How good will Cats be?

[PapaG]

The gimmicky offense, the fourth down/XP consultant and (not just last year) the "I gotta watch the film" line. Ugh!

No mention of the awful defense. Are you going to respond to my posts about 'gimmicky" offenses who have won titles in the "recent hires" thread, or are you going to continue to stick to your false narrative? By your own definition in that thread, MSU's offense wasn't "gimmicky." I'd run away from that definition, too, but to see you still make that claim means you're playing both sides of your own views on a "gimmicky" offense.

[TomCat88]

The gimmicky offense, the fourth down/XP consultant and (not just last year) the "I gotta watch the film" line. Ugh!

No mention of the awful defense. Are you going to respond to my posts about 'gimmicky" offenses who have won titles in the "recent hires" thread, or are you going to continue to stick to your false narrative? By your own definition in that thread, MSU's offense wasn't "gimmicky." I'd run away from that definition, too, but to see you still make that claim means you're playing both sides of your own views on a "gimmicky" offense.

I was just leaving you alone, because I know that no matter how wrong you are you never let yourself see it.

The defense didn't get away from him last year, it got away from him half way through 2013.

You didn't post any offenses that won titles that fit my definition of gimmicky, so no false narrative there, however, I'm not sure you actually know what one is based on how you're referencing it. In sports a gimmick can be something or someone that isn't as good as it appears due to a fatal flaw that brings it down. Such as a QB who is more athlete than decision maker. He keeps the ball more than he should and sometimes ends up with more carries than any of his backs, but he masks that by shredding poor defenses giving observers the false belief that he can do that at any time only to find out that when needed most, usually against a solid defense, he fails to produce.

Ash gave control of the offense to Cramsey. He gave control of fourth downs to a computer. He gave control of breaking down games to two-dimensional video monitor. Those things got away from him to the detriment of the team. You've demonstrated over the years that you're too impressed with stats to fully understand what makes teams winners and losers.

You're not a scientist reviewing the work of other scientists. This is a just a message board, but you consistently manage to somehow get in over your head. Try simply disagreeing with someone and leaving it at that, so you don't end up getting embarrassed on a regular basis.

[Cat Grad]

The gimmicky offense, the fourth down/XP consultant and (not just last year) the "I gotta watch the film" line. Ugh!

No mention of the awful defense. Are you going to respond to my posts about 'gimmicky" offenses who have won titles in the "recent hires" thread, or are you going to continue to stick to your false narrative? By your own definition in that thread, MSU's offense wasn't "gimmicky." I'd run away from that definition, too, but to see you still make that claim means you're playing both sides of your own views on a "gimmicky" offense.

I was just leaving you alone, because I know that no matter how wrong you are you never let yourself see it.

The defense didn't get away from him last year, it got away from him half way through 2013.

You didn't post any offenses that won titles that fit my definition of gimmicky, so no false narrative there, however, I'm not sure you actually know what one is based on how you're referencing it. In sports a gimmick can be something or someone that isn't as good as it appears due to a fatal flaw that brings it down. Such as a QB who is more athlete than decision maker. He keeps the ball more than he should and sometimes ends up with more carries than any of his backs, but he masks that by shredding poor defenses giving observers the false belief that he can do that at any time only to find out that when needed most, usually against a solid defense, he fails to produce.

Ash gave control of the offense to Cramsey. He gave control of fourth downs to a computer. He gave control of breaking down games to two-dimensional video monitor. Those things got away from him to the detriment of the team. You've demonstrated over the years that you're too impressed with stats to fully understand what makes teams winners and losers.

You're not a scientist reviewing the work of other scientists. This is a just a message board, but you consistently manage to somehow get in over your head. Try simply disagreeing with someone and leaving it at that, so you don't end up getting embarrassed on a regular basis.

Football really needs to start soon! All the rolling eyeballs by the belligerent armchair quarterbacks with nothing better to do than go through what somebody posts just to argue seems to be the norm right now. Nobody seems to have a sense of humor and can't stand any sarcastic remarks without getting snippy.

