Stanford-VT
Moderators: 88BuckeyeGrad, Left Seater, buckeye_in_sc
Re: Stanford-VT
Maybe the defense should just let VT score so they won't feel so bad.
- Screw_Michigan
- Angry Snowflake
- Posts: 21094
- Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:37 am
- Location: 20011
Re: Stanford-VT
I just tuned in 20 min ago, noticed nobody was at the game. Was it like that all night?
Re: Stanford-VT
I've got to admit, though, VT is a classy team. No cheap bullshit. Taylor seems like a really good, very talented guy.
-
- Eternal Scobode
- Posts: 21259
- Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 2:35 pm
Re: Stanford-VT
I'd say throwing down field with 5 mins left, up 21 pts is within the bounds of sportsmanship. Up 40 pts or so is a different story. I've seen some crazy shit happen in 5 minutes. Last year's MSU debacle vs CMU comes to mind.
Re: Stanford-VT
Gotta cut 'spray some slack. He has a compulsion to find at least something negative to say about any PAC10 team.
Not his fault, it's inbred.
Not his fault, it's inbred.
Re: Stanford-VT
21 points is 3 TDs. I though you all could at least multiply.
Re: Stanford-VT
You mean the team that has BLASTED the same furd team 8 out the last 10 years ?Papa Willie wrote:, but how 'bout Cal? :D
Allbarn is going to get killed in a week.
We can talk about keeping the Oregon team on the field with 5 minutes to go and sportsmanship in a week.
Re: Stanford-VT
You must have missed all those early season blowouts, when Oregon was running it straight into the DTs, including on 4th and long.Papa Willie wrote: It's just shitty sportsmanship, but that's how the Pac10 rolls, so....
Pray Auburn gets the same courtesy.
Now Boise, on the other hand -- they never saw a hail mary they didn't want to throw when up 40.
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
Re: Stanford-VT
Jesus you really are a bitter old fuck.Papa Willie wrote:40-12 = 28 points or 4 TD's.Mikey wrote:21 points is 3 TDs. I though you all could at least multiply.
They weren't passing the ball after the last score, otherwise they undoubtedly would have scored again.Papa Willie wrote:Question, though. You're up 21 with 5 minutes left and still throwing long passes? The fuck?
Before you cry any more about running up the score, what were the Bama-Sparty and MSU-Michigan scores again?
Why don't you just give credit where credit's due and STFU.
- FLW Buckeye
- 2014 T1B FBBL Champ
- Posts: 1396
- Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:14 am
Re: Stanford-VT
Jesus, dude. quit being the bitter old bitch. Save it for your game.
Re: Stanford-VT
And here I thought VT was the hottest god damn team in the country...
I seem to recall that you were pretty confident in their greatness.
Guess I had it all wrong.
I seem to recall that you were pretty confident in their greatness.
Guess I had it all wrong.
Re: Stanford-VT
Mikey wrote:Holtz, May and all the other PAC10 doubters can now officially suck my dick.
Go Ducks.
Spray, quit while you're behind.
“It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.”
-
- Eternal Scobode
- Posts: 21259
- Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 2:35 pm
Re: Stanford-VT
Bama didn't run the score up. Their 18th stringers were in the game mid way in the 3rd quarter. I know they got a td in 4th quarter garbage time, but shit happens. Saban was outwardly displeased when he scored.
Re: Stanford-VT
I just want to be clear.
Where exactly to you draw the line?
21 points? 28 points?
5 minutes, 7 1/2 minutes, 3 minutes?
Teams have been known to score 3 TDs or more in a matter of 5 minutes or less, and VT is not exactly horseshit.
Let me know what the SEC rules are about pulling your starters and shutting it down. If I knew exactly what's OK and what isn't then maybe I'd agree with you.
Where exactly to you draw the line?
21 points? 28 points?
5 minutes, 7 1/2 minutes, 3 minutes?
Teams have been known to score 3 TDs or more in a matter of 5 minutes or less, and VT is not exactly horseshit.
Let me know what the SEC rules are about pulling your starters and shutting it down. If I knew exactly what's OK and what isn't then maybe I'd agree with you.
Re: Stanford-VT
Papa Willie wrote:
No - you don't understand, Cal lost 7 games this year and really sucked. No bowl games. No respect.
Really ?
All those loses came against the PAC.
The same Cal team that held Oregon to 15 points in the game and 7 points of those came off of special teams.
Or, the Cal team that beat ASU by 32 points which should have beaten Wisky on the road... and lost by one point.
Maybe, it was the Cal team that beat Colorado by 42 points.... which powerhouse Georgia from the SEC.... lost too ???
