THE PAC12 Thread

[trojanfan12]

I knew you'd bring that up!

I don't think we cover, but we should win by 7 or more.

Hows about you?

It's tough to say for my Trojans. When you compare talent, even with only having approx. 60 scolarship players, we should blow them out. But with all of the turmoil, it's hard to say.

Everything that I've heard so far is positive. Orgeron apparently has the team energized, motivated and excited. Plus, there seems to be some excitement about it being our 1st Thursday night home game in the BCS era. So, I'm going with the optimistic view and saying USC wins by at least 2 touchdowns.

 

[SUBuddha]

They need to just start charging a team a timeout if an injured player doesnt miss the full series. If they don't have any timeouts they get an unsportsmanlike penalty.

Fake injuries will vanish.

This is the exact problem with Rugby. When I played in the early 90's-2004 the rule originally was you got 3 subs a game per team, total. This meant if you were not dying you did not come out of the game. I played almost the entire second half of a game with a shoulder I dislocated, the med team came on the field and popped it back in, but no way I was coming out of that game. Due to that injury and choosing to play hurt I did further damage that I am still dealing with in my 40's.

If you tell a player with a minor injury he has to sit 4 plays, how many more severe injuries will occur due to playing hurt. I.e. got a cramp and have to play through it, cool, but now you are slowed down and take a bad hit to the knee and blow it out, that would never happen if you had been able to get the minor treatment needed.

 

[SUBuddha]

The only treatments those two required since the game is gynecological.

Again. Both of them high step back onto the field after sitting out 1 to 2 plays with absolutely no limp or problem and finish the game making plays. It's a miracle!!!

Questionable? You seriously buying that truck load of B.S.?

Such anger an vitriol sir. I am not attacking you. I can see that you view the facts differently than me.

The fact that Gardner missed only one play is a misnomer since there was a tv timeout. With a stinger type injury it would have been 2-3 plays he missed (most likely) had they not gone to a TV time out. Skov missed 3 plays in the series and limped noticeably the rest of the game. Amanam, (the one in the third quarter) actually missed most of the rest of the quarter.

Again, I am not saying it has never happened at Stanford, I know it did under Harbaugh. I do not see factual evidence of it in the UW game.

That said, I am done on this topic. I am starting to feel like Sisyphus pushing his rock up the hill here.

 

[WhiteMamba]

I got Stanford going undefeated, taking the Pac title.

 

[SUBuddha]

I think Stanford could end up anywhere from 9-3 to 12-0. My guess is 11-1 in all reality.

 

[WizardHawk]

What I said had nothing to do with my opinion on the hunh. Even then I have always said that the things I don't like about the HUNH had nothing to do with the tempo and I have always said that faking injuries was lame. Even in this latest discussion I said faking injuries was lame and I was pointing out the FACT that REAL injured people HAVE to go to the ground in order to get off the field because they CAN NOT just walk off the field anymore.

My problem with the HUNH has been 1 thing. I think it's bullshit when teams hurry back to the line and don't really run up tempo, they just do it for the sole purpose of preventing the other team from substituting. I have said what I'd like to see changed is for the play clock to drop to 10 seconds or less once a team gets to the line so that teams have to actually run HUNH. When I see a team run back to the line, then they all look to the sideline over and over and sit on the line for 20 seconds, it's obvious it has nothing to do with tempo. The huddle is merely being skipped for the purpose of not allowing the defense to substitute.

So what the fuck you are going on about, or how this discussion applies to my actual beef with the HUNH, I do not know. Mamba has even said that what I propose wouldn't even have an effect on Oregon, which is fine by me.

I know you aren't speaking about any specific team, but the true Pac style uptempo isn't doing it to prevent substitutions.

UW will get to the line and snap a play often, but not every time. There are times where they get up to the line right away and then look to the sideline for a play call change after seeing what the defensive alignment is. Not any different than an audible other than it isn't the QB changing it, but the play caller sending out a different play.

Defenses get to adjust their alignment based on what the offense shows and with this style of play now the offense can change what they want to do based on the defense because they now have enough time for the sideline to get in a second play. Is there anything wrong with using most of the clock, but doing so without a huddle with the intent that if the defense shows a different look you will get another play call in?

I have not seen any team in the pac milk the play clock simply to prevent substitutions. Maybe it is happening elsewhere, but I sure haven't seen it out here. Could you simply be mistaking the change of play for what you perceive as use of the no huddle to avoid substitutions?

 

[WizardHawk]

And for the record I said 10 pages ago you can't change the rule to keep injured players off the field for more than one play because it would end up with players staying in hurt and causing more injuries. This is life in the fast lane so get used to it.

As for Stanford, there is no way to know for sure going forward who is really hurt and who is taking a fall for the team so clean teams will be accused of it and sometimes a really good actor will get away with it scott free. This too is the new reality in football.

 

[Vitamike]

This is the exact problem with Rugby. When I played in the early 90's-2004 the rule originally was you got 3 subs a game per team, total. This meant if you were not dying you did not come out of the game. I played almost the entire second half of a game with a shoulder I dislocated, the med team came on the field and popped it back in, but no way I was coming out of that game. Due to that injury and choosing to play hurt I did further damage that I am still dealing with in my 40's.

If you tell a player with a minor injury he has to sit 4 plays, how many more severe injuries will occur due to playing hurt. I.e. got a cramp and have to play through it, cool, but now you are slowed down and take a bad hit to the knee and blow it out, that would never happen if you had been able to get the minor treatment needed.

