"Wisconsin better bring it's A game"

[Buckeyeboy45]

I LOVE cheese, porn and firecrackers

 

 

I'm going to put that on my Match.com profile

[lionsfan93]

Also, I have watched 2 of W games on tv this year. I was watching them play OS and turned it, then was shocked they shut them out. I thoght oregeon st was kinda 'winning' that game for awhile.

UNLV pee'd down their leg, and still...they were able to move the ball at times.

Then NIU I thought was outclassed and just not even near the competition, kinda like WYO.

The thing I see is, N seems to be 'tested' whereas W knocked em all over the place, score wise.

Are we really THAT fast? Are we going to be THAT much better w all 3 levels completely healthy? Was W sched really THAT poor? Was our any tougher?

I think we've faced stiffer test's, but even for crap opponents, W steamrolled them. My guess is we'll bring our 'A' game cuz we've been forced to a couple times already and it's looked pretty good. Does W even know what's it's A game is?will it be too late for them by the time they've found out?

Yes, we are that fast. T-Mart, Aaron Green, Abdullah, Heard, Turner, and Bell all have potential to take it to the house any time that they touch the ball. And Rexy is probably fast enough too.

Yes, we are that much better with all 3 levels completely healthy. Probably more importantly, being healthy in the secondary. Having a lock-down corner out there is what Bo's defenses are based around. With Dennard back there, our blitz packages get a whole lot more interesting.

Yes, Wisconsin's schedule was piss poor. Their opponents have, combined, two wins against FBS teams, with those two teams being Hawaii(2-2 with a loss to Washington) and Army(1-3).

Yes, ours was tougher. I'm not going to argue that we have had a tough schedule by any means, because we have had a pretty easy schedule too. But Washington is head-over heals better than anyone that they have played. I would even say that Fresno and Wyoming are better than anyone that they have played.

[broganreynik]

It is evident that Wiscy's D isn't very quick...they have to be very sound with alignment and their keys when they come to play us...because if they're outta position and not ready for the play, REXY or Martinez will be flying. The closer this game gets to primetime, the more I like our chances of winning. I catched a good portion of the UNLV vs Wiscy game and some of those plays that the quarterback took off on....Martinez would've probably been gone or at least would've ran for probably 30 to 40 yards. Our offensive speed will hurt them as long as we execute.

 

Catched?

[EZ-E]

We have played two teams that would be undefeated playing Wisconsin's schedule and another that would be no worse than 3-1.

 

There is something to be said for the experience our young team gained by being in big situations. Make no mistakes, we had drives and stands in the Washington and Fresno game where we HAD to score or we HAD to stop them. It will be interesting to see how Wisconsin reacts to getting punched in the mouth and being in situations where they need to score or they need to get a stop. They have not been in a situation like that all year.

[Paul in WI]

A fun read from up in cheese, porn and fireworks stand land. (seriously, ever driven through that state? )

 

It should be noted that this is only true for the stretch of 94 between Chicago and Milwaukee. That being said, you're right on the money.

 

Actually, you can get cheese, porn, and firecrackers on I-39 between Madison and Stevens Point too. Just remember to do the cheese in moderation.

[Bdgrfan]

Also, I have watched 2 of W games on tv this year. I was watching them play OS and turned it, then was shocked they shut them out. I thoght oregeon st was kinda 'winning' that game for awhile.

UNLV pee'd down their leg, and still...they were able to move the ball at times.

Then NIU I thought was outclassed and just not even near the competition, kinda like WYO.

The thing I see is, N seems to be 'tested' whereas W knocked em all over the place, score wise.

Are we really THAT fast? Are we going to be THAT much better w all 3 levels completely healthy? Was W sched really THAT poor? Was our any tougher?

I think we've faced stiffer test's, but even for crap opponents, W steamrolled them. My guess is we'll bring our 'A' game cuz we've been forced to a couple times already and it's looked pretty good. Does W even know what's it's A game is?will it be too late for them by the time they've found out?

Yes, we are that fast. T-Mart, Aaron Green, Abdullah, Heard, Turner, and Bell all have potential to take it to the house any time that they touch the ball. And Rexy is probably fast enough too.

Yes, we are that much better with all 3 levels completely healthy. Probably more importantly, being healthy in the secondary. Having a lock-down corner out there is what Bo's defenses are based around. With Dennard back there, our blitz packages get a whole lot more interesting.

