E-Wu Tang Clan said:The 117th rushing defense against the 2nd rushing offense in the FCS? Its going to be bad, its going to be very, very bad.
The best we can hope for is a high scoring game.
Savages said:I read in the Spokesman that the reason Taylor did not play against Cal Poly is because they are trying to preserve his redshirt season. He has one more game remaining that he can play in before he loses it. With Wortham out, we do not have a realistic #2 and I think they need to play him against MSU with the expectation that Wortham might be available against NAU.
EWURanger said:Savages said:I read in the Spokesman that the reason Taylor did not play against Cal Poly is because they are trying to preserve his redshirt season. He has one more game remaining that he can play in before he loses it. With Wortham out, we do not have a realistic #2 and I think they need to play him against MSU with the expectation that Wortham might be available against NAU.
Totally agree. I think you throw everything into this game and let the chips fall where they may. If we don't get a win this Saturday the NAU is far less meaningful.
DefendtheRed said:EWURanger said:Savages said:I read in the Spokesman that the reason Taylor did not play against Cal Poly is because they are trying to preserve his redshirt season. He has one more game remaining that he can play in before he loses it. With Wortham out, we do not have a realistic #2 and I think they need to play him against MSU with the expectation that Wortham might be available against NAU.
Totally agree. I think you throw everything into this game and let the chips fall where they may. If we don't get a win this Saturday the NAU is far less meaningful.
It's funny that you think this team can compete with MSU. What are you seeing that everyone else isn't?
DefendtheRed said:EWURanger said:Savages said:I read in the Spokesman that the reason Taylor did not play against Cal Poly is because they are trying to preserve his redshirt season. He has one more game remaining that he can play in before he loses it. With Wortham out, we do not have a realistic #2 and I think they need to play him against MSU with the expectation that Wortham might be available against NAU.
Totally agree. I think you throw everything into this game and let the chips fall where they may. If we don't get a win this Saturday the NAU is far less meaningful.
It's funny that you think this team can compete with MSU. What are you seeing that everyone else isn't?
E-Wu Tang Clan said:The 117th rushing defense against the 2nd rushing offense in the FCS? Its going to be bad, its going to be very, very bad.
The best we can hope for is a high scoring game.
EWURanger said:DefendtheRed said:EWURanger said:Savages said:I read in the Spokesman that the reason Taylor did not play against Cal Poly is because they are trying to preserve his redshirt season. He has one more game remaining that he can play in before he loses it. With Wortham out, we do not have a realistic #2 and I think they need to play him against MSU with the expectation that Wortham might be available against NAU.
Totally agree. I think you throw everything into this game and let the chips fall where they may. If we don't get a win this Saturday the NAU is far less meaningful.
It's funny that you think this team can compete with MSU. What are you seeing that everyone else isn't?
Ok smartass, I'll bite.
35-10 L @ NDSU
34-31 L @ Fresno State
40-29 W vs. SELA
27-24 W @ UC Davis
44-36 L vs. Idaho
42-41 L @ ISU
31-23 W vs. Weber St.
47-35 L @ Portland St.
48-13 W vs. Cal Poly
The only games we haven't been competitive in this year were the NDSU game and arguably the Portland St. game. If two plays had gone differently we'd be 6-3 right now instead of 4-5. The ISU loss is purely on the coaches for poor clock management and bonehead decisions/playing not to lose.
I'm not buying into the narrative that we somehow lack the talent to compete with the upper tier of the Big Sky because it simply isn't true. Yeah, our rushing defense is horrible once again and that will not play out well against MSU, no doubt. But to suggest that we won't be competitive is something I do not agree with. I'm not saying we'll win but I definitely think we'll compete. That's the meain difference between this year's team and last year's. We were not competitive last year.
Atomic Eagle said:EWURanger said:DefendtheRed said:EWURanger said:Savages said:I read in the Spokesman that the reason Taylor did not play against Cal Poly is because they are trying to preserve his redshirt season. He has one more game remaining that he can play in before he loses it. With Wortham out, we do not have a realistic #2 and I think they need to play him against MSU with the expectation that Wortham might be available against NAU.
Totally agree. I think you throw everything into this game and let the chips fall where they may. If we don't get a win this Saturday the NAU is far less meaningful.
It's funny that you think this team can compete with MSU. What are you seeing that everyone else isn't?
Ok smartass, I'll bite.
35-10 L @ NDSU
34-31 L @ Fresno State
40-29 W vs. SELA
27-24 W @ UC Davis
44-36 L vs. Idaho
42-41 L @ ISU
31-23 W vs. Weber St.
47-35 L @ Portland St.
48-13 W vs. Cal Poly
The only games we haven't been competitive in this year were the NDSU game and arguably the Portland St. game. If two plays had gone differently we'd be 6-3 right now instead of 4-5. The ISU loss is purely on the coaches for poor clock management and bonehead decisions/playing not to lose.
