goemaw.com

TITLETOWN - A Decade Long Celebration Of The Greatest Achievement In College Athletics History => Kansas State Football => Topic started by: sonofdaxjones on October 30, 2010, 02:57:17 PM

Title: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 30, 2010, 02:57:17 PM
OSU without one of their top offensive weapons still gained 511 yards.

It was clear that when the OSU staff saw that they were going to have trouble holding on to the ball and were a little out of sync that they needed to just play field position  ball because Bill "Woody Hayes" Snyder and his merry band of DIII rejects weren't going to be capable of doing anything.   

Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: WillieWatanabe on October 30, 2010, 02:59:29 PM
do they just disregard the yardage we gave up??
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: Pendergast on October 30, 2010, 02:59:52 PM
Yeah, they still suck, but 17 points?  You know you're surprised.
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: Pete on October 30, 2010, 03:00:14 PM
It was also a very smart game plan by the 42 year old.  Why bother trying to "light it up" when the team you are playing is hapless on both sides of the ball.....just run it and play field position.  Isn't that what they were applauding Snyder for at the beginning of the year?  :dunno:
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 30, 2010, 03:01:27 PM
It was also a very smart game plan by the 42 year old.  Why bother trying to "light it up" when the team you are playing is hapless on both sides of the ball.....just run it and play field position.  Isn't that what they were applauding Snyder for at the beginning of the year?  :dunno:

Exactly . . . this was purely a "get out of town with a win" game for OSU and they still rolled up 511 yards of total offense.

Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: kso_FAN on October 30, 2010, 03:02:12 PM
Defense did what they needed to win the game is a legit point. Doesn't make the defense great, but its still true.
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 30, 2010, 03:04:13 PM
Defense did what they needed to win the game is a legit point. Doesn't make the defense great, but its still true.

Okay . . . so OSU minus one of their top offensive studs and only scoring 24 and only gaining 511 yards is the new "defense doing what they needed to do" at K-State.    Waters calmed!!

Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: 06wildcat on October 30, 2010, 03:05:55 PM
Defense did what they needed to win the game is a legit point. Doesn't make the defense great, but its still true.

True to a point. OSU could have gone down field at any time they wanted, or at least run much deeper routes since we were dead set on not bringing any pressure at all.
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: wetwillie on October 30, 2010, 03:06:46 PM
Defense did what they needed to win the game is a legit point. Doesn't make the defense great, but its still true.

Okay . . . so OSU minus one of their top offensive studs and only scoring 17 and only gaining 511 yards is the new "defense doing what they needed to do" at K-State.    Waters calmed!!



FYP
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: Sugar Dick on October 30, 2010, 03:08:26 PM
It was also a very smart game plan by the 42 year old.  Why bother trying to "light it up" when the team you are playing is hapless on both sides of the ball.....just run it and play field position.  Isn't that what they were applauding Snyder for at the beginning of the year?  :dunno:

Exactly . . . this was purely a "get out of town with a win" game for OSU and they still rolled up 511 yards of total offense.



Bullsh*t Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), despite the 511 yards our d played well.  Pretty sure this is by far the least points OSU scored all season.

Find a better thing to categorize as  :powerespect:  Our f*cking offense went 3 and out or 6 and out about 10 times, the D was on the field way more than they needed to be (I know we had TOP in our favor, but OSU was on the field a lot because of OOB and Incompletions, LOOK AT TOTAL PLAYS I'd guess OSU had over 75).  Anything resembling offensive consistency and the defense holds OSU to closer to 400 yards.
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: O-town Kat on October 30, 2010, 03:08:43 PM
I like when tysyn whips the ball carrier forward for another 3 - 4 yds on every tackle
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: Dugout DickStone on October 30, 2010, 03:09:25 PM
Defense did what they needed to win the game is a legit point. Doesn't make the defense great, but its still true.

True to a point. OSU could have gone down field at any time they wanted, or at least run much deeper routes since we were dead set on not bringing any pressure at all.

Wrong.  We tried to bring pressure frequently.
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: kso_FAN on October 30, 2010, 03:10:47 PM
Defense did what they needed to win the game is a legit point. Doesn't make the defense great, but its still true.

Okay . . . so OSU minus one of their top offensive studs and only scoring 24 and only gaining 511 yards is the new "defense doing what they needed to do" at K-State.    Waters calmed!!



I said nothing about the defense being fixed, but the 17 points allowed was fine if we had any sort of offense today. The defense is still bad, but their play did not lose this game, though we did have two badly missed ints in the 2nd half.
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: Pittcat on October 30, 2010, 03:11:55 PM
I like when tysyn whips the ball carrier forward for another 3 - 4 yds on every tackle

Even better is when he gets dragged for 12 yards.
 :facepalm:
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: ChiComCat on October 30, 2010, 03:15:41 PM
It was also a very smart game plan by the 42 year old.  Why bother trying to "light it up" when the team you are playing is hapless on both sides of the ball.....just run it and play field position.  Isn't that what they were applauding Snyder for at the beginning of the year?  :dunno:

Exactly . . . this was purely a "get out of town with a win" game for OSU and they still rolled up 511 yards of total offense.



Bullsh*t Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), despite the 511 yards our d played well.  Pretty sure this is by far the least points OSU scored all season.

Find a better thing to categorize as  :powerespect:  Our f*cking offense went 3 and out or 6 and out about 10 times, the D was on the field way more than they needed to be (I know we had TOP in our favor, but OSU was on the field a lot because of OOB and Incompletions, LOOK AT TOTAL PLAYS I'd guess OSU had over 75).  Anything resembling offensive consistency and the defense holds OSU to closer to 400 yards.

