# Yo Jockey...  Your boys ready for LSU?



## LanierSpots (Sep 5, 2012)

Time for you guys to beat up on the SEC again...   Heard the Sarg even brought in a real tiger for practice this week.  Should help.... 

Good luck this weekend.  They are going to need it.


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong (Sep 5, 2012)

LSU is favored by more than 3 TDs


----------



## Jetjockey (Sep 5, 2012)

It's gonna be tough.  Losing the #1 back isn't going to help any.  Injury's have really hurt UW this fall.  With that said, even though the SDSU game was not nearly as close as the score suggests, there were some pretty good things to take from the game.  However, losing Callier and RT Ben Riva is going to be tough to overcome.   The O line will need to step up huge if they are going to have a chance. 
To be honest though, UW is still a year away from being "back".  Most of the team is still freshman and sophomores.


----------



## irishleprechaun (Sep 5, 2012)

Jetjockey said:


> It's gonna be tough.  Losing the #1 back isn't going to help any.  Injury's have really hurt UW this fall.  With that said, even though the SDSU game was not nearly as close as the score suggests, there were some pretty good things to take from the game.  However, losing Callier and RT Ben Riva is going to be tough to overcome.   The O line will need to step up huge if they are going to have a chance.
> To be honest though, UW is still a year away from being "back".  Most of the team is still freshman and sophomores.



More excuses here than in Charlotte this week....


----------



## Madsnooker (Sep 5, 2012)

Jetjockey said:


> It's gonna be tough.  Losing the #1 back isn't going to help any.  Injury's have really hurt UW this fall.  With that said, even though the SDSU game was not nearly as close as the score suggests, there were some pretty good things to take from the game.  However, losing Callier and RT Ben Riva is going to be tough to overcome.   The O line will need to step up huge if they are going to have a chance.
> To be honest though, UW is still a year away from being "back".  Most of the team is still freshman and sophomores.



So you are saying LSU will cover, thanks.


----------



## Jetjockey (Sep 5, 2012)

irishleprechaun said:


> More excuses here than in Charlotte this week....



They aren't excuses, simply the truth.  A mid level PAC-12 team that is rebuilding is about to go head to head with the #2 team in the SEC.  I fully expect UW to be 2-4 and 0-3 in the PAC-12 until mid October when the schedule gets much easier.  UW still has a ways to go before they can compete with the top teams in either the SEC or the PAC-12.  With that said, LSU had their hands full in Seattle 3 years ago, and this UW team is much better than that UW team.  I think Price is gonna give LSU's secondary fits.  Price is by far the best QB LSU will face all year.  He will punish LSU's secondary if given the chance.  UW has the ability to beat LSU, the question will be how they handle adversity.  Freshman and sophomores make up the bulk of UW, last weekend when they lost Jr RB Jessie Callier, DE HaU'oli Jamora and RT Ben Riva, the entire dynamic of the team changed.  They went from running all over SDSU to allowing SDSU to stay in the game.  If UW can put their heads on straight, LSU will again have their hands full.  If not, it could be over quick.   I think ASJ is gonna give LSU fits as well.  LSU most likely won't play a team as well balanced on offense all year provided SO TB Bishop Sankey can find some sort of a running game.  UW has a great QB, good receivers, a STUD TE.  The question mark is the running game, and how much the D has actually improved.  The D looked pretty good last weekend.


----------



## Jetjockey (Sep 5, 2012)

Madsnooker said:


> So you are saying LSU will cover, thanks.



Nope, don't think they do!  I think it's gonna be a lot closet than people think.


----------



## Boudreaux (Sep 5, 2012)

Jetjockey said:


> Nope, don't think they do!  I think it's gonna be a lot closet than people think.



Wake up!


----------



## Matthew6 (Sep 5, 2012)

Lsu 42-13.


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong (Sep 5, 2012)

Jetjockey said:


> Nope, don't think they do!  I think it's gonna be a lot closet than people think.



You made a similar prediction about the Bama - Michigan game


----------



## Jetjockey (Sep 5, 2012)

Dudley Do-Wrong said:


> You made a similar prediction about the Bama - Michigan game




And I changed it after Toussaint was suspended, even though I didn't post it.  Nowhere have I said UW was going to beat LSU.  What I said is they have the ability to.  Don't forget that UW beat USC 2 years in a row, beat Nebraska in the Holiday bowl, and gave LSU everything they could handle in Seattle 3 years ago.  In 2009 UW had just come off the worst season in UW history and still shelled LSU for over 480 yards of offense.  If LSU looks past UW and doesn't show up to play, they are in trouble. UW isn't particularly flashy in any part of their game.  But they have a great QB, a stud TE in ASJ, good recievers, and hopefully a couple young backs that step up. Plus, Justin Wilcox knows whats coming, there won't be any surprises.     

It could get ugly early, but if the young guys keep their heads, it's gonna be a game till the end.


----------



## LanierSpots (Sep 5, 2012)

So you think the Michigan game would have had a different outcome if Toussaint would have played?


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Sep 5, 2012)

Jetjockey said:


> They aren't excuses, simply the truth.  A mid level PAC-12 team that is rebuilding is about to go head to head with the #2 team in the SEC.



