uofmman1122 wrote:If the Cats play mistake free (or at least close to it) I can see them running away with this one. The Griz tried as hard as they could to shit the bed last week and still won. Sac's D looked pretty good, but their O was almost worse than the Griz's. If the Cats stuff Hilliard, which I think they will, I doubt Sac can win.
Agreed, although no one not named Stanford has been able to do that.
uofmman1122 wrote:If the Cats play mistake free (or at least close to it) I can see them running away with this one. The Griz tried as hard as they could to **** the bed last week and still won. Sac's D looked pretty good, but their O was almost worse than the Griz's. If the Cats stuff Hilliard, which I think they will, I doubt Sac can win.
Agreed, although no one not named Stanford has been able to do that.
He had 23 yards on 11 carries in the second half against Montana. I'd say he was pretty well stuffed.
uofmman1122 wrote:He had 23 yards on 11 carries in the second half against Montana. I'd say he was pretty well stuffed.
But 124 yards on 26 carries for the game. That's not stuffed imo.
I didn't say we stuffed him all game. He got his yards in the first half, then we made adjustments in the second and he got stuffed. The Cats are better than the Griz right now (I just threw up in my mouth a little bit), and if they can hold Hilliard to 23 yards in the second half, there's no way Sac will win. Shit, they could hold him to twice that much, and Sac wouldn't win.
SDHornet wrote:
But 124 yards on 26 carries for the game. That's not stuffed imo.
I didn't say we stuffed him all game. He got his yards in the first half, then we made adjustments in the second and he got stuffed. The Cats are better than the Griz right now (I just threw up in my mouth a little bit), and if they can hold Hilliard to 23 yards in the second half, there's no way Sac will win. Shit, they could hold him to twice that much, and Sac wouldn't win.
We lost last week because Fleming couldn't throw it within 10 yards of his receivers. If the Hornets are able to keep the defense honest, I think they have a solid chance at taking down MSU.
SuperHornet wrote:Look at who we played, DumbDumb2506. MSU hasn't played anyone even approaching the quality of Stanford. Our stats are enormously skewed by that game.
a week ago EWU thought they owned the conference too.
It should be a good game, this should be more of a test than the EWU game, more complete team for SAC, the Bobcats are tough this year but this might be the one to show us how things are shaking out.
grizinidaho wrote:It should be a good game, this should be more of a test than the EWU game, more complete team for SAC, the Bobcats are tough this year but this might be the one to show us how things are shaking out.
It should be a good game, however I am not at all impressed with SAC's passing game at all. If they had their #1 QB it would be a whole different game.
SuperHornet wrote:Ursus: While I fully believe Sac will beat the Kitties, predicting a 7-10 pt margin in a Kitty win is a whole lot different than Silenoz's bogus 3-TD spread.
We'll see
For the second straight week I saw that team that really only was a one man show on offense, and MSU has been the best in the league at stopping runners for the last couple years. So unless MSU starts turning it over like crazy I stand by my prediction
SuperHornet wrote:Ursus: While I fully believe Sac will beat the Kitties, predicting a 7-10 pt margin in a Kitty win is a whole lot different than Silenoz's bogus 3-TD spread.
We'll see
For the second straight week I saw that team that really only was a one man show on offense, and MSU has been the best in the league at stopping runners for the last couple years. So unless MSU starts turning it over like crazy I stand by my prediction
That is exactly what I see as Sac's problem in this game. They can't go into it as one dimensional as EWU with a RB that is good but not as talented as the one on the team that MSU just shut down. You never know if a QB could all the sudden get hot and change that but as of right now it looks like a tough go as far as the MSU matchup.
For the second straight week I saw that team that really only was a one man show on offense, and MSU has been the best in the league at stopping runners for the last couple years. So unless MSU starts turning it over like crazy I stand by my prediction
That is exactly what I see as Sac's problem in this game. They can't go into it as one dimensional as EWU with a RB that is good but not as talented as the one on the team that MSU just shut down. You never know if a QB could all the sudden get hot and change that but as of right now it looks like a tough go as far as the MSU matchup.
Were they shutting down TJ before he got injured?
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:
That is exactly what I see as Sac's problem in this game. They can't go into it as one dimensional as EWU with a RB that is good but not as talented as the one on the team that MSU just shut down. You never know if a QB could all the sudden get hot and change that but as of right now it looks like a tough go as far as the MSU matchup.
grizinidaho wrote:I thought the arguement was that he got hurt on the opening kickoff????
