College Football Week 5 discussion

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by panerd

Maybe bigger names but I see blowout, blowout, good game, decent game, blowout, blowout, blowout, blowout.

I think there are a few blowouts there, but I think there will be more good games out of that bunch than you do.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Who you got winning the Notre Dame- stanford game?

I don't think that's even close, based on what Stanford showed against USC and Washington. ND should win by at least a couple of scores.

[Matthean]

ESPN commentators rip Michigan coach Brady Hoke for leaving in quarterback after big hit | For The Win

Video showing the sequence of Morris getting hit, being left in, and him coming back in since Bellomy is an idiot since he doesn't seem to have his proper helmet.

[miked]

I love how the RU safety gets ejected for a shoulder shot on a running back 15 yards downfield, yet a Minn player can launch himself helmet first into the head area of a QB (late) and stay in the game.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by bob

Anyway, Charlie Weis was just fired at Kansas. Wonder how bad they would have been without his schematic advantage.

Evidently he had already checked out on the team. During a radio show last week, someone asked him who on the Longhorns they needed to watch out for on offense. He answered "Joe Bergeron", someone who was dismissed from the team over the summer and now plays for Texas A&M-Commerce.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by miked

I love how the RU safety gets ejected for a shoulder shot on a running back 15 yards downfield, yet a Minn player can launch himself helmet first into the head area of a QB (late) and stay in the game.

I'm sure the Big Ten commissioner won't step in and then claim to not have seen the tape.

[HomerSimpson98]

Originally Posted by murrayyyyy

Isn't every week that A&M plays shitty helmet week?

hahaha - F U Mike!!

And tell your Piggies thanks for letting us take that one. You bastards almost ruined a nice weekend.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

Geez....Stanford lucky to get out of there. Nearly another USC'ish meltdown. Hats off to the Dawgs.

I thought Stanford's D might take a step back this year with all the losses (and Mason leaving), but man - they are as tough as ever. I wasn't happy with the play of our offense, but I have to give the Cardinal a lot of credit too - those guys are well-coached and very well-developed.

If you guys had a better QB, you'd be CFP contenders. Hell, you still might be.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by miked

I love how the RU safety gets ejected for a shoulder shot on a running back 15 yards downfield, yet a Minn player can launch himself helmet first into the head area of a QB (late) and stay in the game.

Yeah clearly looks like a shoulder shot to me.

[miked]

That's a silly angle and doesn't really do it much justice. It is questionable where his helmet hit, from most of the replays it looked like the back shoulder. Now our starting DB is suspended for a half against Michigan.

Rutgers safety Johnathan Aiken calls targeting penalty a 'terrible call' on Twitter | NJ.com

Now it may have been a bit late, I thought that's what he was flagged for. But apparently you can take a 5 yard running start with your head down and launch yourself (late) in to a QB and stay in the game.

Edit: Reason for linking that was for video at bottom.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by miked

That's a silly angle and doesn't really do it much justice. It is questionable where his helmet hit, from most of the replays it looked like the back shoulder. Now our starting DB is suspended for a half against Michigan.
.

I haven't seen the video because it's blocked at work and I will check it out.

However, if he hits the runner with the crown of his helmet, and by the looks of that still shot it sure as looks like the crown of the helment is involved, it does not matter where he hits the defender.

Also, if you are saying that his initial contact was at the shoulders and then to the head, that rule was also changed last year. The verbage initial contact was taken out of the rule book and replaced with forceable contact.

Just curious, why are you saying this isn't targeting?

Either way, I'll watch the video when I get home and let you know what I think,

[miked]

I'm not arguing that it wasn't targeting per se, but it looks borderline in the video. He definitely makes contact with his helmet to the shoulder of the runner. If you look at the replay, it would appear that he is initially lowering his shoulder to deliver the hit and turned a bit too much.

I'm irritated with the ejection and the inconsistency of the call. I look at the rule that states:

No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.

And clearly it's probably a violation. I would argue that lumping it in with the other rule about defenseless player and it is totally 2 different things. Looking over the key elements, these 4 things are listed:

Target—to take aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with an apparent intent that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball.

Crown of the Helmet—the top portion of the helmet.

Contact to the head or neck area—not only with the helmet, but also with the forearm, fist, elbow, or shoulder—these can all lead to a foul.

Defenseless player—a player not in position to defend himself.

I'd say 1 of those is applicable to the Aiken hit. For the Minn-Mich hit, the player wasn't ejected even though about all 4 of these boxes were checked. But I'm not the rules expert, you are. I just think if they can't apply consistently, even when an opposing player gets TKOd, maybe they should change things a little.

[Logan]

Watching live, I thought it was an easy ejection. You can argue degree all you want but it was a dumb and unnecessary play.

The irony of it all is that Flood had proudly stated in a media conference call earlier in the week that Rutgers has never been flagged for targeting.

[tarcone]

Shoot, RU wont need the DB in the 1st half if they are playing Michigan.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by Logan

Watching live, I thought it was an easy ejection. You can argue degree all you want but it was a dumb and unnecessary play.

The irony of it all is that Flood had proudly stated in a media conference call earlier in the week that Rutgers has never been flagged for targeting.

After seeing the video I agree, that was a pretty easy ejection.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Shoot, RU wont need the DB in the 1st half if they are playing Michigan.

Maybe they'll drop the suspension if he agrees to hit Brady cHoke

[General Mike]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Shoot, RU wont need the DB in the 1st half if they are playing Michigan.

Eh, we need all the bodies in the secondary we can get. It won't be as big a deal if Delon Stephenson is healthy enough to play tho.

[cartman]

Charlie Weis might not know a schematic advantage, but he sure knows how to negotiate a contract. He's going to be paid a combined $4.6 million next year by Kansas and Notre Dame.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cartman

Charlie Weis might not know a schematic advantage, but he sure knows how to negotiate a contract. He's going to be paid a combined $4.6 million next year by Kansas and Notre Dame.

Yep, I'd think he'd be in demand as an agent at some point. Or else HIS agent will be.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Yep, I'd think he'd be in demand as an agent at some point. Or else HIS agent will be.

He should join forces with Bobby Bonilla to open an agency.