Well if y'all want to swap games, Bama is rebuilding after losing the entire front line of the 'D' and is running true freshmen on the 'O'. Surely playing another rebuilding team would even the playing field...


----------



## tigerfan (Sep 5, 2012)

Jetjockey said:


> If LSU looks past UW and doesn't show up to play, they are in trouble. .




This better not happen.  We have Idaho next.

Another thing that could affect this game is brewing in the gulf right now.

With all that said, LSU covers.


----------



## Jetjockey (Sep 5, 2012)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Well if y'all want to swap games, Bama is rebuilding after losing the entire front line of the 'D' and is running true freshmen on the 'O'. Surely playing another rebuilding team would even the playing field...



Be careful what you wish for.  USC is In the process of "rebuilding" as well.  There's a difference between reloading and rebuilding.  Willingham left UW a disaster.  Considering how bad UW was, they have come a LONG way.  But they aren't there yet.  They have the ability to play with anyone in the country on any given weekend, they just can't do it every weekend.......  Yet.


----------



## RipperIII (Sep 5, 2012)

I agree with JJ, UW is not on a competitive level with LSU,..maybe down the road, but LSU is going to want to put up a lot of points...interesting to see if they can.


----------



## westcobbdog (Sep 5, 2012)

Jet watch LSU's qb closely, seriously doubt if this guy you are saying is better than sliced bread is as good as LSU's Mettenberger.


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong (Sep 6, 2012)

Jetjockey said:


> And I changed it after Toussaint was suspended,


His suspension was announced a long time ago (July), you made your prediction within the past couple of weeks.


----------



## BrotherBadger (Sep 6, 2012)

Dudley Do-Wrong said:


> His suspension was announced a long time ago (July), you made your prediction within the past couple of weeks.



No it wasn't, it was announced the day before the game. He was arrested back in July, but the suspension wasn't announced until august 31st.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...int-suspended-michigan-alabama_n_1847160.html


----------



## LanierSpots (Sep 6, 2012)

BrotherBadger said:


> No it wasn't, it was announced the day before the game. He was arrested back in July, but the suspension wasn't announced until august 31st.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...int-suspended-michigan-alabama_n_1847160.html




Which was a little odd.   He should have been suspended immediately.   

Head games


----------



## BrotherBadger (Sep 6, 2012)

LanierSpots said:


> Which was a little odd.   He should have been suspended immediately.
> 
> Head games



Exactly. I have a feeling Hoke knew he was suspended the minute he found out about the DUI, but didn't want to announce it until just before the game. Dumb, but I'm still not sold that Hoke is that great of a coach to begin with.


----------



## tcward (Sep 6, 2012)

irishleprechaun said:


> More excuses here than in Charlotte this week....


----------



## tcward (Sep 6, 2012)

Jetjockey said:


> They aren't excuses, simply the truth.  A mid level PAC-12 team that is rebuilding is about to go head to head with the #2 team in the SEC.  I fully expect UW to be 2-4 and 0-3 in the PAC-12 until mid October when the schedule gets much easier.  UW still has a ways to go before they can compete with the top teams in either the SEC or the PAC-12.  With that said, LSU had their hands full in Seattle 3 years ago, and this UW team is much better than that UW team.  I think Price is gonna give LSU's secondary fits.  Price is by far the best QB LSU will face all year.  He will punish LSU's secondary if given the chance.  UW has the ability to beat LSU, the question will be how they handle adversity.  Freshman and sophomores make up the bulk of UW, last weekend when they lost Jr RB Jessie Callier, DE HaU'oli Jamora and RT Ben Riva, the entire dynamic of the team changed.  They went from running all over SDSU to allowing SDSU to stay in the game.  If UW can put their heads on straight, LSU will again have their hands full.  If not, it could be over quick.   I think ASJ is gonna give LSU fits as well.  LSU most likely won't play a team as well balanced on offense all year provided SO TB Bishop Sankey can find some sort of a running game.  UW has a great QB, good receivers, a STUD TE.  The question mark is the running game, and how much the D has actually improved.  The D looked pretty good last weekend.



Thought all Pac 12 teams were mid level?


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong (Sep 6, 2012)

BrotherBadger said:


> No it wasn't, it was announced the day before the game. He was arrested back in July, but the suspension wasn't announced until august 31st.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...int-suspended-michigan-alabama_n_1847160.html



catch up

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...indefinitely-what-does-this-mean-for-michigan

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/michig...indefinitely-dui-arrest-200000841--ncaaf.html

http://espn.go.com/college-football...aint-michigan-wolverines-suspended-dui-arrest

Hoke waivered for a time after this initial suspension.


----------



## Boudreaux (Sep 6, 2012)

Jetjockey said:


> And I changed it after Toussaint was suspended, even though I didn't post it.  Nowhere have I said UW was going to beat LSU.  What I said is they have the ability to.  Don't forget that UW beat USC 2 years in a row, beat Nebraska in the Holiday bowl, and gave LSU everything they could handle in Seattle 3 years ago.  In 2009 UW had just come off the worst season in UW history and still shelled LSU for over 480 yards of offense.  If LSU looks past UW and doesn't show up to play, they are in trouble. UW isn't particularly flashy in any part of their game.  But they have a great QB, a stud TE in ASJ, good recievers, and hopefully a couple young backs that step up. Plus, Justin Wilcox knows whats coming, there won't be any surprises.
> 
> It could get ugly early, but if the young guys keep their heads, it's gonna be a game till the end.



