Jump to content

Looks like a bomb went off here....


CAL2TEX

Recommended Posts

No, last time was 2009 23-7 ;) and next time will be in 2014, after they beat Crosby.

Ned has never beaten Crosby without the Twins. They just don't matchup very well with us for whatever reason. Our o-line steamrolled Ned last year and that was with Washington and Malveaux. Opi just squatted 700 at the last meet and Murphy got 2nd in super-heavy as a sophomore, what do you think these boys are going to do the the fresh meat put in front of them opening night? Rene Rodriguez will be even better this year too, not to mention all those boys go about 270+. Crosby will run the ball at will on Ned the way they always have except for 2012 when we played our first game with the new coach. The qb won't be as well known but he played in 10 games last year and is faster with a better arm. Nederland is a very hard place to play though, and I'm sure Neumann doesn't want to start the season in the woodshed again so I expect a well contested game from both teams.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ned beat Crosby 21-7 year before last at Nederland. O-line will be the strength for Crosby next year. Things they'll have to fill are punter, improve on the D line, and linebackers.

That's why I said "they never beat Crosby without the Twins" so Ned fans wouldn't say "y'all had the Twins though". Austin had a great game last year but the Merka and Casey temas were undefeated against Ned.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So your predicting Crosby to beat Ned this year coug14??

Yeah, we've beaten them every time we've played them except 2012. The game being in Nederland is the only thing could keep us under 40. Ned is going to struggle getting pressure on Cotton but if they do, he can run just like the Starks, Merka and Aston could. He can throw better than all of them though which is what I think Riordan would rather do in order to keep his backs healthy until playoff time. The offense will once again be potent, but as usual, Crosby will only be as good as our defense allows us to.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,978
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined


  • Posts

    • Exactly Lum. Right is still right regardless which way the wind blows. 
    • High Point walks it off.  Vandy Whistler headed home!
    • Tomball takes wild 2nd game 8-6. Both teams had 3 E's. Tomball gave up a late lead but first game pitching star Sampson nailed a 3 run homer to push Tomball to victory. 
    • My understanding is that the falsification of records was the crime that he was convicted of… but for it to have been a felony act, it had to have occurred in the furtherance of another criminal act. The prosecution had to first prove that the criminal act of falsifying documents had occurred. IF the jury believed that records were falsified, they were given three possible criminal acts… any one of the three would allow a felony conviction. The instructions stated that for any of the 34 charges, all twelve of the jurors had to agree that records were falsified, but they also had to believe that the records were falsified in the furtherance of at least one other, different crime. Six jurors could believe that Trump was falsifying records to avoid paying taxes… the other six could believe that it was skirt around election laws. The jurors didn’t have to agree on which of the three alleged criminal acts Trump was trying to further by falsifying records, just so long as they agreed that a) the falsification occurred and that it b) occurred to help him cover up another crime (for which he wasn’t charged and never proven to have committed or to have even occurred, for that matter).     Complete pile of crap as a prosecution, in my opinion.     But, we shouldn’t cry if our nominee is the kind of man who bangs porn stars while his wife is at home with the kid, then tries to buy her silence, then breaks the law in regards to falsifying documents to hide the evidence of the coverup.    If you’re wondering why falsifying those records might be illegal, it’s this. Money paid to your attorney for services performed can be deducted from one’s taxes as a legal expense. If the money is paid to a person to settle a personal claim, then the amount would be taxable-the falsification would have been done to avoid taxation. On the other hand, if campaign funds were spent to pay hush money and the records were falsified to hide the violation of campaign laws, then the felony occurred.    The bottom line is this…. They didn’t have enough evidence to indict trump on any of those three things that allegedly happened… but they DID have evidence that the financial records were falsified, so they point at these other acts which can’t be proven to bump the charges on falsification to a felony.    And the reason Trump didn’t take the stand is that he can’t go on the record about whether or not he had sex with Daniels… I’m certain that they can prove it and hang him up on perjury too.    The most delicious irony is this… Trump gave his supporters too much credit for their integrity. He thought they’d turn on him if they found out what he’d done, when in reality they wouldn’t have given a care… Trump’s whole falsifying records and quest for secrecy wasn’t even needed… his followers don’t have moral objections to his sinful acts.  
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...