Maybe our defense was on the field a lot because they gave up 511 yards and a number of third and longs :dunno:
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 30, 2010, 03:16:07 PM
It was also a very smart game plan by the 42 year old.  Why bother trying to "light it up" when the team you are playing is hapless on both sides of the ball.....just run it and play field position.  Isn't that what they were applauding Snyder for at the beginning of the year?  :dunno:

Exactly . . . this was purely a "get out of town with a win" game for OSU and they still rolled up 511 yards of total offense.



Bullsh*t Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), despite the 511 yards our d played well.  Pretty sure this is by far the least points OSU scored all season.

Find a better thing to categorize as  :powerespect:  Our f*cking offense went 3 and out or 6 and out about 10 times, the D was on the field way more than they needed to be (I know we had TOP in our favor, but OSU was on the field a lot because of OOB and Incompletions, LOOK AT TOTAL PLAYS I'd guess OSU had over 75).  Anything resembling offensive consistency and the defense holds OSU to closer to 400 yards.

First off Dick where did I say the offense performed well??   Next . . . and for the last time, OSU did what they had to do to win . . . they didn't crank up their fast break offense like they can, not even close.   Yet they still rolled up 511 yards.  
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: Sugar Dick on October 30, 2010, 03:23:02 PM
It was also a very smart game plan by the 42 year old.  Why bother trying to "light it up" when the team you are playing is hapless on both sides of the ball.....just run it and play field position.  Isn't that what they were applauding Snyder for at the beginning of the year?  :dunno:

Exactly . . . this was purely a "get out of town with a win" game for OSU and they still rolled up 511 yards of total offense.



Bullsh*t Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), despite the 511 yards our d played well.  Pretty sure this is by far the least points OSU scored all season.

Find a better thing to categorize as  :powerespect:  Our f*cking offense went 3 and out or 6 and out about 10 times, the D was on the field way more than they needed to be (I know we had TOP in our favor, but OSU was on the field a lot because of OOB and Incompletions, LOOK AT TOTAL PLAYS I'd guess OSU had over 75).  Anything resembling offensive consistency and the defense holds OSU to closer to 400 yards.

First off Dick where did I say the offense performed well??   Next . . . and for the last time, OSU did what they had to do to win . . . they didn't crank up their fast break offense like they can, not even close.   Yet they still rolled up 511 yards.  


GMAFB, "they kept their fast break offense in the bag because they knew they'd win"  that is the dumbest f8cking thing I've heard all day.  Why didn't they do that against Washington STate, Tulsa, LaLa???

I agree with you most of the time, but this is just a feeble effort to use the  :powerespect:
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: ChiComCat on October 30, 2010, 03:25:27 PM
Our defense was extremely fortunate with some fumbles and some penalties killing OSU drives.  If you are satisfied crossing your fingers for that crap every game, then yes the defense was good.
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: Pete on October 30, 2010, 03:33:44 PM
It was also a very smart game plan by the 42 year old.  Why bother trying to "light it up" when the team you are playing is hapless on both sides of the ball.....just run it and play field position.  Isn't that what they were applauding Snyder for at the beginning of the year?  :dunno:

Exactly . . . this was purely a "get out of town with a win" game for OSU and they still rolled up 511 yards of total offense.



Bullsh*t Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), despite the 511 yards our d played well.  Pretty sure this is by far the least points OSU scored all season.

Find a better thing to categorize as  :powerespect:  Our f*cking offense went 3 and out or 6 and out about 10 times, the D was on the field way more than they needed to be (I know we had TOP in our favor, but OSU was on the field a lot because of OOB and Incompletions, LOOK AT TOTAL PLAYS I'd guess OSU had over 75).  Anything resembling offensive consistency and the defense holds OSU to closer to 400 yards.

Maybe our defense was on the field a lot because they gave up 511 yards and a number of third and longs :dunno:

The defense did not generate a pass rush, and faced an offensive game plan that was executed to near perfection....jam it down our rough ridin' throats with little risk. Bingo, accomplished.  500+ yards of offense despite not having perhaps the best offensive player in the conference.

Hang a rough ridin' banner.  Jesus, just because it wasn't as horrible as usual doesn't make it acceptable.  We had NO pass rush...and there is little or no help on the way next year up front.
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: Pete on October 30, 2010, 03:35:28 PM
It was also a very smart game plan by the 42 year old.  Why bother trying to "light it up" when the team you are playing is hapless on both sides of the ball.....just run it and play field position.  Isn't that what they were applauding Snyder for at the beginning of the year?  :dunno:

Exactly . . . this was purely a "get out of town with a win" game for OSU and they still rolled up 511 yards of total offense.



Bullsh*t Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), despite the 511 yards our d played well.  Pretty sure this is by far the least points OSU scored all season.

Find a better thing to categorize as  :powerespect:  Our f*cking offense went 3 and out or 6 and out about 10 times, the D was on the field way more than they needed to be (I know we had TOP in our favor, but OSU was on the field a lot because of OOB and Incompletions, LOOK AT TOTAL PLAYS I'd guess OSU had over 75).  Anything resembling offensive consistency and the defense holds OSU to closer to 400 yards.

First off Dick where did I say the offense performed well??   Next . . . and for the last time, OSU did what they had to do to win . . . they didn't crank up their fast break offense like they can, not even close.   Yet they still rolled up 511 yards. 


GMAFB, "they kept their fast break offense in the bag because they knew they'd win"  that is the dumbest fakeing thing I've heard all day.  Why didn't they do that against Washington STate, Tulsa, LaLa???