And if UW had a better program with better players and coaches and better recruiting and if UW could score more points than their opponents instead of just racking up a bunch of yards, and if UW had more than just one or two "stud" players and if UW was any good and if UW won more games that it lost and if LSU didn't beat us last time after we gave them "all they could handle".................... then UW would be an elite program and get a little respect outside the state of Washington.

Alas, we live in the real world, and UW is a low to middle tier program from the Left Coast that occasionally wins a big game and their fans cling to that for years and years and years, because they have nothing else.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Sep 6, 2012)

I searched the rankings twice and I don't see Wash-up-a-ton anywhere on there. I also fail to see why JJ chose to insert them into his responses repeatedly when the question of the OP was specifically addressing the Mighty Ducks. They are currently #4 in the week 2 rankings. I think all excuses need to be shed in lieu of a discussion of their strengths, if they have any in comparson to a repeatedly strong, year in and year out, LSU team.


----------



## Jetjockey (Sep 6, 2012)

Who needs to keep up?

Update
Fitzgerald Toussaint Decision Yet To Come, But Indications Are He'll Play Against- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -Alabama
Fitzgerald Toussaint has yet to be cleared by the Michigan Wolverines following his suspension in the offseason, but the running back is still being listed as the starter on the depth chart. If that seems confusing, it's because it is.

That said, however, there are some who believe that Toussaint holding the top spot on the depth chart indicates that coach Brady Hoke plans to make him active for the season opener. The latest to hold that opinion is MLive's Kyle Meinke, as he broke down the scenario as such:

Keep in mind, Hoke's depth charts last year were decent guidelines, but were far from accurate portrayals of game-day lineups. So, Toussaint landing No. 1 on the depth chart shouldn't be used as any kind of indicator as to whether or not he'll play.

This can be said though: The longer Hoke holds out on a decision, the more likely it becomes Toussaint will play. Why else would he hold out on a decision? Toussaint was arrested on suspicion of drunk driving back on July 21 and suspended shortly thereafter. If Toussaint was going to be held out against Alabama, that move could have been made days or even weeks ago.

It's certainly a fluid situation without any end result until Hoke announces that Toussaint will either be in the lineup or continue his suspension through the Alabama game, but Meinke's thoughts make it seem likely that Toussaint will be ready for the opener.

Be sure to check out Maize n Brew for more coverage of the Wolverines, and head over to SB Nation's NCAA football hub for more college football news and analysis.

Aug 28 11:39a by Scott Schroeder


----------



## Jetjockey (Sep 6, 2012)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> I searched the rankings twice and I don't see Wash-up-a-ton anywhere on there. I also fail to see why JJ chose to insert them into his responses repeatedly when the question of the OP was specifically addressing the Mighty Ducks. They are currently #4 in the week 2 rankings. I think all excuses need to be shed in lieu of a discussion of their strengths, if they have any in comparson to a repeatedly strong, year in and year out, LSU team.
> 
> View attachment 686751



I know EXACTLY who Lanier was referring too. So does he.  Try to catch up Miguel, your slowing down the forum.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Sep 6, 2012)

Jetjockey said:


> *Who needs to keep up?*
> 
> Update
> Fitzgerald Toussaint Decision Yet To Come, But Indications Are He'll Play Against- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -Alabama
> ...



Apparently you do.

Bama scalded Michigan 41-14 last week. 

Again I ask, what does this have to do with the original OP's question?


----------



## BrotherBadger (Sep 6, 2012)

Dudley Do-Wrong said:


> catch up
> 
> http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...indefinitely-what-does-this-mean-for-michigan
> 
> ...



He didn't waver, he never made a choice. Suspended indefinitely is coachspeak for "we don't know what to do yet and don't want to catch heat so this is what we'll do". No decision was made until the day before the game, so i can see how he can change his prediction based off of that change. 

http://msn.foxsports.com/collegefoo...ssaint-frank-clark-allowed-to-practice-081212

From the article:

_Hoke, though, wouldn't say if part of their discipline would include missing the opener against defending champion Alabama on Sept. 1 at Cowboys Stadium.

''I haven't made that decision,'' he said. ''And, I probably won't make that decision for a while.'_

So, he publicly stated he wasn't sure if he would be suspended for the game on august 12th, you can see how a statement like that can cause someone to assume he would play. He didn't say "we are reviewing our decision", which would imply wavering. He stated that a decision had yet to be reached. It's not like Hoke came out and said "I'm suspending Fitz for the Bama game" in july.


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong (Sep 6, 2012)

BrotherBadger said:


> He didn't waver, he never made a choice. Suspended indefinitely is coachspeak for "we don't know what to do yet and don't want to catch heat so this is what we'll do". No decision was made until the day before the game, so i can see how he can change his prediction based off of that change.
> 
> http://msn.foxsports.com/collegefoo...ssaint-frank-clark-allowed-to-practice-081212
> 
> ...



Either a kid is suspended or he's not.  According to the articles, he was suspended indefinitely.  I didn't write the articles, I just read them.

