T1B

Game over. I have no problem with the result, though I think the Big12 officials blew a lot of important calls.

RACK MSU
RACK Cook
RACK Dantonio and the whole MSU program.
FUCK Burnt Hamburger

What a fucking game.
Stanford will be back next year.

When did Karl Dorrell become the OC for stanford?

Jsc810 wrote:Mikey, granted this has been a good game.

But to say that it is "by orders of magnitude the best game of the bowl season so far" is excessive. You must not have seen the A&M comeback after being down by 3 touchdowns at the half.

Sorry, you may think it was a great comeback but the entire exercise was a joke as a "football' game.

Fantastic game. A perfect balance of offense and defense. I think I said MSU 23-20. So I was off by a point...sue me.

How fitting was it that Kyler Elsworth, backup middle linebacker, made the final play that sealed the game? Beautiful.

The two best teams in the FBS just finished their seasons.

:wink:

Definitely thought the play-calling by Shaw was suspect. 3rd and long and running draws. That little confidence in Hogan? Or that much confidence in your run game?

Shaw = Dumpster fire

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Definitely thought the play-calling by Shaw was suspect.

The whole reason they lost to Utah.

The guy seems never to own up to his mistakes. It's always "well shit happens and we have to move on from here."

Mikey wrote:The guy seems never to own up to his mistakes.

Chip Kelly says hi.

Dins, what happened to your "premonition?" Or was it too many Rogue Ales?

First, if you accuse me of drinking that swill again, I will fight you.

My reasoned analysis was much closer to the truth than my premonition. Neither one was great.

Plus, I hadn't factored in that the Mob had gotten to Shaw, which is the only possible explanation for the debacle of a display he put on.

Dinsdale wrote:Plus, I hadn't factored in that the Mob had gotten to Shaw, which is the only possible explanation for the debacle of a display he put on.

Yeah, it's probably that, and not that whole cause & effect thing.

Huh?

The fact Sparty played very good defense was pretty much moot.

If a team is sending run blitzes almost every down, guess what? The gaps are full and inside runs don't work.

But I guess Shaw never learned that?

Can't get inside Shaw's head, all I can tell you is coaching is a part of the game. It's funny how coaching vs a good defense is magically harder than coaching against a team like Cal.

Last critical play of the game. Backup MLB came up huge...airborne.

I'm honestly surprised that they didn't throw a flag for helmet to helmet and then have Elsworth tossed for targeting.

What the fuck was Shaw thinking on that last drive? 3 minutes and change, down 4, lets run two straight plays and burn out timeouts. Rose Bowl on the line, MSU had been sending run blitzes on 3rd and short, I wonder if play action would have been open? Dumb fuck didn't learn anything from last years ND game.

Killian wrote:I'm honestly surprised that they didn't throw a flag for helmet to helmet and then have Elsworth tossed for targeting.

Seriously? :?

Yes, seriously.

It was a joke at the seeming arbitrary enforcement of this rule. Elsworth goes airborn to hit a RB diving over the pile, of course he's going to hit him in the head, likely with his helmet.

But if a QB is running towards the first down line and ducks his shoulder, and the defender does the same, targeting will likely be called.

I understand the logic behind the rule, but the enforcement is a joke.

Killian wrote:Yes, seriously.

It was a joke at the seeming arbitrary enforcement of this rule. Elsworth goes airborn to hit a RB diving over the pile, of course he's going to hit him in the head, likely with his helmet.

But if a QB is running towards the first down line and ducks his shoulder, and the defender does the same, targeting will likely be called.

I understand the logic behind the rule, but the enforcement is a joke.

I was supposed to glean you were thinking all of that based on one sentence over the internet? Okay.

The rule does suck, but don't they make it pretty clear that it's in place for hits to a "defenseless receiver"? Which wouldn't apply in this situation. Plus, and I have to go back and watch if more slowly, but I think Elsworth might have hit the guy's left shoulder pad, not his helmet. Perhaps there was SOME initial contact, but it wasn't a clean shot to the head or anything.

In any event, pretty impossible not to crack some heads on what is basically a goal line stand. If they start enforcing targeting on such plays, might as well shut the whole game down.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:IThe rule does suck, but don't they make it pretty clear that it's in place for hits to a "defenseless receiver"? Which wouldn't apply in this situation. Plus, and I have to go back and watch if more slowly, but I think Elsworth might have hit the guy's left shoulder pad, not his helmet. Perhaps there was SOME initial contact, but it wasn't a clean shot to the head or anything.

Yes and no, and that's the point. I was joking about the getting tossed because he wasn't trying to hit the ball carrier in the head, but here is part of the rule:

Risk of a foul is high with one or more of these:

•Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make contact in the head or neck area
...
Contact to the head or neck area—not only with the helmet, but also with the forearm, fist, elbow, or shoulder—these can all lead to a foul.

The MSU LB wasn't trying to hit the ball carrier in the head, but he did:


I have seen blatant blows to the head not called and/or suspended ('sup, Shane Skov?) and ones that were absolutely boarderline in terms of actual penalty result in ejection ('sup Stephon Tuitt?). There is no way it was going to be called here, but I have seen worse both ways.

I don't see helmet-to-helmet there, I see helmet-to-shoulder-pad.

I'm all for consistency in the rules, but you have to apply some common sense as well. On a play like that, there is no way to go low on the ball carrier.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:I don't see helmet-to-helmet there, I see helmet-to-shoulder-pad.

I'm all for consistency in the rules, but you have to apply some common sense as well. On a play like that, there is no way to go low on the ball carrier.

It doesn't have to be "helmet to helmet" to draw a flag, which is my point.