***OFFICIAL MINNESOTA AT PURDUE IN-GAME THREAD!!!***

Donate To GopherHole

johnnybb said:
Why would we bench him when he's been the best player on the field today?
Click to expand...
So receivers are not catching the passes he is throwing rather than he is not throwing poor passes?
 

Gold Rush said:
Only down by 3 and we get the ball first next half. We are still in this game - they have GOT to let Morgan throw and win this game -- I just hope we have receivers that can catch the damn ball!
Click to expand...

From your lips to God's ear. The team is averaging 2.5 yards per rushing attempt and 11.6 per passing attempt so the choice seems fairly clear about which one to increase.
 






ElectricGopher said:
How is that play any different than a defenseless receiver taking a blindside shoulder in the chest while making a catch? That’s not a penalty. See Walley’s hit a few weeks ago.
Click to expand...
I was just telling you how the receiver needs to block the defender in order to avoid a penalty in that situation.

As far as the difference in the two scenarios: The scenario described here involves a defender attempting to break up a reception by a wr as well as making a tackle.

The penalty involved a wr making a crack back block; not a tackle. CFB has taken a strong stance on crack back blocks because a defender can really get injured with crack back blocks. That's why the wr has to put his hands out in order to lessen the blow to the defender.
 

Morgan isn’t the problem. He has been a pleasant surprise after last week. Also, shout-out to our red zone defense. They are the only reason we are still in this game.
 



Couple of weird penalties have hurt the Gophers. MDT knocking over a Ref coming onto the field. What are the odds? Jackson getting called for an illegal crack back block, even though he went mid-section, because he hit the guy too well. Both are unusual; neither were stupid; both hurt.

Tanner is putting a lot of mustard on the shorter throws (because of tight coverage). Might make completions a bit tougher in the wet conditions.

Still plenty possible for PJ to break his 0 for 17 record when trailing at halftime. Got to find the end zone a couple of times in the second half. Go Gophers.
 


Ewert86PC said:
So receivers are not catching the passes he is throwing rather than he is not throwing poor passes?
Click to expand...

Yes. He's thrown only one or two poorer passes. CAB did have one great catch on a 50-50 ball and Stephens had a pretty good one on another.
 

SIDE NOTE: I really hate the Liberty Mutual "I Look Like My Dog" commercial. Enough to never consider LM insurance.
 



GO4INLALALAND said:
I was just telling you how the receiver needs to block the defender in order to avoid a penalty in that situation.

As far as the difference in the two scenarios: The scenario described here involves a defender attempting to break up a reception by a wr as well as making a tackle.

The penalty involved a wr making a crack back block; not a tackle. CFB has taken a strong stance on crack back blocks because a defender can really get injured with crack back blocks. That's why the wr has to put his hands out in order to lessen the blow to the defender.
Click to expand...

Sounds good in theory. Those blocks are done on an island and refs have a tendency to call holding on those even if the hands are kept in. It was still a bullshit call as the receiver used a perfect side body block that lessened the impact. These refs need to be better and recognize that.
 

FormerFatOL said:
Wow. Look at the 3rd down efficiency gap and resulting TOP gap. The receivers need to step the eff up catch the damn ball. RBs need to break a tackle.
Click to expand...
On PUs TD drive, they were 2/2 on 3rd and 10, and 1/1 on 3rd and 8.
 

Ewert86PC said:
SIDE NOTE: I really hate the Liberty Mutual "I Look Like My Dog" commercial. Enough to never consider LM insurance.
Click to expand...
Agreed. That one is so stupid I can't stand it. I feel the same way about 99% of Geico commercials...they try so hard to be funny but are beyond stupid. I'd never buy Geico simply because I hate their commercials.
 


I'm watching Whiskey receivers make two great catches vs Michigan. Jealous.
 

GO4INLALALAND said:
I was just telling you how the receiver needs to block the defender in order to avoid a penalty in that situation.

As far as the difference in the two scenarios: The scenario described here involves a defender attempting to break up a reception by a wr as well as making a tackle.

The penalty involved a wr making a crack back block; not a tackle. CFB has taken a strong stance on crack back blocks because a defender can really get injured with crack back blocks. That's why the wr has to put his hands out in order to lessen the blow to the defender.
Click to expand...
There has to be a change in the rule such that the only options aren’t to either curtsy and let the defender maul your teammate with the ball or stand passively in his way and get trucked yourself😂
 



Mich screwed the pooch at the end of the half
 

Oregon Gopher said:
There has to be a change in the rule such that the only options aren’t to either curtsy and let the defender maul your teammate with the ball or stand passively in his way and get trucked yourself😂
Click to expand...

Agreed. Basketball screens (what you're describing) don't work while the defender is running full speed.
 



DAVID LEE ROTH HAS ANNOUNCED HIS RETIREMENT!!!!!
 


GO4INLALALAND said:
I was just telling you how the receiver needs to block the defender in order to avoid a penalty in that situation.

As far as the difference in the two scenarios: The scenario described here involves a defender attempting to break up a reception by a wr as well as making a tackle.

The penalty involved a wr making a crack back block; not a tackle. CFB has taken a strong stance on crack back blocks because a defender can really get injured with crack back blocks. That's why the wr has to put his hands out in order to lessen the blow to the defender.
Click to expand...
I understand what you’re saying, but if the rule is for a player safety reason, then those two scenarios aren’t different from a safety perspective. It’s a bad rule/call as I don’t know the verbiage of the rule. It was a great FOOTBALL play.
 



You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom