everettgriz1
Member
PSUVikings said:
But so is PSU. And Eastern. And NAU. If speed and athleticism wins football games, I'd start my track team.
-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts, upgrade to remove ads and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your BigSkyFans.com experience today!
Portland State @ Montana Thread
- Thread starter PSUVikings2
- Start date
But so is PSU. And Eastern. And NAU. If speed and athleticism wins football games, I'd start my track team.
Kirkland can get free a few times a game on anyone... so he has to get doubled often, so someone else gets free.
Case not necessarily in point, but kind of telling... the long ball to Mackins, if you taped or TiVo'd it, and if they show the team coming out on the field, watch it. Mackins was so obviously coming out late and hamming up the "disgust of bad timing" that it seemed obvious to me that it was a play for him. Single coverage. Zing!
I'm certainly not sold on Bergquist... but I'm not necessarily sold on their receivers, either. Allen can get open, but that's about it without the schemes (picks, spreads) that the coaches drew up. Montana fans seem to be all over their offensive coaches, but I was convinced by that game that they do a Herculean job to get those players to move the ball. They really should play like a Big 10 team and jam Hilliard down everyone's throat. That's the only way I see them winning more than one playoff game. That line, especially on 3rd down, was part of their win.
Special teams have already been mentioned. Yikes!Last edited by on 2007-11-05, 11:07; edited 1 time in total
Case not necessarily in point, but kind of telling... the long ball to Mackins, if you taped or TiVo'd it, and if they show the team coming out on the field, watch it. Mackins was so obviously coming out late and hamming up the "disgust of bad timing" that it seemed obvious to me that it was a play for him. Single coverage. Zing!
I'm certainly not sold on Bergquist... but I'm not necessarily sold on their receivers, either. Allen can get open, but that's about it without the schemes (picks, spreads) that the coaches drew up. Montana fans seem to be all over their offensive coaches, but I was convinced by that game that they do a Herculean job to get those players to move the ball. They really should play like a Big 10 team and jam Hilliard down everyone's throat. That's the only way I see them winning more than one playoff game. That line, especially on 3rd down, was part of their win.
Special teams have already been mentioned. Yikes!Last edited by on 2007-11-05, 11:07; edited 1 time in total
McNeese75 said:
I'd have to give the advantage to the McNeese. As some others have stated, McNeese has better team speed.
As far as defense goes, it's a push. Both teams are really good on the defensive side of the ball.
McNeese has a better offense in my opinion.
DuckDuckGriz
Active member
PSUVikings said:
There is not much difference on the starters between this year and last year's teams -- if you are comparing speed and athleticism -- Montana rolled McNeese in the playoffs 31-6.
DuckDuckGriz said:
What's your take on Bergquist?
DuckDuckGriz
Active member
martymoose said:
Cole and Swogger are obviously different, but I honestly think Bergquist is more accurate and better under pressure.
Swogger absolutely collapsed last season, and the defense was the big thing that won games for us (similar to this year). I think the UMass-Montana semifinal game can attest to that, our play on defense and one solid offensive drive was the only thing that really kept us in the game.
Cole's biggest problem I think is that he doesn't take the time or have the patience to check off his receivers. If you noticed on Saturday alot of the time he had a pre-determined receiver and would just fire to him without thinking. Swogger could do this but had the knack of misfiring or throwing into double and triple coverage.
I was super impressed with Hubel, I think you guys got a steal from Corvallis.
DuckDuckGriz
Active member
McNeese75 said:DuckDuckGriz said:
/users/31/07/37/smiles/700923.gif Same old tired argument by the Griz. The 2007 Teams are the same as the 2006 teams and we won last year so we will win this year as well. Keep thinking that Einstien
I was never arguing that we would win. I just said we have mostly the same players from that game so to say we are less athletic is kind of a rough argument........Read closer DaVinci. /users/31/07/37/smiles/595146.gif
McTailGator
Active member
everettgriz said:
I think that just may be one of the dumbest statements I have ever seen on the internet.
McTailGator
Active member
DuckDuckGriz said:
Last year ended on Dec. 31, 2006.
THIS McNeese team could beat last years McNeese team by 35 points. It just took a while to shake the old coaches habits off the current players and coaching staff had to adjust to the new head coach during the off season.
There is a reason McNeese is Blowing EVERYONE off the football field. And McNeese's 2nd and 3rd team have taking 35% of all the snaps.
DuckDuckGriz
Active member
McTailGator said:
I think he meant if all you have is speed and athleticism --
RE: Last year's team vs this year's team. Again, I didn't make the presumption that Montana would kick McNeese's ass again this year - I simply said we both returned alot of the same players and INDIVIDUALLY I don't know that there is much of a difference in speed or athleticism.
what has you bent out of shape so much there, Cowboy? You're one of the angrier MacNeese fans I've ever met.