Last edited by MONEY on Tue Jan 04, 2011 5:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Stanford-VT
Papa Willie wrote:
It's just shitty sportsmanship, but that's how the Pac10 rolls, so....
“It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.”
-
- Eternal Scobode
- Posts: 21259
- Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 2:35 pm
Re: Stanford-VT
Yeah, pretty much. Takes of "quality losses" and transitive property wins reek of sadness, and show how far your program has fallen. Hey, at least they weren't high enough to fall too hard.MONEY wrote:Really ?
Re: Stanford-VT
Cal was about 20 plays from playing for the MNC.
Re: Stanford-VT
Actually, it was 5 plays from the 17th straight MNC.Mikey wrote:Cal was about 20 plays from playing for the MNC.
Fuckin' weenies.
- Terry in Crapchester
- 2012 March Madness Champ
- Posts: 8995
- Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 12:56 pm
- Location: Back in the 'burbs
Re: Stanford-VT
That's all?Mikey wrote:Cal was about 20 plays from playing for the MNC.
Cal being Cal, and whatnot, I figured the number was significantly higher than that.
War Wagon wrote:The first time I click on one of your youtube links will be the first time.
Re: Stanford-VT
Props to Stanford for kicking VT's ass in the second half. It was certainly surprising to see the Hokies choke in a big game.
VT should have been matched up with UConn for their bowl game. They have no business playing real teams in bowl games. I was hoping Luck would keep passing until the final whistle. I wish the Skins had sucked more this year so they could have a chance to draft him
Offensive playcalling as usual was a joke for Tech. "Let's hope Tyrod can bail us out" is not a great strategy. This team is going to be in a world of hurt next year without Tyrod.
Oh well, at least I do not have to be disappointed until next season.
VT should have been matched up with UConn for their bowl game. They have no business playing real teams in bowl games. I was hoping Luck would keep passing until the final whistle. I wish the Skins had sucked more this year so they could have a chance to draft him
Offensive playcalling as usual was a joke for Tech. "Let's hope Tyrod can bail us out" is not a great strategy. This team is going to be in a world of hurt next year without Tyrod.
Oh well, at least I do not have to be disappointed until next season.
-
- Eternal Scobode
- Posts: 8978
- Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 5:44 pm
- Location: La Choza, Tacos al Pastor
Re: Stanford-VT
Stanford's O is fun to watch compared to the 4 hour game, commercial breaks out the wazoo enabled spread stuff.
only a matter of time until the option is back. :wink:
only a matter of time until the option is back. :wink:
""On a lonely planet spinning its way toward damnation amid the fear and despair of a broken human race, who is left to fight for all that is good and pure and gets you smashed for under a fiver? Yes, it's the surprising adventures of me, Sir Digby Chicken-Caesar!"
"
"
Re: Stanford-VT
You really think Auburn's defense will be able to slow Oregon down, much less stop them?Sudden Sam wrote:Stanford was damned impressive. I enjoyed the shit outta that ass-whuppin'.
Some beautifully designed pass plays all night long. And running to the left side...jesus! How many huge runs did Stewart and his cohorts rip off over that side?!
How did the Stanford fans feel about Elway being there? Tough situation.
Finally...I'm a Duck fan thru next Monday night. But I don't see Oregon staying within 2 TDs of Auburn.
You my friend, along with the rest of the SEC faithful, are due for a large dose of reality. My prediction is that they will be completely overmatched, and Oregon's speed on defense will at least be able to slow the Cam show down. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a result similar to last night. One man shows just don't cut it in big bowl games.
-
- Eternal Scobode
- Posts: 21259
- Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 2:35 pm
Re: Stanford-VT
Auburn is a good team, but it's not like they've blown people away 95 Huskers style. No reason to think Oregon can't hang. Tough game to get a read on. I picked Auburn but if I could get a re-do I'd probably go with Oregon. There is still uncertainty over suspended players, yes? Dunno, just seems like Oregon's time.
Re: Stanford-VT
MONEY wrote: All those loses came against the PAC.
Silly me -- I'd totally forgotten that Nevada joined the PAC a few years ago.
But I see ya working -- when Oregon beats Auburn by more than 2 points... the MTransitive Property kicks in, giving Kal their 18th straight.
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
Re: Stanford-VT
stuckinia wrote:Props to Stanford for kicking VT's ass in the second half.
PAC10 Track Meet, baby!
And what Stanford did to VT in the 2nd half, is exactly what Oregon did to Stanford in the 2nd half -- passed the baton in the 800 meter relay, and left the opponent in the dust.
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
Re: Stanford-VT
King Crimson wrote:only a matter of time until the option is back.
About 6 days.
But it ain't your daddy's option.
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
Re: Stanford-VT
USC should have hired David Shaw last year, hopefully they fix that problem this year and hire him