I agree with you most of the time, but this is just a feeble effort to use the  :powerespect:

That's exactly what they did.  How many times did they go down field?  Like 3 times?  They ran a freshman running back right up our asses....
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: Pete on October 30, 2010, 03:36:31 PM
Our defense was extremely fortunate with some fumbles and some penalties killing OSU drives.  If you are satisfied crossing your fingers for that cac every game, then yes the defense was good.

THIS.
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: 06wildcat on October 30, 2010, 03:38:52 PM
Defense did what they needed to win the game is a legit point. Doesn't make the defense great, but its still true.

True to a point. OSU could have gone down field at any time they wanted, or at least run much deeper routes since we were dead set on not bringing any pressure at all.

Wrong.  We tried to bring pressure frequently.

0 sacks, 0 ints (should have been at least 1 the time OSU's receiver ran the wrong route), We didn't bring any effective pressure at all. We played the same pussy defense of hoping they dropped it on 3rd and 7 while we were dropping 7. Wheedon had his first true rush today. He had 8 carries coming into the game that were all sacks, his carry today went for 8 yards. Forgive me if my assessment of this game is that we didn't do crap to pressure the quarterback.
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: my troll name ... Koppe22 on October 30, 2010, 03:39:49 PM
 :bwpopcorn: :popcorn:
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: nicname on October 30, 2010, 03:47:45 PM
Love it.  The goEMAW dorks are out in full force today.  It's a real laughingstock.
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: kso_FAN on October 30, 2010, 04:00:26 PM
Saying the defense did enough to win DOES NOT equal the defense is good, great, fixed, etc.  It simply means we did what THIS defense has to do (we know its a bad scheme, has bad players, etc.) to win a game; it kept OSU from a large number of big plays (less than 4 over 30 yards) and by doing this OSU's offense wasn't able to get into complete rhythm and made some mistakes.  The exact same thing we did vs UCLA, ISU, and CFU.  Look, I'd love us to hold opponents to less than 300 yards and give our offense great field position a ton, but that isn't going to happen this year.  We held a good opponent without their best player to 17 points and that is enough to win, even with missing two INTs in the 2nd half. 

What wasn't enough to win was an embarrassing performance by the offense.  Once again (like the CFU game) our offensive line (who is supposed to be a strength) got whipped by an average defensive front.  Again and again. Then when we have opportunities to make plays, a SR QB misses two wide open WRs on our opening drive of the 2nd half, and then a SR WR lets a throw (granted not a great throw) go through his hands for a pick.  And this after spending most of the first half pissing down our legs and missing opportunity after opportunity. 

All I'm saying is take out your frustration where it deserves to be taken out; IMHO that's on an offense that DID NOT live up to the potential of the personnel and abilities of their unit.  The defense did that today and I give them credit, but I don't disagree that they are still a bad defensive unit.
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: CHONGS on October 30, 2010, 04:07:13 PM
ksu_FAN is correct.
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: Pete on October 30, 2010, 04:08:49 PM
ksu_FAN is correct.

About which part?  Saying that we have a bad defensive scheme or that the offense was poorly directed?
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: CHONGS on October 30, 2010, 04:11:19 PM
ksu_FAN is correct.

About which part?  Saying that we have a bad defensive scheme or that the offense was poorly directed?
The defense played about as well as they could, and our o-line was brutal.  CCQ was trying to do too much, but I blame Bill and crew for that.
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: Pete on October 30, 2010, 04:13:03 PM
ksu_FAN is correct.

About which part?  Saying that we have a bad defensive scheme or that the offense was poorly directed?
The defense played about as well as they could, and our o-line was brutal.  CCQ was trying to do too much, but I blame Bill and crew for that.

So the later and not the former, then.  :dunno:
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: Kat Kid on October 30, 2010, 04:13:54 PM
Yeah our Defense is awful.  They pretty much pitched a shutout when you grade on their curve.  The problem today was slow ass daniel thomas, no touches for powell, our inability to throw the ball down field (or bubble screens) and not taking advantage of turnovers.  Points off turnovers.  Huge stat.  If our O hadn't been gifted penalties we would not have scored double digits.
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: kso_FAN on October 30, 2010, 04:14:47 PM
Yeah our Defense is awful.  They pretty much pitched a shutout when you grade on their curve.  The problem today was slow ass daniel thomas, no touches for powell, our inability to throw the ball down field (or bubble screens) and not taking advantage of turnovers.  Points off turnovers.  Huge stat.  If our O hadn't been gifted penalties we would not have scored double digits.

Good post.
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: Pete on October 30, 2010, 04:15:59 PM
Yeah our Defense is awful.  They pretty much pitched a shutout when you grade on their curve.  The problem today was slow ass daniel thomas, no touches for powell, our inability to throw the ball down field (or bubble screens) and not taking advantage of turnovers.  Points off turnovers.  Huge stat.  If our O hadn't been gifted penalties we would not have scored double digits.

Agreed.  We were out coached, again.  This is not supposed to be happening to us. 
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: ChiComCat on October 30, 2010, 04:20:09 PM
I don't disagree that the defense held them to low enough scoring for us to win.  The offense sucked and they are probably more to blame.  That said, anybody saying the defense was good is a jackass.  Ty Zimmerman saved at least two touchdowns throughout the course of the game.  Ty rough ridin' Zimmerman was our defense.  The D-Line was embarassing.  I don't think I have ever seen one unit look like such crap for any KSU game in my life.  Their QB had all day to throw every goddamn time.