_"Fitz made a poor decision and has been suspended indefinitely because of that action," Hoke said in a statement released to the SalinePatch._

I don't see any ambiguity in that statement but I don't spin things like a democrat.

I looked up indefinite in the dictionary and did not see " coachspeak for "we don't know what to do yet and don't want to catch heat so this is what we'll do"", maybe you folks up north use a different dictionary.

According to Merriam's, indefinite means "unspecified" and since we are talking about a suspension, it would mean for an uspecified period of time, it could be one game or an entire season.

Anyway, I have proven that he was suspended back in July but keep spinning if it makes you feel better.

BTW, you are quoting an article written more than  2 weeks after the initial incident when Hoke stated that he was suspended.  There was no "maybe", or "if", Hoke stated that he was suspended.   So, as reported on August 12, that he had not made a decision is an apparent flip flop from his original statements.  Yeah, I would call that waivering.


----------



## BrotherBadger (Sep 6, 2012)

Dudley Do-Wrong said:


> Either a kid is suspended or he's not.



Suspended from what though? Practice? Team activities? Show me an article where he says he was suspended for the Alabama game back in July. He says later in august that he hasn't made that decision yet. It's not that difficult to understand that a player can be suspended from one thing, and not from another. It's not like he would have been the first coach to suspend a player with a slap on the wrist and let him play in a big game.



> I don't see any ambiguity in that statement



Did you see any ambiguity in this statement?



> ''I haven't made that decision,''



That tells me that if he wasn't suspended for the bama game at that point. If he was, he would have said so.



> Anyway, I have proven that he was suspended back in July



But you didn't prove that he was suspended for the Bama game(because he wasn't until the day before the game, which is what his coach said in my article), which was both my, and Jet's point. Variables can cause someone to change his opinion on something. All indications were that Fitz was going to play.


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong (Sep 6, 2012)

BrotherBadger said:


> Suspended from what though? Practice? Team activities? Show me an article where he says he was suspended for the Alabama game back in July. He says later in august that he hasn't made that decision yet. It's not that difficult to understand that a player can be suspended from one thing, and not from another. It's not like he would have been the first coach to suspend a player with a slap on the wrist and let him play in a big game.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Everything you are talking about is after the fact (July when he was suspended indefinitely).  Evidently you are a democrat, you are using Delusional Debbie logic.  The ONLY way you are right is if you totally disregard his initial statements which was reported by numerous media/sports outlets.  I suppose that once one crosses the mason-Dixon line that the word "suspension" takes on a different meaning.

Here's Merriams definition:

 the act of suspending : the state or period of being suspended: as a : temporary removal (as from office or privileges) b : temporary withholding (as of belief or decision) 

Synonyms:
cold storage, deep freeze, doldrums, dormancy, holding pattern, latency, moratorium, quiescence, suspended animation, suspense, suspension
Related Words:
inaction, inertia, inertness, motionlessness; impasse, standstill; coma, hibernation, hypnosis, repose, rest, sleep, slumber, torpor; recess, recession, remission; downtime, idleness, layoff

 Still didn't find anything that says it's _"coachspeak for "we don't know what to do yet and don't want to catch heat so this is what we'll do". _


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong (Sep 6, 2012)

An article from ESPN’s Wolverine nation (dated 6 August), nearly a full month before the game.
http://insider.espn.go.com/blog/col...73/toussaint-clark-held-out-of-first-practice

_“Toussaint, a junior, was suspended following a drunken driving arrest on July 21 in downtown Ann Arbor.”

“Hoke also said having them sit out of Monday’s practice is not an indication, one way or the other, of their availability for the season opener against Alabama on Sept. 1 in Arlington, Texas.”_

ESPN 1 August, full month before the game:
http://insider.espn.go.com/blog/colleges/michigan/post/_/id/5704/inside-michigan-osu-rbs
_“Fitzgerald Toussaint has been suspended indefinitely following a drunken driving arrest earlier this month”_

ESPN 26 July titled: Wolverines Support Suspended teammates
http://insider.espn.go.com/blog/col...d/5606/wolverines-support-suspended-teammates

_“As running back Fitzgerald Toussaint and defensive end Frank Clark remain indefinitely suspended from Michigan’s football team for legal transgressions”

“Both are still suspended, Michigan coach Brady Hoke said, and will “pay the price for poor judgments” before making a decision on their futures “down the road.””_

ESPN 23 July titled: Michigan's Toussaint suspended after arrest
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/53739/michigans-toussaint-suspended-after-arrest

_“Star running back Fitz Toussaint has been suspended indefinitely following a weekend arrest for drunk driving.”

“Head coach Brady Hoke announced Monday afternoon that Toussaint is suspended indefinitely.”

“By definition, we don't know how long that indefinite suspension will last. It is reasonable, however, to conclude that Toussaint may not be available for the opener against the Crimson Tide at Cowboys Stadium.”_


----------



## BrotherBadger (Sep 6, 2012)

Dudley Do-Wrong said:


> _“Toussaint, a junior, was suspended following a drunken driving arrest on July 21 in downtown Ann Arbor.”
> 
> “Hoke also said having them sit out of Monday’s practice is not an indication, one way or the other, of their availability for the season opener against Alabama on Sept. 1 in Arlington, Texas.”_



Which again, proves my point that no decision had been made as to if he was going to play or not.