[Lovethecats75]

How good will the Cats be? Not as good as some Cat fans think and better then most griz fans think.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[catsrback76]

How good will the Cats be? Not as good as some Cat fans think and better then most griz fans think.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It's a silly question. How good will the Cats be is yet to be determined. All are guesses and some might be closer than others, but the safest bet is somewhere between 0-11 and 11-0! So, buy your tickets, get to the games, and let's have some fun!

[Cat Grad]

How good will the Cats be? Not as good as some Cat fans think and better then most griz fans think.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It's a silly question. How good will the Cats be is yet to be determined. All are guesses and some might be closer than others, but the safest bet is somewhere between 0-11 and 11-0! So, buy your tickets, get to the games, and let's have some fun!

Exactly. Right now every team in the country is 0-0. We all want our college's Gateway Representatives to put on an outstanding show in order to enhance the college experience for everybody who is presently in school and those who endured the b.s. we had to put up with in order to get our B.S. and we all hope and pray our president makes us proud of the Gateway to the University which she proclaimed upon her hire was the football stadium. We know that deep in our heart but how many of us are willing to put in the time and effort required to make certain our school has a stadium worthy of our university? Can you imagine what we would be if we had the facilities to match all the students who want to go to MSU? Just the lack of housing alone is a travesty, and that's not an opinion. That's a fact and there's a tremendous amount of data out there to back that statement up. We're exploding at the seams and our entire Athletic Department had better realize we're not going to accept mediocrity and support a group of coaches who are content to simply participate instead of compete. And FTG and their sugar daddy and his 4.6 billion. You do the math as to what his contributions actually amount to percentage wise compared to what most of us give each and every year to our school.

[grizzh8r]

The gimmicky offense, the fourth down/XP consultant and (not just last year) the "I gotta watch the film" line. Ugh!

No mention of the awful defense. Are you going to respond to my posts about 'gimmicky" offenses who have won titles in the "recent hires" thread, or are you going to continue to stick to your false narrative? By your own definition in that thread, MSU's offense wasn't "gimmicky." I'd run away from that definition, too, but to see you still make that claim means you're playing both sides of your own views on a "gimmicky" offense.

I was just leaving you alone, because I know that no matter how wrong you are you never let yourself see it.

The defense didn't get away from him last year, it got away from him half way through 2013.

You didn't post any offenses that won titles that fit my definition of gimmicky, so no false narrative there, however, I'm not sure you actually know what one is based on how you're referencing it. In sports a gimmick can be something or someone that isn't as good as it appears due to a fatal flaw that brings it down. Such as a QB who is more athlete than decision maker. He keeps the ball more than he should and sometimes ends up with more carries than any of his backs, but he masks that by shredding poor defenses giving observers the false belief that he can do that at any time only to find out that when needed most, usually against a solid defense, he fails to produce.

Ash gave control of the offense to Cramsey. He gave control of fourth downs to a computer. He gave control of breaking down games to two-dimensional video monitor. Those things got away from him to the detriment of the team. You've demonstrated over the years that you're too impressed with stats to fully understand what makes teams winners and losers.

You're not a scientist reviewing the work of other scientists. This is a just a message board, but you consistently manage to somehow get in over your head. Try simply disagreeing with someone and leaving it at that, so you don't end up getting embarrassed on a regular basis.

#micdrop

[seataccat]

The gimmicky offense, the fourth down/XP consultant and (not just last year) the "I gotta watch the film" line. Ugh!

No mention of the awful defense. Are you going to respond to my posts about 'gimmicky" offenses who have won titles in the "recent hires" thread, or are you going to continue to stick to your false narrative? By your own definition in that thread, MSU's offense wasn't "gimmicky." I'd run away from that definition, too, but to see you still make that claim means you're playing both sides of your own views on a "gimmicky" offense.

I was just leaving you alone, because I know that no matter how wrong you are you never let yourself see it.

The defense didn't get away from him last year, it got away from him half way through 2013.

You didn't post any offenses that won titles that fit my definition of gimmicky, so no false narrative there, however, I'm not sure you actually know what one is based on how you're referencing it. In sports a gimmick can be something or someone that isn't as good as it appears due to a fatal flaw that brings it down. Such as a QB who is more athlete than decision maker. He keeps the ball more than he should and sometimes ends up with more carries than any of his backs, but he masks that by shredding poor defenses giving observers the false belief that he can do that at any time only to find out that when needed most, usually against a solid defense, he fails to produce.