True and it will only be the stars who wont come out for the 4 plays like what's been already said. It will be the guys they would sub in and out anyways who would be faking. The real injured will stay in the game, if they are an every down player.

With this in mind, don't we all think CFB exploits the Stars of CFB enough already? Should we really ask them to deal with this since they are probably not the ones faking injury anyways?

Basically we are saying risk further injury and a chance to play every down at the next level because a few are getting over. Man it's bad enough they don't make a dime for playing, UNLESS they make it to the next level? Now we are suggesting implementing rules that might create that scenario for some because a few are faking!

 

[Not Neutral]

But for real an 18 inch vert is pretty bad.

Lose some weight!

 

[Not Neutral]

What a joke.

Stanford Faking Injuries? - YouTube


You're an embarrassment to the football gods Stanford. Twice on the same drive? Shaw needs to shut his mouth if he knows what's good for him with the videos now published. Running his yap about this just digs the hole deeper and rolls in the mud even more. Furd might believe they are "above-reproach" because of their academics, but their football program rep is bush league right now.

Well, Regent, how many have done it, then admitted it? Has happened, will happen, live with it.

 

[Not Neutral]

That rule would hurt "regular" offenses more than it hurts the HUNH. I just looked at Alabama's first 4 plays vs A&M and after lining up it took them 6, 20, 11, and 9 seconds to snap the ball. It would also hurt offenses like the Mike Leach air raid where the QB has freedom to check down to whatever play he wants at the LOS.

I understand the concern for injured players not being able to get off the field and I agree with you there, but if an offense isn't going to substitute why should they let the defense?

The defense don't need to substitute, that's why they have come up with the injured player trick to get organized. Doesn't every team have an "injured player" play? Of course they do. Bottom line: You can't do anything about it but cry. So go ahead, point fingers, get red in the face and cry. Then move on.

 

[Not Neutral]

Nothing wrong with his take. As I said, I actually agree with him that injured players need time to get off the field. If they can't get off the field fast enough because he's facing an hunh offense, then he needs to "sit down".

However, 4d20 came in talking about it not being fair and injured defensive players not being given time to get off the field which wasn't the topic. No one has suggested that injured players shouldn't have time to get off the field.

You are right, however, the topic is going in circles, so time to move on.

What do you think of your game vs. Cal this Saturday? They always seem to play you guys tough.

It's the same thing, TF12. How do you tell the injured from the fakers?

 

[Not Neutral]

Still too early to tell. We'll know more when they play Oregon and Stanford.

Maybe. Oregon and Stanford have a way of making every body look bad. I am fully expecting they will do that against UCLA as their sole challenge from the South. But two int's against NMS doesn't sound good.

 

[Not Neutral]

I'm going with nay. I think Mora has them on the right track. I think Nick Pasquale's death still has the team a little unsettled and emotional, but they are still winning games. I heard an interview with Mora yesterday and he said that they are still dealing with it. Apparently he was a very popular guy with his teammates.

Maybe, TF12, but I don't believe it.

 

[WizardHawk]

Someone needs to learn how to use the Multi-Q feature of this board.

 

[Not Neutral]

Such anger an vitriol sir. I am not attacking you. I can see that you view the facts differently than me.

The fact that Gardner missed only one play is a misnomer since there was a tv timeout. With a stinger type injury it would have been 2-3 plays he missed (most likely) had they not gone to a TV time out. Skov missed 3 plays in the series and limped noticeably the rest of the game. Amanam, (the one in the third quarter) actually missed most of the rest of the quarter.

Again, I am not saying it has never happened at Stanford, I know it did under Harbaugh. I do not see factual evidence of it in the UW game.

That said, I am done on this topic. I am starting to feel like Sisyphus pushing his rock up the hill here.

Well, hate to offer advise to a Stanford man, but maybe your very first reply should have been a very positive "both were injured, no doubt, we're Stanford." Period. No further discussion necessary. Or you could be nasty and say, "find another excuse for your loss" but that's not you.

 

[Not Neutral]

Well, hate to offer advise to a Stanford man, but maybe your very first reply should have been a very positive "both were injured, no doubt, we're Stanford." Period. No further discussion necessary. Or you could be nasty and say, "find another excuse for your loss" but that's not you.

Someone needs to learn how to use the Multi-Q feature of this board.

Then tell me how it works or where I can find that out.

 

[SUBuddha]

Well, hate to offer advise to a Stanford man, but maybe your very first reply should have been a very positive "both were injured, no doubt, we're Stanford." Period. No further discussion necessary. Or you could be nasty and say, "find another excuse for your loss" but that's not you.

Where did I say they were making excuses. Most of the UW fans have not blamed play stoppages real or faked for the loss?

Or are you implying I should not have defended my alma mater ad nausemm for several pages? If this is what you meant, then, yeah, you are probably right. Mea Culpa.

 

[WizardHawk]

Then tell me how it works or where I can find that out.

Click the Multi-Q button under each message you want to reply to and click on the Quote under the last one. It will place the quotes from each message in one so you can answer them all. It remembers which ones you want to quote even if you click on the next page of the board. You can go as far back/forward as you like. Just click Quote under the last one and they all appear.

 

[Not Neutral]

Then tell me how it works or where I can find that out.

Where did I say they were making excuses. Most of the UW fans have not blamed play stoppages real or faked for the loss?

Or are you implying I should not have defended my alma mater ad nausemm for several pages? If this is what you meant, then, yeah, you are probably right. Mea Culpa.

Yes. As learned from the experience provided by the last play of the Wisconsin game.