Author Topic: We were lucky we didn't lose  (Read 8575 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline hemmy

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 6676
  • RIP The After Party
    • View Profile
We were lucky we didn't lose
« on: September 11, 2010, 10:13:24 PM »
Both lines got DOMINATED, we lucked out on some plays that could have made this very similar to La-La in 2008

God we suck.  :flush:


(Want to get rid of the ad? Register now for free!)

Offline Panjandrum

  • 5 o'clock Shadow Enthusiast
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 11221
  • Amateur magician and certified locksmith.
    • View Profile
    • Bring on the Cats [An SB Nation Blog]
Re: We were lucky we didn't lose
« Reply #1 on: September 11, 2010, 10:15:55 PM »
Very underwhelming game.  Glad I skipped this one.

Offline Dr Rick Daris

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 23383
    • View Profile
Re: We were lucky we didn't lose
« Reply #2 on: September 11, 2010, 10:17:17 PM »
 :lol:

Offline hemmy

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 6676
  • RIP The After Party
    • View Profile
Re: We were lucky we didn't lose
« Reply #3 on: September 11, 2010, 10:18:30 PM »
gmafb Daris.

Offline Pittcat

  • Resident Purveyor of Above Avererage Staplers.
  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1114
    • View Profile
Re: We were lucky we didn't lose
« Reply #4 on: September 11, 2010, 10:21:13 PM »
It's sounded good on Wyattvision.  Of course I've been drinking since noon.  


One thing for sure, I am full blown in the Daris Camp.  CCq does not screw up.  He is a game manager capable of putting up great stats.
























 :powerespect:
3021  RIP

Offline ksudrew

  • Fan
  • *
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: We were lucky we didn't lose
« Reply #5 on: September 11, 2010, 10:44:40 PM »
Both lines got DOMINATED, we lucked out on some plays that could have made this very similar to La-La in 2008

God we suck.  :flush:

life's a biatch and then you die

Offline hemmy

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 6676
  • RIP The After Party
    • View Profile
Re: We were lucky we didn't lose
« Reply #6 on: September 11, 2010, 10:46:37 PM »
Both lines got DOMINATED, we lucked out on some plays that could have made this very similar to La-La in 2008

God we suck.  :flush:

life's a biatch and then you die

eff you

yoga-like_abana

  • Guest
Re: We were lucky we didn't lose
« Reply #7 on: September 11, 2010, 10:46:52 PM »
Felt like we hit the snooze button and put it on cruise control. Game was very very  :zzz:

Offline ksudrew

  • Fan
  • *
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: We were lucky we didn't lose
« Reply #8 on: September 11, 2010, 10:55:43 PM »
Both lines got DOMINATED, we lucked out on some plays that could have made this very similar to La-La in 2008

God we suck.  :flush:

life's a biatch and then you die

shazbot! you

mrs catmatt is my attorney . . .

Offline mcmwcat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5313
  • trips: "MCMW"
    • View Profile
Re: We were lucky we didn't lose
« Reply #9 on: September 11, 2010, 11:02:39 PM »
stats make it look like defense got trounced.  can any witnesses confirm?  over 400 yards allowed  :confused:

Offline CHONGS

  • Master of the Atom
  • Administrator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 19428
    • View Profile
    • goEMAW.com
Re: We were lucky we didn't lose
« Reply #10 on: September 11, 2010, 11:03:20 PM »
stats make it look like defense got trounced.  can any witnesses confirm?  over 400 yards allowed  :confused:
I can confirm.  99 yard drive right up our asses sealed the deal.

Offline Pittcat

  • Resident Purveyor of Above Avererage Staplers.
  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1114
    • View Profile
Re: We were lucky we didn't lose
« Reply #11 on: September 11, 2010, 11:04:25 PM »
I'm saying the defense very vanilla-ishly mailed it in for the 2nd half.
3021  RIP

Offline CHONGS

  • Master of the Atom
  • Administrator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 19428
    • View Profile
    • goEMAW.com
Re: We were lucky we didn't lose
« Reply #12 on: September 11, 2010, 11:06:31 PM »
I'm saying the defense very vanilla-ishly mailed it in for the 2nd half.
I'm saying they ran it down the middle and kicked our d-line's ass.