Ash gave control of the offense to Cramsey. He gave control of fourth downs to a computer. He gave control of breaking down games to two-dimensional video monitor. Those things got away from him to the detriment of the team. You've demonstrated over the years that you're too impressed with stats to fully understand what makes teams winners and losers.

You're not a scientist reviewing the work of other scientists. This is a just a message board, but you consistently manage to somehow get in over your head. Try simply disagreeing with someone and leaving it at that, so you don't end up getting embarrassed on a regular basis.

[WalkOn79]

Scary good? Sorry, bad egriz joke. I'll try to give you my best unbiased opinions:

Offense - I think your offense will take a step backwards. It will still be a solid offense, but will be different from last year in that it won't be a quick strike, fast paced, put 45 points on the board type of offense. I think Choate has been pretty clear that he wants to get back to a ground and pound, grind it out offense with some influence from last year until he gets his personnel. With a guy like Newell (I'd take him on the Griz any day) I think this may be a good approach and will lead to good production but won't be on par (scoring wise) with what you've seen last couple years with Prukop under center. That's the other HUGE variable IMO, your unknown at QB. If there is one position that you need an absolute stud that makes everything else run smoothly and keeps you in every game even when things are not going great in all the other phases, it's at QB. I think the fact alone that you have a bit of a question mark at QB will make a pretty big difference. Bruggman sounds like he's been good but I think you'll see some normal drop off. I think you'll score closer to 30-34 points per game. That's not a bad offense at all provided your defense can give up less than that 30-34 per game. Which leads me to defense.

Defense - everyone seems to say your defense will automatically be better due to new coaches, new attitudes, and a year under the belts of the young kids. While that sounds good, will it happen? I remember talking with some Cats buds last year and they said there is no way on earth the defense could be any worse than the year prior, but they admitted they were wrong. It was shocking they said. Could that happen again? I don't think so personally. I think your defense will improve, but I don't think it will be a big, game-changing improvement. Your defense has been ranked statistically as not only some of he worse in the Big Sky but also in all of FCS. Now if you can improve that to middle of the Big Sky that's a pretty good jump, but quite possible being the Big Sky defenses seem to fluctuate a lot and are not very strong compared to the MVFC or rest of FCS. Which is my point, that even if you jump a few spots in the Big Sky on a national level that may not amount to much. I think defense will be the tell-tale sign of your season and will dictate whether you are an 8-3 team or a 5-6 team.

Special teams - I know you have a solid kicker in Daly. Sounds like he is hurt and may or may not be an effective contributor this season. Special teams play a big role and you guys have been solid in that front for the most part. The Griz special teams drive me nuts and we sound like we have major kicking issues again. I think that will hurt the Griz and will lead to at least one loss. Will Daly heal up and be effective? Will his replacement be a stud? I must admit I don't much about what you guys have in that department so my guess is your special teams will continue to perform well. I know Logan Jones looks shifty and dangerous as a KR and maybe he'll find a way to return punts. Those types of guys can flip the field in a hurry.

Overall I think you guys will be a 6-5 team with a strong shot at 7-4. I think this is pretty darn respectable for a program with a new staff, new offense, new schemes, etc. Is it football season yet!

Pretty good analysis, from an outsider

[PapaG]

The gimmicky offense, the fourth down/XP consultant and (not just last year) the "I gotta watch the film" line. Ugh!

No mention of the awful defense. Are you going to respond to my posts about 'gimmicky" offenses who have won titles in the "recent hires" thread, or are you going to continue to stick to your false narrative? By your own definition in that thread, MSU's offense wasn't "gimmicky." I'd run away from that definition, too, but to see you still make that claim means you're playing both sides of your own views on a "gimmicky" offense.

I was just leaving you alone, because I know that no matter how wrong you are you never let yourself see it.

The defense didn't get away from him last year, it got away from him half way through 2013.