I'm not buying into the narrative that we somehow lack the talent to compete with the upper tier of the Big Sky because it simply isn't true. Yeah, our rushing defense is horrible once again and that will not play out well against MSU, no doubt. But to suggest that we won't be competitive is something I do not agree with. I'm not saying we'll win but I definitely think we'll compete. That's the meain difference between this year's team and last year's. We were not competitive last year.
We'll need a lot of help on the injury front to be competitive. We're terriblly thin in the secondary and big questions at QB.
LDopaPDX said:Atomic Eagle said:EWURanger said:DefendtheRed said:EWURanger said:Savages said:I read in the Spokesman that the reason Taylor did not play against Cal Poly is because they are trying to preserve his redshirt season. He has one more game remaining that he can play in before he loses it. With Wortham out, we do not have a realistic #2 and I think they need to play him against MSU with the expectation that Wortham might be available against NAU.
Totally agree. I think you throw everything into this game and let the chips fall where they may. If we don't get a win this Saturday the NAU is far less meaningful.
It's funny that you think this team can compete with MSU. What are you seeing that everyone else isn't?
Ok smartass, I'll bite.
35-10 L @ NDSU
34-31 L @ Fresno State
40-29 W vs. SELA
27-24 W @ UC Davis
44-36 L vs. Idaho
42-41 L @ ISU
31-23 W vs. Weber St.
47-35 L @ Portland St.
48-13 W vs. Cal Poly
The only games we haven't been competitive in this year were the NDSU game and arguably the Portland St. game. If two plays had gone differently we'd be 6-3 right now instead of 4-5. The ISU loss is purely on the coaches for poor clock management and bonehead decisions/playing not to lose.
I'm not buying into the narrative that we somehow lack the talent to compete with the upper tier of the Big Sky because it simply isn't true. Yeah, our rushing defense is horrible once again and that will not play out well against MSU, no doubt. But to suggest that we won't be competitive is something I do not agree with. I'm not saying we'll win but I definitely think we'll compete. That's the meain difference between this year's team and last year's. We were not competitive last year.
We'll need a lot of help on the injury front to be competitive. We're terriblly thin in the secondary and big questions at QB.
We've played the same number of games as MSU; they're in the same situation. Injuries happen, but yes, it would sure be nice for more guys to come back healthy. Especially in the secondary.
What's the deal with QB? I know Wortham got banged up, but there's no issue with Visperas or Taylor, correct? Even if the coaches want his redshirt preserved, he could still play in this one. I'd love to see him early and often. We run the ball sooooooo much better with him.
EWURanger said:DefendtheRed said:EWURanger said:Savages said:I read in the Spokesman that the reason Taylor did not play against Cal Poly is because they are trying to preserve his redshirt season. He has one more game remaining that he can play in before he loses it. With Wortham out, we do not have a realistic #2 and I think they need to play him against MSU with the expectation that Wortham might be available against NAU.
Totally agree. I think you throw everything into this game and let the chips fall where they may. If we don't get a win this Saturday the NAU is far less meaningful.
It's funny that you think this team can compete with MSU. What are you seeing that everyone else isn't?
Ok smartass, I'll bite.
35-10 L @ NDSU
34-31 L @ Fresno State
40-29 W vs. SELA
27-24 W @ UC Davis
44-36 L vs. Idaho
42-41 L @ ISU
31-23 W vs. Weber St.
47-35 L @ Portland St.
48-13 W vs. Cal Poly
The only games we haven't been competitive in this year were the NDSU game and arguably the Portland St. game. If two plays had gone differently we'd be 6-3 right now instead of 4-5. The ISU loss is purely on the coaches for poor clock management and bonehead decisions/playing not to lose.
I'm not buying into the narrative that we somehow lack the talent to compete with the upper tier of the Big Sky because it simply isn't true. Yeah, our rushing defense is horrible once again and that will not play out well against MSU, no doubt. But to suggest that we won't be competitive is something I do not agree with. I'm not saying we'll win but I definitely think we'll compete. That's the meain difference between this year's team and last year's. We were not competitive last year.
E-Wu Tang Clan said:The 117th rushing defense against the 2nd rushing offense in the FCS? Its going to be bad, its going to be very, very bad.
The best we can hope for is a high scoring game.
SeattleBobcat said:You beat Montana State by out coaching them, which if you have good coaches its not hard to do.
SeattleBobcat said:I would like to be more confident in my team whooping the Eagles ass, but here's reality, I'd put the Eags chances way better than most are thinking and here's why:
MSU's Defense is beat the fuck up we are down linebackers, safeties and D lineman which Idaho took for advantage of and ran ball control offense we could not stop 3-4 yard runs because we never played the run or spied McCoy. We sat in mostly a cover 2 and 3 Zone defenses, The Eags should take full advantage of any 4th short and run the ball because no one will be covering the HB and it will be up to the front 4 to stop the run. If the Eags can control the clock MSU will be in trouble.