The hit that started slowing him down was right at the end if the first quarter. Several more shots through the 2nd quarter continued to aggravate it until halftime he was done. he came in for one play in the second half but shouldn't have
The Big Sky suspended Montana State safety Jordan Craney for Saturday's game at Sac State for a hit above the shoulders on a defenseless Eastern Washington receiver.
Herky wrote:The Big Sky suspended Montana State safety Jordan Craney for Saturday's game at Sac State for a hit above the shoulders on a defenseless Eastern Washington receiver.
Herky wrote:The Big Sky suspended Montana State safety Jordan Craney for Saturday's game at Sac State for a hit above the shoulders on a defenseless Eastern Washington receiver.
cats2506 wrote:
Not too big of a deal as it concerns this game, we have a pretty deep saftey corps that will continue to rotate through.
Just another starter the Hornets don't have to worry about. If the backup was as good as the starter, they wouldnt be a backup.
I'd say it's cause for a little concern as there are already injuries the Cats have to worry about, and now this.
Sure they do list a depth chart, but the MSU defense plays more in a rotation than starter/backup system. They just go ahead with one less guy in the rotation for that particular position. It means a little more playing time for sombody but is not a big letdown in talent on the field nor does it mean that a backup will be seeing his first game experiences.
i'm not buying the "we almost won at montana so we'll play well vs MSU" thing. the truth is, SAC didn't play well at all. they were the beneficiaries of 4(?) griz turnovers AND a blocked punt...AND STILL LOST. how is that considered an achievement? smells like B-A-D offense to me.
anyhoo, what i'm saying is SAC doesn't have the offensive firepower to keep MSU's offense off the field consistantly. SAC's strength(run game) plays right into MSU's strength(stopping the run). add to that, MSU's offense is extremely balanced and has yet to stopped. they're gonna get a lot of chances and i think it will be too much for SAC to handle.
might be close at half, but cats pull away...
43-19
Wait...so a forced fumble, a blocked punt, and an INT had nothing to do with plays being made by the Hornets but by only Griz self-destruction?!? Sorry if I don't buy what you are selling.
And we aren't taking a "we almost beat UM so we will beat MSU" stance. The Hornet D has played well so far, but I do agree we have to get the passing game going so some balance on offense can be maintained. Also MSU has some injuries on both sides of the line that could play a big factor into the outcome.
SDHornet wrote:Wait...so a forced fumble, a blocked punt, and an INT had nothing to do with plays being made by the Hornets but by only Griz self-destruction?!? Sorry if I don't buy what you are selling.
for whatever reason the turnovers happened(not at all discounting SAC's D), my point is SAC's offense didn't capitalize on a team that is clearly down. they play the same uninspiring offense vs MSU, they're gonna get ripped.
SDHornet wrote:And we aren't taking a "we almost beat UM so we will beat MSU" stance. The Hornet D has played well so far, but I do agree we have to get the passing game going so some balance on offense can be maintained. Also MSU has some injuries on both sides of the line that could play a big factor into the outcome.
we've had injuries/suspensions all season. truth is we have two starters returning to thses units (d'alba DL, davis RT) our lines are closer to full strength this week than the units that manhandled EWU last saturday:nod:
big_meowski wrote:ok, not here to rip sac state, but....
i'm not buying the "we almost won at montana so we'll play well vs MSU" thing. the truth is, SAC didn't play well at all. they were the beneficiaries of 4(?) griz turnovers AND a blocked punt...AND STILL LOST. how is that considered an achievement? smells like B-A-D offense to me.
anyhoo, what i'm saying is SAC doesn't have the offensive firepower to keep MSU's offense off the field consistantly. SAC's strength(run game) plays right into MSU's strength(stopping the run). add to that, MSU's offense is extremely balanced and has yet to stopped. they're gonna get a lot of chances and i think it will be too much for SAC to handle.
might be close at half, but cats pull away...
43-19
Hilliard is no Taiwan Jones, he's a power back, he'll roll right over your D. That's how the Cat offense is going to stay off the field.
Look at Sac's run D, it's pretty good, I don't think MSU is going to be running much Saturday.
If it looks like a cow, smells like a cow, and moo's like a cow, it's a UC Davis coed.