> ESPN 1 August, full month before the game:
> http://insider.espn.go.com/blog/colleges/michigan/post/_/id/5704/inside-michigan-osu-rbs
> _“Fitzgerald Toussaint has been suspended indefinitely following a drunken driving arrest earlier this month”_
> 
> ...



Are you reading this quote? "Before making a decision on their futures." What does that mean? That means he had not decided if he would be suspended for the game yet.




> “Head coach Brady Hoke announced Monday afternoon that Toussaint is suspended indefinitely.”
> 
> “By definition, we don't know how long that indefinite suspension will last. It is reasonable, however, to conclude that Toussaint may not be available for the opener against the Crimson Tide at Cowboys Stadium.”[/I]


 
May not be available? I thought you said someone was either suspended or they weren't. Sure sounds like he hadn't made a decision yet to me.


----------



## BrotherBadger (Sep 6, 2012)

> Everything you are talking about is after the fact (July when he was suspended indefinitely).


Yes, that's my point. By showing that he had not yet made a decision AFTER HE ANNOUNCED the indefinite suspension(which anybody who seriously pays attention to football knows doesn't mean squat when it comes to games), shows that he had NOT MADE A DECISION YET as to the Bama game. I cannot state this any simpler. For crying out loud, i gave you an exact quote from him stating HE HAD NOT YET MADE A DECISION as to if he was going to play in the Alabama game.



> I suppose that once one crosses the mason-Dixon line that the word "suspension" takes on a different meaning.



Not at all, we just understand that suspension can refer to more than just a game. How many times has a player been "indefinitely suspended" only to have been viewed to have payed for his crimes miraculously right before a game? It happens all the time.

Again, show me a quote before august 31st where he said he would NOT play in the bama game. This is a fact you cannot change. If it was announced beforehand, it wouldn't have made breaking news nationwide when it did.



> Still didn't find anything that says it's "coachspeak for "we don't know what to do yet and don't want to catch heat so this is what we'll do".



Some people recognize trends(observant you might call them), like when seeing coaches say one thing than do another, consistently using key phrases like "suspended indefinitely". I guess you just aren't one of those people. Do you know why they use those phrases? They are vague(go ahead and look that word up too, I'll wait).


----------



## Madsnooker (Sep 6, 2012)

You guys take this stuff way to serious.


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong (Sep 6, 2012)

BrotherBadger said:


> Yes, that's my point. By showing that he had not yet made a decision AFTER HE ANNOUNCED the indefinite suspension(which anybody who seriously pays attention to football knows doesn't mean squat when it comes to games), shows that he had NOT MADE A DECISION YET as to the Bama game. I cannot state this any simpler. For crying out loud, i gave you an exact quote from him stating HE HAD NOT YET MADE A DECISION as to if he was going to play in the Alabama game.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The point is that JJ stated that he made his comments about Alabama before he knew that the kid had been suspended when he had been suspended 3 weeks prior.  Then you pop in an comment and said "No it wasn't, it was announced the day before the game."  When, in fact, the suspension was announced more than a month prior (to the game).

As far as "the decision" goes, that applies to the "indefinite" application of the suspension.  In other words, he (Hoke) had not made a decision as to how long he would be suspended.  

Man, you got brain freeze or something?


----------



## Jetjockey (Sep 6, 2012)

Your absolutely correct. And all indications were that Hoke was going to play him. Otherwise they would have never put him on the depth chart and they wouldn't have needed to make an announcement several days before the game that he wasn't going to play.  I figured he was playing, just like most everyone else..    

I would have given UW a heck of a lot better chance as well had they not lost their #1 RB and an OL and DL starter who all made big impacts.  lSU has a lot more talent, but UW has some pretty good players as well, who are all very young.  The question will be wether or not the young guys step up.  If thy do, LSU is gonna have their hands full, if not, Price might be sore on Sunday.


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong (Sep 6, 2012)

Jetjockey said:


> Your absolutely correct. And all indications were that Hoke was going to play him. Otherwise they would have never put him on the depth chart and they wouldn't have needed to make an announcement several days before the game that he wasn't going to play.  I figured he was playing, just like most everyone else..
> 
> I would have given UW a heck of a lot better chance as well had they not lost their #1 RB and an OL and DL starter who all made big impacts.  lSU has a lot more talent, but UW has some pretty good players as well, who are all very young.  The question will be wether or not the young guys step up.  If thy do, LSU is gonna have their hands full, if not, Price might be sore on Sunday.



Actually, there was a lot of media attention given to this speculating if he would in fact play because he was supposed to have been suspended, I didn't believe he would play.  My speculation is that Hoke didn't want to set some type of precedence of waffling on disciplinary issues or it was suggested from higher powers when he had in fact, suspended the player.  I really don't believe he would have made much of a difference anyway, Bama was in a different universe Saturday night.


----------



## Jetjockey (Sep 6, 2012)

I think Hoke screwed up by just not declaring him ineligable in the first place. A Young team can prep for what's known, it's the unknown that kills you teams.  That's why UW is really going to have their hands full. Up until 2 days ago they were still experimenting with OL combinations.   It's a little late for that, but that's the cards that were dealt.  