Yes, Wisconsin's schedule was piss poor. Their opponents have, combined, two wins against FBS teams, with those two teams being Hawaii(2-2 with a loss to Washington) and Army(1-3).

Yes, ours was tougher. I'm not going to argue that we have had a tough schedule by any means, because we have had a pretty easy schedule too. But Washington is head-over heals better than anyone that they have played. I would even say that Fresno and Wyoming are better than anyone that they have played.

 

I keep seeing these same arguments. I have to say, no disrespect intended, that it's starting to strike me as an attempt to convince yourselves.

 

1) Nebraska's speed on offense, at best, is only marginally better than UW's. Wilson, Ball, White, Toon, Abrederis, Lewis, Gordon, Doe all have excellent speed and UW's defense sees these guys every day in practice. I agree that defensively, UW's speed at LB is a concern. But Nebraska better score on their big plays because speed matters a lot less in the red zone, and UW tends to -- more than most -- get a lot tougher to move the ball against on a short field. I'd be more worried about it if Martinez wasn't such a marginal passer because I'll take my chances with UW's run defense in the red zone. The question is, is that advantage going to be enough to overcome a UW offense that has no weakness? Obviously, Nebraska is a much better defensive unit that what the Badgers have seen so far from their opponents, but then again, Washington and Fresno didn't have a lot of trouble moving the ball against Nebraska and UW is a much better offense than either of those, too.

 

2) The Oregon State team you thought was "winning" managed all of 23 yards rushing, 1.0 yards per attempt.

 

3) Yes, UW's schedule was piss poor. And Nebraska's was only a little better. Washington is better than Oregon State, clearly, but is that really what you're hanging your hat on? Head-over heels better? Really? Are you trying to convince yourselves that the Huskers' struggles against those teams relative to UW's routs was the result of some yawning chasm in SOS?

 

4) And this is just a tip: I wouldn't read too much into what UNLV did in the first half. Borland was playing his first game at MLB, and they came in running the pistol, which UW did not expect and had not prepared for. So he struggled, and UW scored so fast the D didn't have a chance to make adjustments on the sideline in the first half before they were heading back to the field. Third quarter was a better read on that game, and the Badgers shut them down until the starters left the game toward the end of the quarter. UW's defense averages 8.5 ppg, but that's misleading too: only 13 points have been scored against the starters. The other 21 came in garbage time. And they are the only team in the country to shut out a BCS opponent.

 

5) Most of the players UW is gonna put on the field are plenty tested. With one or two exceptions, they all were either starters or saw significant time last year on a team that went to the Rose Bowl, beat Ohio State in prime time, etc. These guys have a blue collar work ethic and have been aiming toward this game for a long time. If you honestly expect them to panic when the pads start popping, I think you're going to be disappointed.

[sd'sker]

Also, I have watched 2 of W games on tv this year. I was watching them play OS and turned it, then was shocked they shut them out. I thoght oregeon st was kinda 'winning' that game for awhile.

UNLV pee'd down their leg, and still...they were able to move the ball at times.

Then NIU I thought was outclassed and just not even near the competition, kinda like WYO.

The thing I see is, N seems to be 'tested' whereas W knocked em all over the place, score wise.

Are we really THAT fast? Are we going to be THAT much better w all 3 levels completely healthy? Was W sched really THAT poor? Was our any tougher?

I think we've faced stiffer test's, but even for crap opponents, W steamrolled them. My guess is we'll bring our 'A' game cuz we've been forced to a couple times already and it's looked pretty good. Does W even know what's it's A game is?will it be too late for them by the time they've found out?

Yes, we are that fast. T-Mart, Aaron Green, Abdullah, Heard, Turner, and Bell all have potential to take it to the house any time that they touch the ball. And Rexy is probably fast enough too.

Yes, we are that much better with all 3 levels completely healthy. Probably more importantly, being healthy in the secondary. Having a lock-down corner out there is what Bo's defenses are based around. With Dennard back there, our blitz packages get a whole lot more interesting.

Yes, Wisconsin's schedule was piss poor. Their opponents have, combined, two wins against FBS teams, with those two teams being Hawaii(2-2 with a loss to Washington) and Army(1-3).