Not really disagreeing with you, _FAN.  I'm just extremely frustrated with the defense.  Despite the point total, it was a total embarassment.  At least I was drunk when I watched the Nebraska debacle
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: Pete on October 30, 2010, 04:22:13 PM
I don't disagree that the defense held them to low enough scoring for us to win.  The offense sucked and they are probably more to blame.  That said, anybody saying the defense was good is a jackass.  Ty Zimmerman saved at least two touchdowns throughout the course of the game.  Ty effing Zimmerman was our defense.  The D-Line was embarassing.  I don't think I have ever seen one unit look like such cac for any KSU game in my life.  Their QB had all day to throw every goddamn time.

Not really disagreeing with you, _FAN.  I'm just extremely frustrated with the defense.  Despite the point total, it was a total embarassment.  At least I was drunk when I watched the Nebraska debacle

Good post
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: kso_FAN on October 30, 2010, 04:22:56 PM
Yeah our Defense is awful.  They pretty much pitched a shutout when you grade on their curve.  The problem today was slow ass daniel thomas, no touches for powell, our inability to throw the ball down field (or bubble screens) and not taking advantage of turnovers.  Points off turnovers.  Huge stat.  If our O hadn't been gifted penalties we would not have scored double digits.

Agreed.  We were out coached, again.  This is not supposed to be happening to us.  

Yep, but mainly with our offense and inability to adjust and find holes in a bad defense.

Again, the defense is not good, but this was a much better game-plan.  We brought safeties up and used them well in run support (even if Hartman and Lamur continue to not make plays) and still managed not to get beat over the top besides the play late in the 2nd half.  We tried to bring more blitzes, though they didn't result in pressure.  But the biggest thing is we didn't give up a ton of big plays.
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: Kat Kid on October 30, 2010, 04:24:33 PM
Agreed.  Our POTY on Defense is a freshman Safety from Junction City with how many other offers?

I mean I agree he's played well.  He deserves to be a player on a Big 12 team, but Ty's outstanding play speaks to the complete lack of talent and depth.
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: kso_FAN on October 30, 2010, 04:26:41 PM
I don't disagree that the defense held them to low enough scoring for us to win.  The offense sucked and they are probably more to blame.  That said, anybody saying the defense was good is a jackass.  Ty Zimmerman saved at least two touchdowns throughout the course of the game.  Ty effing Zimmerman was our defense.  The D-Line was embarassing.  I don't think I have ever seen one unit look like such cac for any KSU game in my life.  Their QB had all day to throw every goddamn time.

Not really disagreeing with you, _FAN.  I'm just extremely frustrated with the defense.  Despite the point total, it was a total embarassment.  At least I was drunk when I watched the Nebraska debacle

Good post

Understandable. 
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: Pete on October 30, 2010, 04:28:59 PM
Yeah our Defense is awful.  They pretty much pitched a shutout when you grade on their curve.  The problem today was slow ass daniel thomas, no touches for powell, our inability to throw the ball down field (or bubble screens) and not taking advantage of turnovers.  Points off turnovers.  Huge stat.  If our O hadn't been gifted penalties we would not have scored double digits.

Agreed.  We were out coached, again.  This is not supposed to be happening to us. 

Yep, but mainly with our offense and inability to adjust and find holes in a bad defense.

Again, the defense is not good, but this was a much better game-plan.  We brought safeties up and used them well in run support (even if Hartman and Lamur continue to not make plays) and still managed not to get beat over the top besides the play late in the 2nd half.  We tried to bring more blitzes, though they didn't result in pressure.  But the biggest thing is we didn't give up a ton of big plays.

Completely agree on the lessening of big plays, but they were still there (just not 80 yarders).  This was a welcomed improvement.

Obviously trading out our linebackers for Arthur Brown and (HOPEFULLY) another juco LB will make a big difference in preventing the extra 5 yards Hunter and Randall seemed to get every single time they got near our LBs.

However, I am rough ridin' furious about the problems that can be attributed to coaching.  There are only TWO reasons to keep Bill Sndyer, and that's fund raising and the long standing notion that he will out-coach his opponent.


Currie and Veatch have secured our funding, so that's almost completely off the table now.   If we continue to get out-coached...if our defense (and offense) continue to be in bad positions, then why the hell do we have Bill Sndyer?  Recruiting?  :dunno:
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: kso_FAN on October 30, 2010, 04:32:01 PM
Yeah our Defense is awful.  They pretty much pitched a shutout when you grade on their curve.  The problem today was slow ass daniel thomas, no touches for powell, our inability to throw the ball down field (or bubble screens) and not taking advantage of turnovers.  Points off turnovers.  Huge stat.  If our O hadn't been gifted penalties we would not have scored double digits.

Agreed.  We were out coached, again.  This is not supposed to be happening to us. 

Yep, but mainly with our offense and inability to adjust and find holes in a bad defense.

Again, the defense is not good, but this was a much better game-plan.  We brought safeties up and used them well in run support (even if Hartman and Lamur continue to not make plays) and still managed not to get beat over the top besides the play late in the 2nd half.  We tried to bring more blitzes, though they didn't result in pressure.  But the biggest thing is we didn't give up a ton of big plays.

Completely agree on the lessening of big plays, but they were still there (just not 80 yarders).  This was a welcomed improvement.

Obviously trading out our linebackers for Arthur Brown and (HOPEFULLY) another juco LB will make a big difference in preventing the extra 5 yards Hunter and Randall seemed to get every single time they got near our LBs.

However, I am effing furious about the problems that can be attributed to coaching.  There are only TWO reasons to keep Bill Sndyer, and that's fund raising and the long standing notion that he will out-coach his opponent.


Currie and Veatch have secured our funding, so that's almost completely off the table now.   If we continue to get out-coached...if our defense (and offense) continue to be in bad positions, then why the hell do we have Bill Sndyer?  Recruiting?  :dunno:

Its not the first time Snyder has been outcoached.  But being outcoached coincides often with poor talent, see 2001. 