UW isn't yet in the same league as LSU, Bama, USC, or Oregon.  You guys have no idea how much damage Tyrone Willingham did to this once proud program. In 2000 UW had a legitimate argument to be in the BCS NC game.  They won the head to head battle of the 1 loss teams; yet they were left out of the NC game.  How many schools have actually had bountys by the boosters to have the AD and head coach fired?  UW isn't there yet, but they are only one season away, and wih a little luck, they could make HuGE strides this year.


----------



## RipperIII (Sep 6, 2012)

Hey JJ, with UW's young and apparently beaten up O-line facing one of the top 3 D-lines, I really don't expect this game to be competitive.
But I don't know much about UW's D,...and the jury is still out on Mett. does UW have a solid D?

The Pac-whatever seems to be a two horse race this year, Oregon and USC...last year's game was awful close, do you think USC can win both games?...I'd give the nod of the hat to USC in the first,...but they may be thin come Dec.


----------



## Jetjockey (Sep 6, 2012)

UW's D seems to be very improved .  But the jury is still out.  UW fired their DQ last year and hired Justin Wilcox away from Tennesee.  Many at UT thought that Wilcox was going to replace Dooley and was a much better coach.  Wilcox knows what's coming from LSU.  UW's lines are both suffering from injurys.  The question will be how they respond.  UW has a lot more depth then a couple years ago......  LSU might want to learn the name Austin Safarian-Jenkins.  The kid is a stud, and he is every bit as big and strong as any TE in the SEC.....  Keith Price out RGIII'd RGIII last year in the Alimo Bowl last year as well......  Btw.  I heard a commentator tonight from ESPN say that price wasn't a dual threat QB.  That guy is on CRACK.  Just because he will stand in the pocket doesn't mean he isn't a dual threat QB.   He can kill you with his legs, if he stays healthy.  Something that didn't happen most of last year.


----------



## Jetjockey (Sep 6, 2012)

Oregon looked good their first game.  There was question how the loss of Thomas and James would change Oregon.  From the early look of it, all Oregon did was reload, and not rebuild.  Supposedly their D may be a lot better than the D rhat lost to AU in the NC game.  That D was pretty darn good and hurt Newton.  But the season is WAY too early to tell.


----------



## LanierSpots (Sep 8, 2012)

Jetjockey said:


> Nope, don't think they do!  I think it's gonna be a lot closet than people think.



Washington getting run out of Tiger stadium...


----------



## Wacenturion (Sep 9, 2012)

Sorry to say, that was a total embarrassment for the Huskies.  In my opinion, LSU looks much better than they did last year.  I would have thought Washington would have scored more, but everything about their effort stunk tonight.

Congratulations to the Tigers.


----------



## westcobbdog (Sep 9, 2012)

tough luck Wace..LSU reloads, not rebuilds like most teams.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Sep 9, 2012)

Well, glad we got that one out of the way. It would seem like the argument is settled, but I have a feeling an entirely new collective of excuses will be manufactured to explain the throttling LSU gave WU last night.

LSU has a tank named Spencer Ware that not only performs, but he punishes anyone stupid enough to get in his way. He will be a force to be reckoned with by all that confront him the rest of the season.


----------



## Jetjockey (Sep 9, 2012)

LanierSpots said:


> Washington getting run out of Tiger stadium...



I think UW is still running this morning.  UW sucked.  You could tell immediately that it was gonna be a long game for them.  The turnover by LSU could have set a much better tone for the game if UW hadn't dropped two passes that would have been TD's. They never got going after that and the young backs never stepped up to establish any kind of running game.  If UW plays like that for the restock the season , they won't be going to a bowl and will be lucky to finish any better than 7th in the PAC-12.  All the other Saturday games looked pretty good for the PAC-12.  But UW got crushed.


----------



## Jetjockey (Sep 9, 2012)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Well, glad we got that one out of the way. It would seem like the argument is settled, but I have a feeling an entirely new collective of excuses will be manufactured to explain the throttling LSU gave WU last night.
> 
> LSU has a tank named Spencer Ware that not only performs, but he punishes anyone stupid enough to get in his way. He will be a force to be reckoned with by all that confront him the rest of the season.



I'm confused.  What was the arguement?


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong (Sep 9, 2012)

From my perspective, LSU pretty much dominated in every aspect of the game.


----------



## Boudreaux (Sep 9, 2012)

Back to the OP question - the proper answer would have been: 

"No. Never."

Reality bites.


----------



## Boudreaux (Sep 9, 2012)

Yo, JJ.

ESPN U is replaying the game right now if you want to tune in to try to find the moral victory I'm sure we'll all be hearing about 4 years from now.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Sep 9, 2012)

Boudreaux said:


> Yo, JJ.
> 
> ESPN U is replaying the game right now if you want to tune in to try to find the moral victory I'm sure we'll all be hearing about 4 years from now.



I can't figure out why he keeps calling the UW? They are WU, initials for; Washed Up....


----------



## Boudreaux (Sep 9, 2012)

JJ -

WU is only down by 17 right now in the replay, if you want to tune in to see if they can pull it out.


