't bit quite the same ever since. He's done alright in the past (4-1), but I was just going to put him down. He's ugly as sin and half Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). My sister's kids don't even want anything to do with him. But anyway, if you'd like to let one of your champions tune up on him a bit, just let me know.

thanks, that's very generous of you.  i actually breed my own sparring dogs though.  i use a 50:25:25 mix of golden retriever, great pyrenees and great dane.  i throw 'em in when they're about 8 months old and at that puppy soft stage where they're all legs and giant paws.  i think it really helps boost morale in my dogs to practice at dominating a bigger dog like that.