The only sliver of excuse I'll give is that it doesn't help our offense that we are without 2 of our top 3 WRs. 
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: ChiComCat on October 30, 2010, 04:35:54 PM
I don't hate Snyder coaching this team.  I hate Cosh coaching here.  If one can't seperate himself from the other, damn them both.  

Yeah our Defense is awful.  They pretty much pitched a shutout when you grade on their curve.  The problem today was slow ass daniel thomas, no touches for powell, our inability to throw the ball down field (or bubble screens) and not taking advantage of turnovers.  Points off turnovers.  Huge stat.  If our O hadn't been gifted penalties we would not have scored double digits.

Agreed.  We were out coached, again.  This is not supposed to be happening to us. 

Yep, but mainly with our offense and inability to adjust and find holes in a bad defense.

Again, the defense is not good, but this was a much better game-plan.  We brought safeties up and used them well in run support (even if Hartman and Lamur continue to not make plays) and still managed not to get beat over the top besides the play late in the 2nd half.  We tried to bring more blitzes, though they didn't result in pressure.  But the biggest thing is we didn't give up a ton of big plays.

Completely agree on the lessening of big plays, but they were still there (just not 80 yarders).  This was a welcomed improvement.

Obviously trading out our linebackers for Arthur Brown and (HOPEFULLY) another juco LB will make a big difference in preventing the extra 5 yards Hunter and Randall seemed to get every single time they got near our LBs.

However, I am effing furious about the problems that can be attributed to coaching.  There are only TWO reasons to keep Bill Sndyer, and that's fund raising and the long standing notion that he will out-coach his opponent.


Currie and Veatch have secured our funding, so that's almost completely off the table now.   If we continue to get out-coached...if our defense (and offense) continue to be in bad positions, then why the hell do we have Bill Sndyer?  Recruiting?  :dunno:

Its not the first time Snyder has been outcoached.  But being outcoached coincides often with poor talent, see 2001. 

The only sliver of excuse I'll give is that it doesn't help our offense that we are without 2 of our top 3 WRs. 
Good point, Quarles really mumped us in this game
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: Pete on October 30, 2010, 04:41:08 PM
Yeah our Defense is awful.  They pretty much pitched a shutout when you grade on their curve.  The problem today was slow ass daniel thomas, no touches for powell, our inability to throw the ball down field (or bubble screens) and not taking advantage of turnovers.  Points off turnovers.  Huge stat.  If our O hadn't been gifted penalties we would not have scored double digits.

Agreed.  We were out coached, again.  This is not supposed to be happening to us. 

Yep, but mainly with our offense and inability to adjust and find holes in a bad defense.

Again, the defense is not good, but this was a much better game-plan.  We brought safeties up and used them well in run support (even if Hartman and Lamur continue to not make plays) and still managed not to get beat over the top besides the play late in the 2nd half.  We tried to bring more blitzes, though they didn't result in pressure.  But the biggest thing is we didn't give up a ton of big plays.

Completely agree on the lessening of big plays, but they were still there (just not 80 yarders).  This was a welcomed improvement.

Obviously trading out our linebackers for Arthur Brown and (HOPEFULLY) another juco LB will make a big difference in preventing the extra 5 yards Hunter and Randall seemed to get every single time they got near our LBs.

However, I am effing furious about the problems that can be attributed to coaching.  There are only TWO reasons to keep Bill Sndyer, and that's fund raising and the long standing notion that he will out-coach his opponent.


Currie and Veatch have secured our funding, so that's almost completely off the table now.   If we continue to get out-coached...if our defense (and offense) continue to be in bad positions, then why the hell do we have Bill Sndyer?  Recruiting?  :dunno:

Its not the first time Snyder has been outcoached.  But being outcoached coincides often with poor talent, see 2001. 

The only sliver of excuse I'll give is that it doesn't help our offense that we are without 2 of our top 3 WRs. 

I am struggling with your point that being outcoached coincides with poor talent    Even if they are lower level D1 talent, it doesn't mean that they aren't physically capable of moving to a designated spot on the field, does it?  Are you saying that the coaching is sound, but the players are not capable of executing the plan, or that the plan is overestimating the quality of our players?

Having both conditions be true is obviously devastating. 
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: kso_FAN on October 30, 2010, 04:45:40 PM

I am struggling with your point that being outcoached coincides with poor talent    Even if they are lower level D1 talent, it doesn't mean that they aren't physically capable of moving to a designated spot on the field, does it?  Are you saying that the coaching is sound, but the players are not capable of executing the plan, or that the plan is overestimating the quality of our players?

Having both conditions be true is obviously devastating. 

All it takes in football is poor talent at one or two positions.  For example, its pretty clear that right now offenses are specifically attacking Hartman/Lamur.  You get a better player at that spot and it makes a huge difference.  Same if you can find a playmaker at DT or LB.  Huge difference if you can just get 2 or 3 better players on the field, so I'm not without hope.
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: Dugout DickStone on October 30, 2010, 04:51:53 PM

I am struggling with your point that being outcoached coincides with poor talent    Even if they are lower level D1 talent, it doesn't mean that they aren't physically capable of moving to a designated spot on the field, does it?  Are you saying that the coaching is sound, but the players are not capable of executing the plan, or that the plan is overestimating the quality of our players?

Having both conditions be true is obviously devastating. 