Yes, ours was tougher. I'm not going to argue that we have had a tough schedule by any means, because we have had a pretty easy schedule too. But Washington is head-over heals better than anyone that they have played. I would even say that Fresno and Wyoming are better than anyone that they have played.

 

I keep seeing these same arguments. I have to say, no disrespect intended, that it's starting to strike me as an attempt to convince yourselves.

 

1) Nebraska's speed on offense, at best, is only marginally better than UW's. Wilson, Ball, White, Toon, Abrederis, Lewis, Gordon, Doe all have excellent speed and UW's defense sees these guys every day in practice. I agree that defensively, UW's speed at LB is a concern. But Nebraska better score on their big plays because speed matters a lot less in the red zone, and UW tends to -- more than most -- get a lot tougher to move the ball against on a short field. I'd be more worried about it if Martinez wasn't such a marginal passer because I'll take my chances with UW's run defense in the red zone. The question is, is that advantage going to be enough to overcome a UW offense that has no weakness? Obviously, Nebraska is a much better defensive unit that what the Badgers have seen so far from their opponents, but then again, Washington and Fresno didn't have a lot of trouble moving the ball against Nebraska and UW is a much better offense than either of those, too.

 

2) The Oregon State team you thought was "winning" managed all of 23 yards rushing, 1.0 yards per attempt.

 

3) Yes, UW's schedule was piss poor. And Nebraska's was only a little better. Washington is better than Oregon State, clearly, but is that really what you're hanging your hat on? Head-over heels better? Really? Are you trying to convince yourselves that the Huskers' struggles against those teams relative to UW's routs was the result of some yawning chasm in SOS?

 

4) And this is just a tip: I wouldn't read too much into what UNLV did in the first half. Borland was playing his first game at MLB, and they came in running the pistol, which UW did not expect and had not prepared for. So he struggled, and UW scored so fast the D didn't have a chance to make adjustments on the sideline in the first half before they were heading back to the field. Third quarter was a better read on that game, and the Badgers shut them down until the starters left the game toward the end of the quarter. UW's defense averages 8.5 ppg, but that's misleading too: only 13 points have been scored against the starters. The other 21 came in garbage time. And they are the only team in the country to shut out a BCS opponent.

 

5) Most of the players UW is gonna put on the field are plenty tested. With one or two exceptions, they all were either starters or saw significant time last year on a team that went to the Rose Bowl, beat Ohio State in prime time, etc. These guys have a blue collar work ethic and have been aiming toward this game for a long time. If you honestly expect them to panic when the pads start popping, I think you're going to be disappointed.

i agree with the bold part. we keep saying things like, "we have been holding back our playbook" or "if we improve by then we should be fine". but there is no reason to believe that wiscy won't do the same, or they are not holding back. i think we can win, not sure we will. hopefully we play a good game and show our potential. just, hopefully it is a good game.

[HuskerFowler]

Also, I have watched 2 of W games on tv this year. I was watching them play OS and turned it, then was shocked they shut them out. I thoght oregeon st was kinda 'winning' that game for awhile.

UNLV pee'd down their leg, and still...they were able to move the ball at times.

Then NIU I thought was outclassed and just not even near the competition, kinda like WYO.

The thing I see is, N seems to be 'tested' whereas W knocked em all over the place, score wise.

Are we really THAT fast? Are we going to be THAT much better w all 3 levels completely healthy? Was W sched really THAT poor? Was our any tougher?

I think we've faced stiffer test's, but even for crap opponents, W steamrolled them. My guess is we'll bring our 'A' game cuz we've been forced to a couple times already and it's looked pretty good. Does W even know what's it's A game is?will it be too late for them by the time they've found out?

Yes, we are that fast. T-Mart, Aaron Green, Abdullah, Heard, Turner, and Bell all have potential to take it to the house any time that they touch the ball. And Rexy is probably fast enough too.

Yes, we are that much better with all 3 levels completely healthy. Probably more importantly, being healthy in the secondary. Having a lock-down corner out there is what Bo's defenses are based around. With Dennard back there, our blitz packages get a whole lot more interesting.

Yes, Wisconsin's schedule was piss poor. Their opponents have, combined, two wins against FBS teams, with those two teams being Hawaii(2-2 with a loss to Washington) and Army(1-3).