You didn't post any offenses that won titles that fit my definition of gimmicky, so no false narrative there, however, I'm not sure you actually know what one is based on how you're referencing it. In sports a gimmick can be something or someone that isn't as good as it appears due to a fatal flaw that brings it down. Such as a QB who is more athlete than decision maker. He keeps the ball more than he should and sometimes ends up with more carries than any of his backs, but he masks that by shredding poor defenses giving observers the false belief that he can do that at any time only to find out that when needed most, usually against a solid defense, he fails to produce.

Ash gave control of the offense to Cramsey. He gave control of fourth downs to a computer. He gave control of breaking down games to two-dimensional video monitor. Those things got away from him to the detriment of the team. You've demonstrated over the years that you're too impressed with stats to fully understand what makes teams winners and losers.

You're not a scientist reviewing the work of other scientists. This is a just a message board, but you consistently manage to somehow get in over your head. Try simply disagreeing with someone and leaving it at that, so you don't end up getting embarrassed on a regular basis.

Yes, I'm well aware that your definition of a "gimmicky" offense doesn't include Cramsey's offense, so what the hell is your problem with me? I just pointed out that you defeated your own argument, as I also pointed out to the other poster worried about the Griz that Stilt does run a "gimmicky" offense. You can't have it both ways, Tom. I apologize if me pointing out your flawed logic hurt your feelings.

Saying that Florida under Tebow/J.T. Barrett or Mahlzahn's offense with Cam Newton isn't in some part "gimmicky" is disingenuous. By your own definition, there isn't a single "gimmicky" offense in either FBS or FCS. So again, when you step into it, don't lash out when your "logic" is questioned. Look, we all know that you're butthurt over Prukop leaving, and that you don't think he was an asset to the team. I disagree.

[TomCat88]

The gimmicky offense, the fourth down/XP consultant and (not just last year) the "I gotta watch the film" line. Ugh!

No mention of the awful defense. Are you going to respond to my posts about 'gimmicky" offenses who have won titles in the "recent hires" thread, or are you going to continue to stick to your false narrative? By your own definition in that thread, MSU's offense wasn't "gimmicky." I'd run away from that definition, too, but to see you still make that claim means you're playing both sides of your own views on a "gimmicky" offense.

I was just leaving you alone, because I know that no matter how wrong you are you never let yourself see it.

The defense didn't get away from him last year, it got away from him half way through 2013.

You didn't post any offenses that won titles that fit my definition of gimmicky, so no false narrative there, however, I'm not sure you actually know what one is based on how you're referencing it. In sports a gimmick can be something or someone that isn't as good as it appears due to a fatal flaw that brings it down. Such as a QB who is more athlete than decision maker. He keeps the ball more than he should and sometimes ends up with more carries than any of his backs, but he masks that by shredding poor defenses giving observers the false belief that he can do that at any time only to find out that when needed most, usually against a solid defense, he fails to produce.

Ash gave control of the offense to Cramsey. He gave control of fourth downs to a computer. He gave control of breaking down games to two-dimensional video monitor. Those things got away from him to the detriment of the team. You've demonstrated over the years that you're too impressed with stats to fully understand what makes teams winners and losers.

You're not a scientist reviewing the work of other scientists. This is a just a message board, but you consistently manage to somehow get in over your head. Try simply disagreeing with someone and leaving it at that, so you don't end up getting embarrassed on a regular basis.

Yes, I'm well aware that your definition of a "gimmicky" offense doesn't include Cramsey's offense, so what the hell is your problem with me? I just pointed out that you defeated your own argument, as I also pointed out to the other poster worried about the Griz that Stilt does run a "gimmicky" offense. You can't have it both ways, Tom. I apologize if me pointing out your flawed logic hurt your feelings.

Saying that Florida under Tebow/J.T. Barrett or Mahlzahn's offense with Cam Newton isn't in some part "gimmicky" is disingenuous. By your own definition, there isn't a single "gimmicky" offense in either FBS or FCS. So again, when you step into it, don't lash out when your "logic" is questioned. Look, we all know that you're butthurt over Prukop leaving, and that you don't think he was an asset to the team. I disagree.

I didn't read this, because it's so eight days ago. I'm the year 3 thousand and 8. You're 2 thousand and late.

[LongTimeCatFan]

The gimmicky offense, the fourth down/XP consultant and (not just last year) the "I gotta watch the film" line. Ugh!