All it takes in football is poor talent at one or two positions.  For example, its pretty clear that right now offenses are specifically attacking Hartman/Lamur.  You get a better player at that spot and it makes a huge difference.  Same if you can find a playmaker at DT or LB.  Huge difference if you can just get 2 or 3 better players on the field, so I'm not without hope.

And we are even weaker at QB.
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: ChiComCat on October 30, 2010, 04:55:04 PM
I thought Carsy managed the game alright with the exception of the dumbass interceptions.  Then again, the dumbass interceptions are kinda a huge rough ridin' deal.
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: felix rex on October 30, 2010, 04:56:02 PM

I am struggling with your point that being outcoached coincides with poor talent    Even if they are lower level D1 talent, it doesn't mean that they aren't physically capable of moving to a designated spot on the field, does it?  Are you saying that the coaching is sound, but the players are not capable of executing the plan, or that the plan is overestimating the quality of our players?

Having both conditions be true is obviously devastating. 

All it takes in football is poor talent at one or two positions.  For example, its pretty clear that right now offenses are specifically attacking Hartman/Lamur.  You get a better player at that spot and it makes a huge difference.  Same if you can find a playmaker at DT or LB.  Huge difference if you can just get 2 or 3 better players on the field, so I'm not without hope.

Plus, per Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences, understanding and recognizing where you should be is a "talent." In a lot of ways, Snyder is driving this thing home without a clutch.
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: Pete on October 30, 2010, 04:56:40 PM

I am struggling with your point that being outcoached coincides with poor talent    Even if they are lower level D1 talent, it doesn't mean that they aren't physically capable of moving to a designated spot on the field, does it?  Are you saying that the coaching is sound, but the players are not capable of executing the plan, or that the plan is overestimating the quality of our players?

Having both conditions be true is obviously devastating. 

All it takes in football is poor talent at one or two positions.  For example, its pretty clear that right now offenses are specifically attacking Hartman/Lamur.  You get a better player at that spot and it makes a huge difference.  Same if you can find a playmaker at DT or LB.  Huge difference if you can just get 2 or 3 better players on the field, so I'm not without hope.

Makes sense, particularly with Arthur and Meshak coming in, but we'll have the same safeties next year.    :frown:
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: Acceleration Man on October 30, 2010, 04:57:23 PM
Zims and Harrison had a pretty good game. Harold was completely non-existent, as was the rest of our D-line. I actually was glad to see some blitzes, but the fact that we were never able to get to the QB, or even bat down balls was very telling.

The offense probably played a little worse than the defense, and was very frustrating. I think it was a combination of the lack of our top 2 receivers, Carsy's inability to throw a long ball in stride, Thomas' ultra-patient (read: give the D time to swarm) running style, and some bad play calling. The last is probably the most frustrating to me. We were determined to keep running draws to Thomas on 1st and 2nd downs for 2 yards each. It's odd, because at times you see flashes of really good play-calling, but then it goes back to  :bang: almost immediately.

The worst had to be at the end of the game when we had to call a time-out to decide to QB sneak or run a draw at the 2. Then we come out of the time out, run a play, and then proceed to HUDDLE and waste 30 seconds to decide to do the same play (at the angst of Snyds, btw). Completely embarrassing, and shows the lack of preparedness and/or communication between coaches & players. Then we get the ball back, and Carsy checks down to his 3-yards-deep crossing routes in the middle of the field. Really stupid for a Senior QB. Incredibly dumb.

Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: Acceleration Man on October 30, 2010, 05:00:28 PM
Quote
All it takes in football is poor talent at one or two positions.  For example, its pretty clear that right now offenses are specifically attacking Hartman/Lamur.  You get a better player at that spot and it makes a huge difference.  Same if you can find a playmaker at DT or LB.  Huge difference if you can just get 2 or 3 better players on the field, so I'm not without hope.

Know what irks me? These players were supposed to be 2 of our BEST on defense this year. Particularly disappointed with Lamur. Explain to me why that is, _Fan (and btw, it's time to change your sig)  :frown:
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: Harry Dunne on October 30, 2010, 05:08:49 PM
we played bad.
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: ChiComCat on October 30, 2010, 05:13:01 PM
Harold was pretty awful.  Saw a play where he tried lining up next to the other d-end and the LB had to correct him.  Love Thomas and he is really good but we do need to use Powell more as a change of pace back.  

I actually am getting kinda excited at Zimmerman as a Rashad Washington style safety that comes up to the line a lot.  As shitty as the defense was today, Zimmerman really was the equivalent of awesome.  Did great in kick coverage and if he coulda pulled down the tough interception my mind would've been completely blown
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: felix rex on October 30, 2010, 05:38:58 PM
Harold was pretty awful.  Saw a play where he tried lining up next to the other d-end and the LB had to correct him.  Love Thomas and he is really good but we do need to use Powell more as a change of pace back.  

I actually am getting kinda excited at Zimmerman as a Rashad Washington style safety that comes up to the line a lot.  As shitty as the defense was today, Zimmerman really was the equivalent of awesome.  Did great in kick coverage and if he coulda pulled down the tough interception my mind would've been completely blown

Related note, how unreal was that play by Hunter to regain his balance and get the first down? Zimmy came in with pretty good form. That was just unreal in the replay.
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: Sugar Dick on October 30, 2010, 05:40:10 PM
Saying the defense did enough to win DOES NOT equal the defense is good, great, fixed, etc.  It simply means we did what THIS defense has to do (we know its a bad scheme, has bad players, etc.) to win a game; it kept OSU from a large number of big plays (less than 4 over 30 yards) and by doing this OSU's offense wasn't able to get into complete rhythm and made some mistakes.  The exact same thing we did vs UCLA, ISU, and CFU.  Look, I'd love us to hold opponents to less than 300 yards and give our offense great field position a ton, but that isn't going to happen this year.  We held a good opponent without their best player to 17 points and that is enough to win, even with missing two INTs in the 2nd half. 

