Undone

You might buy tickets to a Husker game next summer-ish, you mean?

Wasn't it just 2 or 3 years ago that MSU was widely known for dirty play that centered around Golston? Am I remembering that wrong?

Chills, just amazing.

Iowa is going to be so damn embarrassed when they lose to us. It's going to be hilarious.

Agreed about our line. I think it was more of a 'raving over Imani' thing because of how much better he was reading his lanes and staying on his feet relative to numerous other personal performances.

Haha! Yes it would. Off topic: I just saw the.sock.puppet as logged in and viewing this thread.

I honestly thought the same thing, soup. Oh well.

Ha, obviously I agree we were terrible on defense against Purdue. But in no way should they have led in time of possession, when their rush defense was something like 100th in the country. We should have Imani Cross'd their a**, instead of letting Ryker play catch with the other team.

Totally agree. Depressing to look back on the season in that light, but still excited for what we can do these last two games with him. Please, Langsdorf...do it again!!!!!!!!!!!

Thought I'd post this here - Did you guys notice how hard Tommy lays into their dude on his run that put us at 27 points? This replay doesn't have the sideline angle...but he gives this badass glare back at the guy after they both get up that is just amazing. I'm waiting for the full game to get posted so that I can try to extract that as a moving .gif. Here's the highlight:

If Imani's hot in practice this week, give that man the damn ball.

I said this already in the 'What did we learn' thread, but it's like Imani realized that his primary objective should be keeping his balance...not looking for the right hole. As if it hit him last night that he's 230+ pounds, and he can rumble on every single carry he gets with yards after contact. And I mean that in the most positive way towards Imani. Our guards and tackles played extremely well for Imani on numerous off tackle runs, too. But he had some punishing, old-school-Nebraska-esque power runs that really imposed our will against them on several drives.

teachercd...I was giving context to the teams we play against in this conference. Every game matters, yes. The point was mainly how much of a failure Bo was at critical times in defending the run when we got into the Big 10. (And we lost to Illinois and Purdue because of an anemic offensive game plan, in my opinion.)

Yes, I do know what's depressing - watching highlights of the 2012 conference title game and last year's Wisconsin game. You remember those, don't you? We have to beat Wisconsin and Iowa to get to Indy. Two teams that run the ball. We have to beat Ohio State to win the conference title. A team that has a punishing offensive line and running backs, year in and year out. What part of this doesn't make sense to you? We have a guy who can stop the run. Let's give him some time to sort out the secondary play...

...and here we go again. Bo showed us in the 2012 conference title game that he was a mental midget defensively in big games. Once Suh and the Peso Defense graduated and we moved to the Big 10, Bo was relatively embarrassing in the games that mattered. He should have won a conference title in 2012. He couldn't (and wouldn't) adjust. Rinse, wash, repeat. He couldn't stop the run in a conference built largely for the run, when it mattered. That's actually for me the number one reason that I'm glad at this point that he's gone. In my completely subjective opinion, Bo was never going to beat Urban in a conference title. Conference titles are what we need. Our new guy knows how to stop the run. Let's give him some time to work with his secondary.

In regards to execution, you did see it on our final series on offense against BYU, Illinois, and Wisconsin (unless you had your eyes closed). If we impose our will on three consecutive solid running plays, we convert that last first down, get into victory formation, and watch the clock expire to the tune of a victory. Commitment to the run was lacking against Purdue with regards to 52 called pass plays with a backup QB who had roughly 18 passing previous attempts (!) as a Husker. Can you see it?

I'm not really into the theory that a "lack of player buy-in" was any part of losing the majority of the games we've lost. To me, it was a lack of execution of and commitment to the run game. Last night was different in that category...and voila. Tommy, Alonzo, Reilly, and Westerkamp also made some incredible plays through the air. Offensively, it was just awesome.

This had to have been Cross' best game of his career. I mean this in the most positive, respectful way to Imani: It's like he realized that his primary objective should be keeping his balance...not looking for the right hole. As if it hit him last night that he's 230+ pounds, and he can rumble on every single carry he gets with yards after contact. Our guards and tackles played extremely well for Imani on numerous off tackle runs, too. But he had some punishing, old-school-Nebraska-esque power runs (as did Janovich) that really imposed our will against them on several drives. That game plan will absolutely work wonders against Iowa. Langsdorf...pleeeeeeease do it again against Iowa.

And to add to that - I think last night Riley showed us what we knew about him - that he can get his guys up for a big game. It's something that previous head coach rarely did. I think it's why it hurts even more that we lost to Purdue, Wisconsin, and Illinois...Riley knows how to win as an underdog and probably is capable of beating Urban. But, we won't get a shot this season.

We would have beaten Illinois and Purdue if our coaching staff had committed to the run in sensible ways. Both the Illinois and Wisconsin game came down to not executing three final downs in order to get into victory formation and run out the clock. This team is very close to being 7-3 and having a chance to go to Indy. I don't think it has been a lack of effort by players that has taken us out contention for the West. But at this point, it is what it is. And we played a hell of a game last night that we'll watch highlights of for years to come...it was awesome. That's all that matters to me this morning.

I was mainly replying to his comment that "You can't be forced out of bounds by a defender that has his back to you that is running downfield."

No. You're wrong. Your premise is that a DB can't ever be guilty of interference in any way if he's looking back at the ball, with his back to the receiver. I know you didn't say that explicitly, but that seems to be what you're implying. And this is absolutely, 100% not true. There can be such contact on pass interference calls, and it can apply to this case as well. And on the replay, he straightens his arm behind his back to make contact with Reilly. The hat comes off. The ref sees the contact with the straight arm. The call is ruled as simply contact by the defensive player. They review it. They confirm contact. Correct call on the field upheld.

The official rule posting by Mavric is completely definitive. It was a correct non-call - There was contact, there's no doubt. The call was correct. Incredible win.

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! F*** yussss!!!!!

I wouldn't say that the issues you have are exactly akin to wearing a tin foil hat, but it's somewhere in that area code.