No mention of the awful defense. Are you going to respond to my posts about 'gimmicky" offenses who have won titles in the "recent hires" thread, or are you going to continue to stick to your false narrative? By your own definition in that thread, MSU's offense wasn't "gimmicky." I'd run away from that definition, too, but to see you still make that claim means you're playing both sides of your own views on a "gimmicky" offense.

I was just leaving you alone, because I know that no matter how wrong you are you never let yourself see it.

The defense didn't get away from him last year, it got away from him half way through 2013.

You didn't post any offenses that won titles that fit my definition of gimmicky, so no false narrative there, however, I'm not sure you actually know what one is based on how you're referencing it. In sports a gimmick can be something or someone that isn't as good as it appears due to a fatal flaw that brings it down. Such as a QB who is more athlete than decision maker. He keeps the ball more than he should and sometimes ends up with more carries than any of his backs, but he masks that by shredding poor defenses giving observers the false belief that he can do that at any time only to find out that when needed most, usually against a solid defense, he fails to produce.

Ash gave control of the offense to Cramsey. He gave control of fourth downs to a computer. He gave control of breaking down games to two-dimensional video monitor. Those things got away from him to the detriment of the team. You've demonstrated over the years that you're too impressed with stats to fully understand what makes teams winners and losers.

You're not a scientist reviewing the work of other scientists. This is a just a message board, but you consistently manage to somehow get in over your head. Try simply disagreeing with someone and leaving it at that, so you don't end up getting embarrassed on a regular basis.

Yes, I'm well aware that your definition of a "gimmicky" offense doesn't include Cramsey's offense, so what the hell is your problem with me? I just pointed out that you defeated your own argument, as I also pointed out to the other poster worried about the Griz that Stilt does run a "gimmicky" offense. You can't have it both ways, Tom. I apologize if me pointing out your flawed logic hurt your feelings.

Saying that Florida under Tebow/J.T. Barrett or Mahlzahn's offense with Cam Newton isn't in some part "gimmicky" is disingenuous. By your own definition, there isn't a single "gimmicky" offense in either FBS or FCS. So again, when you step into it, don't lash out when your "logic" is questioned. Look, we all know that you're butthurt over Prukop leaving, and that you don't think he was an asset to the team. I disagree.

Prukop was talented, but his opinion of himself was inflated. He was NOT great. Rolovich was a better QB. That inflated opinion is what caused shiity chemistry on the team and it was encouraged/fostered by Cramsey.

I'm glad he's gone....


Just like that batshiit crazy hot chick we used to bang in college or the hot rod we drove in high school....

More trouble than they're worth

[LongTimeCatFan]

The gimmicky offense, the fourth down/XP consultant and (not just last year) the "I gotta watch the film" line. Ugh!

No mention of the awful defense. Are you going to respond to my posts about 'gimmicky" offenses who have won titles in the "recent hires" thread, or are you going to continue to stick to your false narrative? By your own definition in that thread, MSU's offense wasn't "gimmicky." I'd run away from that definition, too, but to see you still make that claim means you're playing both sides of your own views on a "gimmicky" offense.

I was just leaving you alone, because I know that no matter how wrong you are you never let yourself see it.

The defense didn't get away from him last year, it got away from him half way through 2013.

You didn't post any offenses that won titles that fit my definition of gimmicky, so no false narrative there, however, I'm not sure you actually know what one is based on how you're referencing it. In sports a gimmick can be something or someone that isn't as good as it appears due to a fatal flaw that brings it down. Such as a QB who is more athlete than decision maker. He keeps the ball more than he should and sometimes ends up with more carries than any of his backs, but he masks that by shredding poor defenses giving observers the false belief that he can do that at any time only to find out that when needed most, usually against a solid defense, he fails to produce.

Ash gave control of the offense to Cramsey. He gave control of fourth downs to a computer. He gave control of breaking down games to two-dimensional video monitor. Those things got away from him to the detriment of the team. You've demonstrated over the years that you're too impressed with stats to fully understand what makes teams winners and losers.

You're not a scientist reviewing the work of other scientists. This is a just a message board, but you consistently manage to somehow get in over your head. Try simply disagreeing with someone and leaving it at that, so you don't end up getting embarrassed on a regular basis.