----------



## Boudreaux (Sep 9, 2012)

I may have found your moral victory!

WU held LSU to only 3 punts, and held Wing to under a 55 yard per punt average!




> LSU out-rushed Washington 242-26.
> 
> LSU finished with 437 total offensive yards. Washington had 183 yards.
> 
> ...


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Sep 9, 2012)

Boudreaux said:


> I may have found your moral victory!
> 
> WU held LSU to only 3 punts, and held Wing to under a 55 yard per punt average!



It was nice of them to give us Nussmeier though. His talent was obviously being wasted at WU.


----------



## Boudreaux (Sep 11, 2012)

Hey, JJ:

What's Happenin?!

Are you still in mourning or still shell shocked from that whoopin?


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong (Sep 11, 2012)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> It was nice of them to give us Nussmeier though. His talent was obviously being wasted at WU.



When Bama hangs 50 on LSU, that will be JJ's moral victory.


----------



## Boudreaux (Sep 11, 2012)

Lol!


----------



## RipperIII (Sep 11, 2012)

Boudreaux said:


> Hey, JJ:
> 
> What's Happenin?!
> 
> Are you still in mourning or still shell shocked from that whoopin?




wonder what the score would have been if the LSU "receivers" could catch the ball...


----------



## Boudreaux (Sep 12, 2012)

RipperIII said:


> wonder what the score would have been if the LSU "receivers" could catch the ball...



Don't knock the receivers.  For the past 4 years they've been used as decoys past 15 yards from the line of scrimmage.  They are just not conditioned to a ball being catchable down field.  Hopefully, their conditioning will change soon.

Hey JJ, What's Happenin?!       Tiger bait!


----------



## Jetjockey (Sep 12, 2012)

Congratations, you just beat a team who is soon to be 2-4.   You just beat up on the likely 7th or 8th best team in the PAC-12.  Whoohooo!!!   You crack me up. Never did I EVER say UW would beat LSU, and if you remember, I said they were a year or two away from being back to their historic forum.  I said that if UW's freshman and sophomores stepped up that they had a chance. When UW dropped two TD passes less than 2 minutes into the game, I knew it was going to be a lo g night.  But at the end of the day, that loss doesn't matter, so I really don't care what the score was and the game didn't prove, or mean a thing.  Its not like that came cost UW the BCS NC that they weren't going to make it to anyway.   The funny thing is you guys beating your chests like it was a huge win for LSU, yet I don't think it's a big loss for UW...  Weird!


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong (Sep 12, 2012)

Jetjockey said:


> Congratations, you just beat a team who is soon to be 2-4.   You just beat up on the likely 7th or 8th best team in the PAC-12.  Whoohooo!!!   You crack me up. Never did I EVER say UW would beat LSU, and if you remember, I said they were a year or two away from being back to their historic forum.  I said that if UW's freshman and sophomores stepped up that they had a chance. When UW dropped two TD passes less than 2 minutes into the game, I knew it was going to be a lo g night.  But at the end of the day, that loss doesn't matter, so I really don't care what the score was and the game didn't prove, or mean a thing.  Its not like that came cost UW the BCS NC that they weren't going to make it to anyway.   The funny thing is you guys beating your chests like it was a huge win for LSU, yet I don't think it's a big loss for UW...  Weird!



Maybe I'm wrong, but didn't you say that UW would give LSU all they could handle?


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong (Sep 12, 2012)

I found it,  it was a bunch of if's, then LSU would have their hands full


----------



## Jetjockey (Sep 12, 2012)

Dudley Do-Wrong said:


> I found it,  it was a bunch of if's, then LSU would have their hands full



Ding ding ding.   You have a winner!!!


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong (Sep 12, 2012)

Jetjockey said:


> Ding ding ding.   You have a winner!!!



LSu didn't have their hands full


----------



## Jetjockey (Sep 12, 2012)

Dudley Do-Wrong said:


> LSu didn't have their hands full



Because the Freshman and Sophmores didn't step up. Pretty much exactly what I said.


----------



## Boudreaux (Sep 12, 2012)

It wasn't a huge win for LSU.

I just like serving you that plate full of crow, Cajun style!

You flap your soup coolers on here all the time, then come back and "qualify" what you said or didn't say.

Face it, NO Pac-12 team can handle an SEC schedule.  Sure, there will be the times that the Pac-12 will win a game, but play an SEC team the following week, and then the week after, and the week after.  You don't have the depth or the talent.  If you did, you wouldn't be waiting on sophomores to step up.  You'd have SR and JR players ready to go.

As I stated earlier, ole Washed Up is a 2nd rate team in a 2nd rate conference.  Merely a speed bump to an SEC school


----------



## Matthew6 (Sep 12, 2012)

I just can't wait for bama to hang the fifty on lswho.


----------



## Jetjockey (Sep 12, 2012)

Boudreaux said:


> It wasn't a huge win for LSU.
> 
> I just like serving you that plate full of crow, Cajun style!
> 
> ...



A second rate conference that has a winning record against the SEC in the BCS era!


----------



## brownceluse (Sep 12, 2012)

Jetjockey said:


> A second rate conference that has a winning record against the SEC in the BCS era!



