Jump to content

Ofdicial Crow eating Thread, yall come get a piece of Biaplayer


biaplayer

Recommended Posts

I got some crow gumbo for you! Mr 70 points on Nederland.

So got a question since you might fall in this catagory with several people saying BF played to conservative. But I have heard several times today at work from PNG fans that BF should have went for two when it was 20-27 and y’all kicked the extra point to make it 20-28. Do you agree with your png peeps Biaplayer or no? Would that help BF not be to conservative? Because several years ago he tried to go for two when y’all had that shorter qb Walker and were calling for his head about being to aggressive now he is to conservative from what I am hearing and reading on this forum. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bigdog said:

#5 - Nice fields don't win games, players do as you found out ... again.  Come to think of it we win on your field too.  :)

You mean on our nice evenly balanced fair  turf field & not the mud slop field that your team got to practice on. Oh yeah that;s right, it had no effect on the game. lol!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, navydawg31 said:

I got some crow gumbo for you! Mr 70 points on Nederland.

So got a question since you might fall in this catagory with several people saying BF played to conservative. But I have heard several times today at work from PNG fans that BF should have went for two when it was 20-27 and y’all kicked the extra point to make it 20-28. Do you agree with your png peeps Biaplayer or no? Would that help BF not be to conservative? Because several years ago he tried to go for two when y’all had that shorter qb Walker and were calling for his head about being to aggressive now he is to conservative from what I am hearing and reading on this forum. 

If you watched any PN-G games this year you would have seen that running RJ 40 times is not the offense he has ran. I think by saying conservative they mean he abandoned the pass. Hughes and Stansbury were getting one on one coverage and Stansbury did not have an incompletion thrown his way. Also all the pooch kicks when we have a kicker that can kick it out of the end zone was nerve racking. 10 or 15 yards is not a huge deal but when Nederland scored with only 13 seconds left it could have been. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, aki1994 said:

If you watched any PN-G games this year you would have seen that running RJ 40 times is not the offense he has ran. I think by saying conservative they mean he abandoned the pass. Hughes and Stansbury were getting one on one coverage and Stansbury did not have an incompletion thrown his way. Also all the pooch kicks when we have a kicker that can kick it out of the end zone was nerve racking. 10 or 15 yards is not a huge deal but when Nederland scored with only 13 seconds left it could have been. 

Nederland could have had 95 yards to go. PNG was not stopping the big two. When PNG loaded the box and brought the safety down the post was wide open deep middle. When y’all dropped the linebackers back into coverage no one wasn’t touching Simmons after about 4 yards past the line of scrimmage and he was getting extra yac due to poor tackling and wrapping up. Huge difference I seen from both defenses was PNG not wrapping up and Nederland was. But something that people aren’t saying is Nederland was gang tackling. All 11 gold helmets would be within 5 yards after PNG player was down. (Mainly RJ) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, navydawg31 said:

Nederland could have had 95 yards to go. PNG was not stopping the big two. When PNG loaded the box and brought the safety down the post was wide open deep middle. When y’all dropped the linebackers back into coverage no one wasn’t touching Simmons after about 4 yards past the line of scrimmage and he was getting extra yac due to poor tackling and wrapping up. Huge difference I seen from both defenses was PNG not wrapping up and Nederland was. But something that people aren’t saying is Nederland was gang tackling. All 11 gold helmets would be within 5 yards after PNG player was down. (Mainly RJ) 

I am not getting into what ifs. Just trying to help explain what people might mean by Faircloth being conservative. Nederland played a better game. Plain and simple. Better game plan and better execution. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, png9mon said:

You mean on our nice evenly balanced fair  turf field & not the mud slop field that your team got to practice on. Oh yeah that;s right, it had no effect on the game. lol!

So I guess only one team played on the field right?  Like I said the you have lost on you nice expensive field turf too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, navydawg31 said:

I got some crow gumbo for you! Mr 70 points on Nederland.

So got a question since you might fall in this catagory with several people saying BF played to conservative. But I have heard several times today at work from PNG fans that BF should have went for two when it was 20-27 and y’all kicked the extra point to make it 20-28. Do you agree with your png peeps Biaplayer or no? Would that help BF not be to conservative? Because several years ago he tried to go for two when y’all had that shorter qb Walker and were calling for his head about being to aggressive now he is to conservative from what I am hearing and reading on this forum. 

Going for two up 7 would have to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, navydawg31 said:

I got some crow gumbo for you! Mr 70 points on Nederland.

So got a question since you might fall in this catagory with several people saying BF played to conservative. But I have heard several times today at work from PNG fans that BF should have went for two when it was 20-27 and y’all kicked the extra point to make it 20-28. Do you agree with your png peeps Biaplayer or no? Would that help BF not be to conservative? Because several years ago he tried to go for two when y’all had that shorter qb Walker and were calling for his head about being to aggressive now he is to conservative from what I am hearing and reading on this forum. 

Definately non educated folks talking that nonsense. You don't go for 2 in that situation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, png9mon said:

You mean on our nice evenly balanced fair  turf field & not the mud slop field that your team got to practice on. Oh yeah that;s right, it had no effect on the game. lol!

Nederland has the obvious speed edge if you watched the game. We just watered the field down to slow our guys down to give y’all a chance. LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, png9mon said:

You mean on our nice evenly balanced fair  turf field & not the mud slop field that your team got to practice on. Oh yeah that;s right, it had no effect on the game. lol!

1 hour ago, jake94 said:

Nederland has the obvious speed edge if you watched the game. We just watered the field down to slow our guys down to give y’all a chance. LOL

 

1 hour ago, jake94 said:

 

I was in complete awe of Shug running to the tune of 292 yards on that muddy disgraceful field. Cant believe he managed. You would think that football was invented on grass !!!! WOW!!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, outanup said:

 

I was in complete awe of Shug running to the tune of 292 yards on that muddy disgraceful field. Cant believe he managed. You would think that football was invented on grass !!!! WOW!!!!!!!!

Don’t worry bro we get ragged a lot about still having a grass field. We’re not very cosmopolitan are we! Imagine that.......playing football on real grass! The nerve! Lol!

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

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined


  • Posts

    • We'll see. I don't trust us. 
    • Starting pitching has been shaky the last few weeks due to some injuries outside of Hagen Smith.  He goes tomorrow, so y’all should be fine 
    • Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
    • MODS please remove that ISD twitter link! I had no idea it would copy the whole posting. I only highlighted the portion about the venue change. Sorry about that!
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...