Yes, ours was tougher. I'm not going to argue that we have had a tough schedule by any means, because we have had a pretty easy schedule too. But Washington is head-over heals better than anyone that they have played. I would even say that Fresno and Wyoming are better than anyone that they have played.

 

I keep seeing these same arguments. I have to say, no disrespect intended, that it's starting to strike me as an attempt to convince yourselves.

 

1) Nebraska's speed on offense, at best, is only marginally better than UW's. Wilson, Ball, White, Toon, Abrederis, Lewis, Gordon, Doe all have excellent speed and UW's defense sees these guys every day in practice. I agree that defensively, UW's speed at LB is a concern. But Nebraska better score on their big plays because speed matters a lot less in the red zone, and UW tends to -- more than most -- get a lot tougher to move the ball against on a short field. I'd be more worried about it if Martinez wasn't such a marginal passer because I'll take my chances with UW's run defense in the red zone. The question is, is that advantage going to be enough to overcome a UW offense that has no weakness? Obviously, Nebraska is a much better defensive unit that what the Badgers have seen so far from their opponents, but then again, Washington and Fresno didn't have a lot of trouble moving the ball against Nebraska and UW is a much better offense than either of those, too.

 

2) The Oregon State team you thought was "winning" managed all of 23 yards rushing, 1.0 yards per attempt.

 

3) Yes, UW's schedule was piss poor. And Nebraska's was only a little better. Washington is better than Oregon State, clearly, but is that really what you're hanging your hat on? Head-over heels better? Really? Are you trying to convince yourselves that the Huskers' struggles against those teams relative to UW's routs was the result of some yawning chasm in SOS?

 

4) And this is just a tip: I wouldn't read too much into what UNLV did in the first half. Borland was playing his first game at MLB, and they came in running the pistol, which UW did not expect and had not prepared for. So he struggled, and UW scored so fast the D didn't have a chance to make adjustments on the sideline in the first half before they were heading back to the field. Third quarter was a better read on that game, and the Badgers shut them down until the starters left the game toward the end of the quarter. UW's defense averages 8.5 ppg, but that's misleading too: only 13 points have been scored against the starters. The other 21 came in garbage time. And they are the only team in the country to shut out a BCS opponent.

 

5) Most of the players UW is gonna put on the field are plenty tested. With one or two exceptions, they all were either starters or saw significant time last year on a team that went to the Rose Bowl, beat Ohio State in prime time, etc. These guys have a blue collar work ethic and have been aiming toward this game for a long time. If you honestly expect them to panic when the pads start popping, I think you're going to be disappointed.

 

I really think Washington is going to be in the top 25 before its all said and done. They were underdogs in Vegas last week and beat Cal (a game i bet and won), and they are starting to get some votes in the AP and coaches polls ( 4 and 3 respectively) They are dogs again this week to Utah, and when they beat them they will be ranked. They have some problems on D, but that offense is pretty good. I was really impressed with them. It goes without saying, but no teams you have played are anywhere close to Washington. Other then that good post.

[Bdgrfan]

Also, I have watched 2 of W games on tv this year. I was watching them play OS and turned it, then was shocked they shut them out. I thoght oregeon st was kinda 'winning' that game for awhile.

UNLV pee'd down their leg, and still...they were able to move the ball at times.

Then NIU I thought was outclassed and just not even near the competition, kinda like WYO.

The thing I see is, N seems to be 'tested' whereas W knocked em all over the place, score wise.

Are we really THAT fast? Are we going to be THAT much better w all 3 levels completely healthy? Was W sched really THAT poor? Was our any tougher?

I think we've faced stiffer test's, but even for crap opponents, W steamrolled them. My guess is we'll bring our 'A' game cuz we've been forced to a couple times already and it's looked pretty good. Does W even know what's it's A game is?will it be too late for them by the time they've found out?

Yes, we are that fast. T-Mart, Aaron Green, Abdullah, Heard, Turner, and Bell all have potential to take it to the house any time that they touch the ball. And Rexy is probably fast enough too.

Yes, we are that much better with all 3 levels completely healthy. Probably more importantly, being healthy in the secondary. Having a lock-down corner out there is what Bo's defenses are based around. With Dennard back there, our blitz packages get a whole lot more interesting.

Yes, Wisconsin's schedule was piss poor. Their opponents have, combined, two wins against FBS teams, with those two teams being Hawaii(2-2 with a loss to Washington) and Army(1-3).