Here you jet.... LSU after beating the Huskies, LSU is now 15-3 versus the Pac12. Plus a perfect 7-0 during the BCS era


----------



## Madsnooker (Sep 12, 2012)

Boudreaux said:


> It wasn't a huge win for LSU.
> 
> I just like serving you that plate full of crow, Cajun style!
> 
> ...



I have no dog in this fight and I know the SEC is at the top right now but this week in and week out crap is a joke. The sec has 2 super teams and then after that it drops off big time. Yes, there are other very good teams but it is not the week in and week out brutal schedule the sec nut jobs want everyone else in america to think. Example, UGA's schedule this year and lasts doesn't scare anyone much less was a week in and week out dog fight. Last time I checked, they were still in the sec.

Auburn is a joke, Kentucky is a joke, Vandy, Please, Arkanchoke , I could keep going but I'm not telling you guys anything new. There are other sec teams that have these four on their schedule as well as others that are not world beaters and that is hardly a brutal schedule.

Yes, there are a couple of teams in the sec that play the top 2 or 3 teams and that makes for a tough schedule but this idea that every team in the sec plays this brutal schedule week in and week out is just homer talk and nothing more. Texas Am and Missou were middle of the pack Big 12 teams historicly and they will be middle of the pack sec teams as well. Book it.

Didn't mean to jump in on the JJ tag team pounding but just thought yall needed a breather for a minute.


----------



## emusmacker (Sep 12, 2012)

sad part tho is that those "weak" SEC teams you mentioned would spank the best teams in the Pac 12 week in and week out.

Who has owned the National Title in the last 10 yrs?  S E C  that's what we thought.


----------



## Boudreaux (Sep 13, 2012)

Snookie -  If you don't have a dog in the hunt, you shouldn't event pull out your pellet gun.

Those "horrible" teams you mentioned and those with "weak" schedules still put a POUNDING on their opponents.  SEC football is hard hitting in EVERY SEC matchup.

Now, we know that we don't have the top 14 teams in the nation  every year, but SEC fans know that week in, week out, year in, year out, our teams are going to beat on each other.  SEC teams have to not only have elite athletes in the starting positions, but also 3 deep in just about every position because you are going to get pounded.

LSU's 4-headed running back position is a great example.  Each one is a starting caliber RB.  If LSU only had one of those as the starter and he goes down - which is likely to happen in any given SEC game - the team is in trouble.

You list 4 of our 14 teams as being "jokes".  The Big 10 is a joke top to bottom.  How many SEC schools in the BCS era have beaten OSU in the BCSCG?  Every one that OSU has faced, even when OSU had "stud" athletes themselves.  

It's not about the week 2 records of the SEC.  It's about surviving the weekly pounding of an SEC schedule.

Having an affinity for Pac-12 and Big 10 football, we don't expect you to understand........


----------



## Boudreaux (Sep 13, 2012)

Jetjockey said:


> A second rate conference that has a winning record against the SEC in the BCS era!



Pick off the weaklings of the SEC, and then brag about it.

Wow.

As Emu pointed out, the ultimate prize belongs to the SEC since they have started handing out BCS trophies.

No matter what Obama method you use to spin it, the Pac 12 is 2nd rate to the SEC.


----------



## Madsnooker (Sep 13, 2012)

Boudreaux said:


> Having an affinity for Pac-12 and Big 10 football, we don't expect you to understand........



I understand completely. I just disagree.

In the BCS era the head to head matchup of the sec and BIG is very close. Yes, OSU lost 2 NC to SEC teams. No argument from me. I still disagree that week in and week out its a pounding. Yes, if you are playing LSU or Bama but no so mutch the others. At least no more than any other top half in the BIG. I have been to many bowls in Tampa or Orlando pairing the top 2-4 teams in the sec and BIG and they have been great games and is almost even in wins over the last 12 years. Thats just simply a fact you cant get around, period. 

UGA's schedule last year was simply not anything like what you want me to think it was. Sorry! Thats just one example by the way. 

 We will just agree to disagree and that is fine.


----------



## flowingwell (Sep 13, 2012)

Madsnooker said:


> I have no dog in this fight and I know the SEC is at the top right now but this week in and week out crap is a joke. The sec has 2 super teams and then after that it drops off big time. Yes, there are other very good teams but it is not the week in and week out brutal schedule the sec nut jobs want everyone else in america to think. Example, UGA's schedule this year and lasts doesn't scare anyone much less was a week in and week out dog fight. Last time I checked, they were still in the sec.
> 
> Auburn is a joke, Kentucky is a joke, Vandy, Please, Arkanchoke , I could keep going but I'm not telling you guys anything new. There are other sec teams that have these four on their schedule as well as others that are not world beaters and that is hardly a brutal schedule.
> 
> ...



If the SEC has two super teams and then it falls off, why are there 4 teams ranked in the top 10 right now and 4 different national championship teams in the last 6 years?
Also, how many "super teams" are in the PAC 10, Big 10, or Big 12? 
It would appear that the PAC 10 has 2 good teams (Oregon and USC, and then it drops off.  The Big 10 has 1 (Mich ST) that is elligible for anything and then it drops off, the Big 12 has 2 (OU and WVa), then it dops off, so what is the point? This whole argument has gotten ridiculous.


----------