What wasn't enough to win was an embarrassing performance by the offense.  Once again (like the CFU game) our offensive line (who is supposed to be a strength) got whipped by an average defensive front.  Again and again. Then when we have opportunities to make plays, a SR QB misses two wide open WRs on our opening drive of the 2nd half, and then a SR WR lets a throw (granted not a great throw) go through his hands for a pick.  And this after spending most of the first half pissing down our legs and missing opportunity after opportunity. 

All I'm saying is take out your frustration where it deserves to be taken out; IMHO that's on an offense that DID NOT live up to the potential of the personnel and abilities of their unit.  The defense did that today and I give them credit, but I don't disagree that they are still a bad defensive unit.

See told you so (not you _Fan, all the other guys)
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: ChiComCat on October 30, 2010, 05:40:50 PM
Harold was pretty awful.  Saw a play where he tried lining up next to the other d-end and the LB had to correct him.  Love Thomas and he is really good but we do need to use Powell more as a change of pace back.  

I actually am getting kinda excited at Zimmerman as a Rashad Washington style safety that comes up to the line a lot.  As shitty as the defense was today, Zimmerman really was the equivalent of awesome.  Did great in kick coverage and if he coulda pulled down the tough interception my mind would've been completely blown

Related note, how unreal was that play by Hunter to regain his balance and get the first down? Zimmy came in with pretty good form. That was just unreal in the replay.

Yea, from my vantage point I couldn't really see it and was getting ready to bitch about the defense.  Then I saw the replay and couldn't reasonably be upset.  
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: Trim on October 30, 2010, 06:10:04 PM
Agreed.  Our POTY on Defense is a freshman Safety from Junction City with how many other offers?

Maybe we should've give Asbury's strategy more time?  :dunno:
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: Dugout DickStone on October 30, 2010, 06:17:05 PM
Agreed.  Our POTY on Defense is a freshman Safety from Junction City with how many other offers?

Maybe we should've give Asbury's strategy more time?  :dunno:

Not too late...?   :dunno:
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: Trim on October 30, 2010, 06:20:10 PM
I think this is the x's and o's thread.

_FAN, are our run plays much slower developing than other teams or am I just picking at that unreasonably because of the poor results?
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: Sugar Dick on October 30, 2010, 06:43:44 PM
Question:

Who's more Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), the "powertards" who thought are defense played well, or the "goemawdorks" who think our defense should have held OSU to some unknown number of fewer total yards?

I'm goin with the goemawdorks

:goemawtardapproved:
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 30, 2010, 06:47:12 PM
You're completely rough ridin' this up Dick.

Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: Dugout DickStone on October 30, 2010, 06:50:38 PM
Question:

Who's more Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), the "powertards" who thought are defense played well, or the "goEMAWdorks" who think our defense should have held OSU to some unknown number of fewer total yards?

I'm goin with the goEMAWdorks

:goEMAWtardapproved:

Where do "people who think that we weren't going to win playing 3 yards and a cloud of dust offense" fit in?
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: Sugar Dick on October 30, 2010, 06:54:26 PM
You're completely effing this up Dick.



Defense improved 180 yards week-over-week  :pbj: :pbj: :pbj:  Cosh HCIW???

Seriously, am I supposed to be complaining about our D relative to previous years teams, or just this season?  :confused:  

I'm having a hard time getting into the defense hate when they give up 17 points to the #2 offense in the country.  I just kinda knew with no DT's worth sh)t we weren't going to be able to stop anyone consistently, no matter how well our secondary plays.  Kibble has been a dissapointment and Felder is too small
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: ChiComCat on October 30, 2010, 06:56:33 PM
Question:

Who's more Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), the "powertards" who thought are defense played well, or the "goemawdorks" who think our defense should have held OSU to some unknown number of fewer total yards?

I'm goin with the goemawdorks

:goemawtardapproved:

Keep thinking our defense did awesome by getting an absurd number of breaks.  Accept a mediocre performance from our shitty defense.  In fact, praise it.  You and your ilk are the dumbfucks that are going to be responsible for another year of Chris rough ridin' Cosh.  

Enjoy that blood on your hands
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: sys on October 30, 2010, 07:14:09 PM
Love Thomas and he is really good.

pffft.
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: wetwillie on October 30, 2010, 07:14:54 PM
OSU had an average starting field position on their own 25 yard line, I think this contributes greatly to the fact that they only scored 17 points on offense.  That coupled with an obviously conservative game plan contributes quite a bit towards the number of points compared to the yards.  The defense didnt give up any points in OSU's first six possessions but a lot of that was bad breaks for OSU and not forced by our defense.  The defense still is garbage but at least I have to give them credit for falling on fumbles when they happened.  Would love to see us use powell more in the CTR to at least give DT a shot at making it through the season in one piece.
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: Panjandrum on October 30, 2010, 07:15:06 PM
Our defense was extremely fortunate with some fumbles and some penalties killing OSU drives.  If you are satisfied crossing your fingers for that cac every game, then yes the defense was good.

THIS.

THIS +1

The bar has been set so low for this defense that ants would find it hard to squeeze through.

"Well, we know the defense is going to give up 500 yards.  But we just have to hope the other team miraculously turns it over and shits themselves several times because that's how the defense was designed to work."

If your defensive strategy is to pray the other team sucks more than you do and beats themselves, you need a different rough ridin' strategy.