Yes, ours was tougher. I'm not going to argue that we have had a tough schedule by any means, because we have had a pretty easy schedule too. But Washington is head-over heals better than anyone that they have played. I would even say that Fresno and Wyoming are better than anyone that they have played.

 

I keep seeing these same arguments. I have to say, no disrespect intended, that it's starting to strike me as an attempt to convince yourselves.

 

1) Nebraska's speed on offense, at best, is only marginally better than UW's. Wilson, Ball, White, Toon, Abrederis, Lewis, Gordon, Doe all have excellent speed and UW's defense sees these guys every day in practice. I agree that defensively, UW's speed at LB is a concern. But Nebraska better score on their big plays because speed matters a lot less in the red zone, and UW tends to -- more than most -- get a lot tougher to move the ball against on a short field. I'd be more worried about it if Martinez wasn't such a marginal passer because I'll take my chances with UW's run defense in the red zone. The question is, is that advantage going to be enough to overcome a UW offense that has no weakness? Obviously, Nebraska is a much better defensive unit that what the Badgers have seen so far from their opponents, but then again, Washington and Fresno didn't have a lot of trouble moving the ball against Nebraska and UW is a much better offense than either of those, too.

 

2) The Oregon State team you thought was "winning" managed all of 23 yards rushing, 1.0 yards per attempt.

 

3) Yes, UW's schedule was piss poor. And Nebraska's was only a little better. Washington is better than Oregon State, clearly, but is that really what you're hanging your hat on? Head-over heels better? Really? Are you trying to convince yourselves that the Huskers' struggles against those teams relative to UW's routs was the result of some yawning chasm in SOS?

 

4) And this is just a tip: I wouldn't read too much into what UNLV did in the first half. Borland was playing his first game at MLB, and they came in running the pistol, which UW did not expect and had not prepared for. So he struggled, and UW scored so fast the D didn't have a chance to make adjustments on the sideline in the first half before they were heading back to the field. Third quarter was a better read on that game, and the Badgers shut them down until the starters left the game toward the end of the quarter. UW's defense averages 8.5 ppg, but that's misleading too: only 13 points have been scored against the starters. The other 21 came in garbage time. And they are the only team in the country to shut out a BCS opponent.

 

5) Most of the players UW is gonna put on the field are plenty tested. With one or two exceptions, they all were either starters or saw significant time last year on a team that went to the Rose Bowl, beat Ohio State in prime time, etc. These guys have a blue collar work ethic and have been aiming toward this game for a long time. If you honestly expect them to panic when the pads start popping, I think you're going to be disappointed.

i agree with the bold part. we keep saying things like, "we have been holding back our playbook" or "if we improve by then we should be fine". but there is no reason to believe that wiscy won't do the same, or they are not holding back. i think we can win, not sure we will. hopefully we play a good game and show our potential. just, hopefully it is a good game.

 

Totally agree. I see it kind of the same way I saw our games against Ohio State the past two years. In both cases, UW beat them down-in and down-out. But it's close enough that a couple big plays can swing it one way or the other. Two years ago, UW dominated them and lost thanks to a couple kick returns. Last year, UW had the kick return and won. I like UW as the better overall team, but two or three plays in this game are probably gonna determine it and each have playmakers who can turn them in.

[sd'sker]

 

Totally agree. I see it kind of the same way I saw our games against Ohio State the past two years. In both cases, UW beat them down-in and down-out. But it's close enough that a couple big plays can swing it one way or the other. Two years ago, UW dominated them and lost thanks to a couple kick returns. Last year, UW had the kick return and won. I like UW as the better overall team, but two or three plays in this game are probably gonna determine it and each have playmakers who can turn them in.

again, we're in agreement. i always think NU will win and i think they have a puncher's chance. i do think wiscy has a better product right now. i also have had NU break my heart a lot in the past decade. i was so amped for the last two va. tech games as our return to prominence. i was so amped when NU would start to raise in the polls and then take two steps background. i am entering this saturday with cautious optimism, but i am sure no matter how well we play, if we lose my heart will still hurt.

 

i am trying to chalk this up as a loss, but it goes against every fiber of my being. i hope we play well and show some promise. i hope it is close. 'h', 'e', double hockey sticks, i hope we win. but i am excited to see what our team has, and i hope for a rematch later this year. i am excited for this game because it will teach us a lot about NU. best of luck to both teams, hope we see some good football.