Yes, I'm well aware that your definition of a "gimmicky" offense doesn't include Cramsey's offense, so what the hell is your problem with me? I just pointed out that you defeated your own argument, as I also pointed out to the other poster worried about the Griz that Stilt does run a "gimmicky" offense. You can't have it both ways, Tom. I apologize if me pointing out your flawed logic hurt your feelings.

Saying that Florida under Tebow/J.T. Barrett or Mahlzahn's offense with Cam Newton isn't in some part "gimmicky" is disingenuous. By your own definition, there isn't a single "gimmicky" offense in either FBS or FCS. So again, when you step into it, don't lash out when your "logic" is questioned. Look, we all know that you're butthurt over Prukop leaving, and that you don't think he was an asset to the team. I disagree.

I didn't read this, because it's so eight days ago. I'm the year 3 thousand and 8. You're 2 thousand and late.

Ummmm....

Didn't know Kanye was white

[PapaG]

Prukop was talented, but his opinion of himself was inflated. He was NOT great. Rolovich was a better QB. That inflated opinion is what caused shiity chemistry on the team and it was encouraged/fostered by Cramsey.

I'm glad he's gone....


Just like that batshiit crazy hot chick we used to bang in college or the hot rod we drove in high school....

More trouble than they're worth

Yes, that's why Alabama and Oregon were recruiting him. Because of Dakota's "inflated" opinion of himself.

Rolovich? HAHAHAHA!!! I get it. You're joking, right?

[LongTimeCatFan]

Prukop was talented, but his opinion of himself was inflated. He was NOT great. Rolovich was a better QB. That inflated opinion is what caused shiity chemistry on the team and it was encouraged/fostered by Cramsey.

I'm glad he's gone....


Just like that batshiit crazy hot chick we used to bang in college or the hot rod we drove in high school....

More trouble than they're worth

Yes, that's why Alabama and Oregon were recruiting him. Because of Dakota's "inflated" opinion of himself.

Rolovich? HAHAHAHA!!! I get it. You're joking, right?

Yeah, that's why he was sooo good in the clutch. Ummmm hmmmm

And yes, actually, Rolovich WAS a better QB because made better decisions under pressure.

[PapaG]

Yeah, that's why he was sooo good in the clutch. Ummmm hmmmm

Rolovich accounted for 24 TDs and 26 turnovers as a Bobcat.

Prukop accounted for 70 Tds and 20 turnovers as a Bobcat.

Are you auditioning to be BN's Skip Bayless and give the dumbest hot take imaginable just for effect?

[PapaG]

And yes, actually, Rolovich WAS a better QB because made better decisions under pressure.

Yes Rolo's 51% career completion percentage and 24 TDs in two seasons really sets the bar high.

Rolo QB rating of 118 as a Bobcat.

Prukop QB rating of 163 as a Bobcat.

Well done. You clowned yourself.

[LongTimeCatFan]

Yeah, that's why he was sooo good in the clutch. Ummmm hmmmm

Rolovich accounted for 24 TDs and 26 turnovers as a Bobcat.

Prukop accounted for 70 Tds and 20 turnovers as a Bobcat.

Are you auditioning to be BN's Skip Bayless and give the dumbest hot take imaginable just for effect?

Yep, just to piss you off... Must've worked.

[LongTimeCatFan]

And yes, actually, Rolovich WAS a better QB because made better decisions under pressure.

Yes Rolo's 51% career completion percentage and 24 TDs in two seasons really sets the bar high.

Rolo QB rating of 118 as a Bobcat.

Prukop QB rating of 163 as a Bobcat.

Well done. You clowned yourself.

And he made more than one read before bailing on the playbook, his teammates, and coaches before running

Stats are for losers....


Loser

[PapaG]

Yeah, that's why he was sooo good in the clutch. Ummmm hmmmm

Rolovich accounted for 24 TDs and 26 turnovers as a Bobcat.

Prukop accounted for 70 Tds and 20 turnovers as a Bobcat.

Are you auditioning to be BN's Skip Bayless and give the dumbest hot take imaginable just for effect?

Yep, just to piss you off... Must've worked.

Nope just laughing at you. Or is it with you? I'm guessing the former.