I know the defense isn't talented, and I know that they aren't very good.  But they sure as hell aren't this bad.  It's a stupid strategy being exploited by teams that realize our defensive coordinator is a functional Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: Panjandrum on October 30, 2010, 07:19:00 PM
Its not the first time Snyder has been outcoached.  But being outcoached coincides often with poor talent, see 2001. 

The only sliver of excuse I'll give is that it doesn't help our offense that we are without 2 of our top 3 WRs. 

The parallel that you can draw is that in 2001, we had a horrible offense and our defense was being coached by an overrated coordinator.

Bennett, for all that laud him, was ultra-aggressive, and when he didn't have an offense behind him that could make up for their hyper aggressive tendencies, they got exploited.

Anyway, this season has the same feel.  We've got a hamstrung offense, and we can't do anything about that.  Got it.  But we're being coordinated out of wins on defense because they're playing a style that's not conducive for teams with our deficiencies.  Or at least that's how I feel.
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: Pexikan on October 30, 2010, 07:54:34 PM
OK State got what they needed, when they needed it. One good half defensively from kstate doesn't mean crap.  BTW, anyone who thinks our D actually made an improvement from prevous games needs to look at that OSU drive to end the 1st half.

Hunters 11 yard rush on 2nd down...Weeden to Anderson for 40 yards on the very next play to our 16... then 3rd and 9 on our 15, hoping for a hold/FG try...TD over Stephen Harrisons' head.  7-7. Took em a whopping 1 minute 12 seconds to go 67 yards.  Horrible.

OSU's 1st possession of the 3rd quarter after we blow the FG try: 11 plays, 80 yards. 16 yard TD pass to Cooper.  They only faced ONE 3rd down the entire drive.  11 plays. ONE 3rd down. Horrible.

This is the same D as last week.  OSU just played poorly, without their best wideout, and they still put up over 500 and rushed for over 200.  I saw NO difference at all.  Falling on OSU fumbles doesn't constitute as good D.
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: felix rex on October 30, 2010, 07:56:00 PM
You're completely effing this up Dick.


'm having a hard time getting into the defense hate when they give up 17 points to the #2 offense in the country.  I just kinda knew with no DT's worth sh)t we weren't going to be able to stop anyone consistently, no matter how well our secondary plays.  Kibble has been a dissapointment and Felder is too small

You sound like the retards defending Coffman.
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 30, 2010, 08:45:17 PM
OK State got what they needed, when they needed it. One good half defensively from kstate doesn't mean crap.  BTW, anyone who thinks our D actually made an improvement from prevous games needs to look at that OSU drive to end the 1st half.

Hunters 11 yard rush on 2nd down...Weeden to Anderson for 40 yards on the very next play to our 16... then 3rd and 9 on our 15, hoping for a hold/FG try...TD over Stephen Harrisons' head.  7-7. Took em a whopping 1 minute 12 seconds to go 67 yards.  Horrible.

OSU's 1st possession of the 3rd quarter after we blow the FG try: 11 plays, 80 yards. 16 yard TD pass to Cooper.  They only faced ONE 3rd down the entire drive.  11 plays. ONE 3rd down. Horrible.

This is the same D as last week.  OSU just played poorly, without their best wideout, and they still put up over 500 and rushed for over 200.  I saw NO difference at all.  Falling on OSU fumbles doesn't constitute as good D.

A Grand Slam by Pexikan. 
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: Harry Dunne on October 30, 2010, 08:57:27 PM
OK State got what they needed, when they needed it. One good half defensively from kstate doesn't mean cac.  BTW, anyone who thinks our D actually made an improvement from prevous games needs to look at that OSU drive to end the 1st half.

Hunters 11 yard rush on 2nd down...Weeden to Anderson for 40 yards on the very next play to our 16... then 3rd and 9 on our 15, hoping for a hold/FG try...TD over Stephen Harrisons' head.  7-7. Took em a whopping 1 minute 12 seconds to go 67 yards.  Horrible.

OSU's 1st possession of the 3rd quarter after we blow the FG try: 11 plays, 80 yards. 16 yard TD pass to Cooper.  They only faced ONE 3rd down the entire drive.  11 plays. ONE 3rd down. Horrible.

This is the same D as last week.  OSU just played poorly, without their best wideout, and they still put up over 500 and rushed for over 200.  I saw NO difference at all.  Falling on OSU fumbles doesn't constitute as good D.
:star: :star: :star: :star: :star: :star: :star: :star: :star: :star: :star: :star: :star: :star: :star:
Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 30, 2010, 09:55:24 PM
157 yards gained in 5 plays by OSU (courtesy of TOS).


Title: Re: LOL at the Powertards trying to give Props to the Defense . . .
Post by: Kat Kid on October 30, 2010, 10:05:19 PM
OK State got what they needed, when they needed it. One good half defensively from kstate doesn't mean crap.  BTW, anyone who thinks our D actually made an improvement from prevous games needs to look at that OSU drive to end the 1st half.

Hunters 11 yard rush on 2nd down...Weeden to Anderson for 40 yards on the very next play to our 16... then 3rd and 9 on our 15, hoping for a hold/FG try...TD over Stephen Harrisons' head.  7-7. Took em a whopping 1 minute 12 seconds to go 67 yards.  Horrible.

OSU's 1st possession of the 3rd quarter after we blow the FG try: 11 plays, 80 yards. 16 yard TD pass to Cooper.  They only faced ONE 3rd down the entire drive.  11 plays. ONE 3rd down. Horrible.

This is the same D as last week.  OSU just played poorly, without their best wideout, and they still put up over 500 and rushed for over 200.  I saw NO difference at all.  Falling on OSU fumbles doesn't constitute as good D.

going, going gone.  wow.