Offline hemmy

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 6676
  • RIP The After Party
    • View Profile
Re: We were lucky we didn't lose
« Reply #13 on: September 11, 2010, 11:10:47 PM »
defense blows

Offline jtksu

  • definitely not a racist piece of shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3673
    • View Profile
Re: We were lucky we didn't lose
« Reply #14 on: September 11, 2010, 11:25:04 PM »
This board is even worse than GPC, only in reverse.  The team averaged 6.3ypc and gave up 2 sacks.  Man, our line GOT DOMINATED!!!!!  I can't believe how stupid the majority of you are.  How are you guys even able to feed yourselves, let alone log in to this site?

Offline Pendergast

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1494
    • View Profile
Re: We were lucky we didn't lose
« Reply #15 on: September 11, 2010, 11:29:30 PM »
17 points and 220+ yards in the last 20 minutes of scrub time?


 :zzz:

Offline OK_Cat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 16212
  • Hey
    • View Profile
Re: We were lucky we didn't lose
« Reply #16 on: September 11, 2010, 11:30:30 PM »
Our defense is disgustingly horrible. 

Online nicname

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 15861
  • Deal with it.
    • View Profile
Re: We were lucky we didn't lose
« Reply #17 on: September 11, 2010, 11:46:06 PM »
our defense was bad, but hemmy is known for being a pessimist.
If there was a gif of nicname thwarting the attempted-flag-taker and then gesturing him to suck it, followed by motioning for all of Hilton Shelter to boo him louder, it'd be better than that auburn gif.

Offline hemmy

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 6676
  • RIP The After Party
    • View Profile
Re: We were lucky we didn't lose
« Reply #18 on: September 11, 2010, 11:54:34 PM »
17 points and 220+ yards in the last 20 minutes of scrub time?


 :zzz:

Hardly scrub time.  Majority of the players on the field were starters/regulars

Offline Pendergast

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1494
    • View Profile
Re: We were lucky we didn't lose
« Reply #19 on: September 12, 2010, 12:06:17 AM »
Wow so at lease half of the starters were still in?  Shouldn't be any decrease in efficiency there.

JFC, key guys on offense and defense were pulled.  Take a third of the starters from any college team in the country and they're a different team.

It was scrub time.

 :flush:

Offline jtksu

  • definitely not a racist piece of shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3673
    • View Profile
Re: We were lucky we didn't lose
« Reply #20 on: September 12, 2010, 12:07:26 AM »
Walker, Voelker, Wright, Terrell, Kirk, Melton, Bumpas are regulars/starters?   

Offline swish1

  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 351
    • View Profile
Re: We were lucky we didn't lose
« Reply #21 on: September 12, 2010, 12:08:38 AM »
Walker, Voelker, Wright, Terrell, Kirk, Melton, Bumpas are regulars/starters?   

on the 99 yard drive most of the starters were in...

Offline Pendergast

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1494
    • View Profile
Re: We were lucky we didn't lose
« Reply #22 on: September 12, 2010, 12:13:37 AM »
Walker, Voelker, Wright, Terrell, Kirk, Melton, Bumpas are regulars/starters?   

on the 99 yard drive most of the starters were in...

No

Offline jtksu

  • definitely not a racist piece of shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3673
    • View Profile
Re: We were lucky we didn't lose
« Reply #23 on: September 12, 2010, 12:15:43 AM »
With 3 minutes to go, up 41-17, Snyder put the starters back in?  Is that honestly what you're claiming?  :facepalm:

Offline hemmy

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 6676
  • RIP The After Party
    • View Profile
Re: We were lucky we didn't lose
« Reply #24 on: September 12, 2010, 12:16:46 AM »
They were moving the ball with ease with Harold, Hrebec, and the other group of lovable retards in there