[Drowning_in_the_Sea_of_Red]

ps: I do not condon the use of porn

 

It's ok guys, because I do. Have at it.

 

 

 

2) The Oregon State team you thought was "winning" managed all of 23 yards rushing, 1.0 yards per attempt.

 

Uhh... they lost to Sacramento State. Whatever point you were trying to make is now invalid. Just sayin'...

[RedDenver]

 

I keep seeing these same arguments. I have to say, no disrespect intended, that it's starting to strike me as an attempt to convince yourselves.

 

1) Nebraska's speed on offense, at best, is only marginally better than UW's.

 

2) The Oregon State team you thought was "winning" managed all of 23 yards rushing, 1.0 yards per attempt.

 

3) Yes, UW's schedule was piss poor. And Nebraska's was only a little better.

 

4) And this is just a tip: I wouldn't read too much into what UNLV did in the first half.

 

5) Most of the players UW is gonna put on the field are plenty tested.

1) I think this is a meet in the middle reality. What I mean is that NU's not as fast as NU fans think, but faster than UW fans think. All I can say right now is that I've been following NU football for over 30 years and this is the fastest group of skill players on offense I can remember. Martinez is elite fast, especially for a QB; Kenny Bell is elite fast, even for a WR; and Kyler Reed is very fast for a TE. There are several other fast players, but those 3 are the truly scary fast ones.

 

2) Agree on Oregon St. But based on their other games, not sure dominating that offense means much.

 

3) Mostly agree. I think NU's schedule more than a "little" better, but not significantly so.

 

4) If that's the case, then you shouldn't read too much into what Fresno St. did in the first half. Or Washington. We had new players on both sides of the ball, especially OL and secondary. And those teams came in with very good game plans that took NU a half to adjust to.

 

5) Good to know. Additionally, playing at Camp Randall is a huge advantage for you guys. We have a young team overall and we don't know for sure how they'll handle the pressure.

 

One thing I think benefits NU is the perception that UW "should" win this game and is going in as the favorite. Not sure how UW will handle the expectations of being the "hunted", but I think NU has an advantage as the slight underdog.

[FatalB]

I think that the Husker defense will likely perform closer, if not up, to preseason expectations on Saturday, with Crick, David, and Dennard all on the field together for the first time this season. The offense has also improved its consistency and execution with each game and looks to be formidable with many talented weapons at its disposal. The Huskers have also had to overcome opponents who punched them in the mouth instead of opponents who might as well have forfeited. These are the reasons why I think it will be a good game and that the Huskers have a good chance of coming away with the win.

[Bdgrfan]

 

Totally agree. I see it kind of the same way I saw our games against Ohio State the past two years. In both cases, UW beat them down-in and down-out. But it's close enough that a couple big plays can swing it one way or the other. Two years ago, UW dominated them and lost thanks to a couple kick returns. Last year, UW had the kick return and won. I like UW as the better overall team, but two or three plays in this game are probably gonna determine it and each have playmakers who can turn them in.

again, we're in agreement. i always think NU will win and i think they have a puncher's chance. i do think wiscy has a better product right now. i also have had NU break my heart a lot in the past decade. i was so amped for the last two va. tech games as our return to prominence. i was so amped when NU would start to raise in the polls and then take two steps background. i am entering this saturday with cautious optimism, but i am sure no matter how well we play, if we lose my heart will still hurt.

 

i am trying to chalk this up as a loss, but it goes against every fiber of my being. i hope we play well and show some promise. i hope it is close. 'h', 'e', double hockey sticks, i hope we win. but i am excited to see what our team has, and i hope for a rematch later this year. i am excited for this game because it will teach us a lot about NU. best of luck to both teams, hope we see some good football.

 

The joy, and the curse, of college football. It's why we drink.

[Bdgrfan]

ps: I do not condon the use of porn

 

It's ok guys, because I do. Have at it.

 

 

 

2) The Oregon State team you thought was "winning" managed all of 23 yards rushing, 1.0 yards per attempt.

 

Uhh... they lost to Sacramento State. Whatever point you were trying to make is now invalid. Just sayin'...

 

Only point was it's awfully hard to argue that it looked like the Beavs were "winning," as the one poster asserted. It wasn't even close.