Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports

Pat Dye Field => War Damn Eagle => Topic started by: Godfather on August 30, 2012, 08:25:23 PM

Title: Cocks n Dores
Post by: Godfather on August 30, 2012, 08:25:23 PM
Vandy playing teh Cocks tough. Connor Shaw either dislocated his shoulder or broke his collarbone. Could be a huge blow for the Cocks.
Title: Re: Cocks n Dores
Post by: chinook on August 30, 2012, 08:33:38 PM
leaving the cocks limp.
Title: Re: Cocks n Dores
Post by: Tiger Wench on August 30, 2012, 08:52:05 PM
leaving the cocks limp.

Nookie, darlin, I <3 you so much.
Title: Re: Cocks n Dores
Post by: AUChizad on August 30, 2012, 09:08:27 PM
If there's one thing we know Vandy's capable of...it's beating cocks.
Title: Re: Cocks n Dores
Post by: Pell City Tiger on August 30, 2012, 09:15:30 PM
I think the "da da da daaaaa" thing the Carolina band plays is 87.361% more annoying than listening to Rocky Top.
Title: Re: Cocks n Dores
Post by: Godfather on August 30, 2012, 09:35:02 PM
Spurrier doing his best Malzahn Impression from last year...is Lattimore doing spice on the sidelines. Tha fuck they should be riding him.
Title: Re: Cocks n Dores
Post by: Godfather on August 30, 2012, 09:36:03 PM
Nookie, darlin, I <3 you so much.
You <3 limp cocks?
Title: Re: Cocks n Dores
Post by: Tiger Wench on August 30, 2012, 09:54:58 PM
You <3 limp cocks?

I <3 nookie.
Title: Re: Cocks n Dores
Post by: jmar on August 30, 2012, 10:18:16 PM
I think the "da da da daaaaa" thing the Carolina band plays is 87.361% more annoying than listening to Rocky Top.
Oh no. Da da da daaaa doesn't make you beg for a bullet like Rocky Top will when UT is winning.
Title: Re: Cocks n Dores
Post by: Kaos on August 30, 2012, 10:30:43 PM
UT winning?  Who remembers that? 

At the end of the day Vandy is still Vandy.  Moral victories early in the season. 
Title: Re: Cocks n Dores
Post by: CCTAU on August 30, 2012, 10:38:27 PM
UT winning?  Who remembers that? 

At the end of the day Vandy is still Vandy.  Moral victories early in the season.
Although, I will say with the recruits they are getting, Vandy could become really good really quick. They did a great job across both fronts tonight.

One lousy interference call away form making it a game.

I hope we are solid before we go there and play.
Title: Re: Cocks n Dores
Post by: The Prowler on August 30, 2012, 11:59:25 PM
So, after Shaw dislocated his shoulder, he came back in to play due to the backup being garbage...Coach Spurrier calls for him a QB Draw? Seriously? Coach, you realize that you have 11 more games in the regular season, right?
Title: Re: Cocks n Dores
Post by: Saniflush on August 31, 2012, 07:15:16 AM
I gotta say that I was less than impressed with either team.

SC's defensive line gave up on plays that allowed Vandy to make some that they should not have.

Vandy is still Vandy and all the rah rah-ing and moral victories in the world is not going to change that.
Title: Re: Cocks n Dores
Post by: Godfather on August 31, 2012, 08:40:20 AM
I gotta say that I was less than impressed with either team.

SC's defensive line gave up on plays that allowed Vandy to make some that they should not have.

Vandy is still Vandy and all the rah rah-ing and moral victories in the world is not going to change that.
They wilted when it mattered.
Title: Re: Cocks n Dores
Post by: Godfather on August 31, 2012, 08:57:46 AM
I though USCe defense looked tired most of the game.  The offense was unimpressive, but I though Spurriers play calling was shit. 

Cocks could be in for a long season as their October stretch is vs. UGA, at LSU, at UF, vs. UT and then vs. Ark (to start Nov)  that is brutal.
Title: Re: Cocks n Dores
Post by: RWS on August 31, 2012, 09:09:53 AM
I though USCe defense looked tired most of the game.
It seemed like after the first quarter, they were done. Aside from one or two plays, Clowney was a non-factor as well. Maybe they were just complacent, and Vandy gave them more than they wanted. You couldn't really tell if Vandy was simply overachieving, USCe was slacking, or if both teams are really that shitty. I know everybody up there likes James Franklin, and I think he is good for Vandy too. But at some point, the "This isn't the old Vanderbilt" bravado is going to run out. At the end of the day, it really is still Vanderbilt. The sad part is, Vandy very well may have blown their wad for the season already.
Title: Re: Cocks n Dores
Post by: GH2001 on August 31, 2012, 09:14:35 AM
I gotta say that I was less than impressed with either team.

SC's defensive line gave up on plays that allowed Vandy to make some that they should not have.

Vandy is still Vandy and all the rah rah-ing and moral victories in the world is not going to change that.

The Marine knows ^^^

I attribute SC's performance (a lot of it anyway) to it being the first game, being rusty, etc. Vandy is just Vandy. They looked better than they really are at times because of SC's tardness.
Title: Re: Cocks n Dores
Post by: Townhallsavoy on August 31, 2012, 09:19:49 AM
I though USCe defense looked tired most of the game.  The offense was unimpressive, but I though Spurriers play calling was shit. 


And I don't get it. 

They have talent.  A lot of it too. 

Lattimore looked good.  Their offensive line is adequate.  They have talented receivers.  Their defense has some absolute studs. 

I guess their quarterbacks are that bad.  But the play calling was atrocious.  Spurrier ran his quarterback and he ran Lattimore.  It's how Lattimore got hurt last year and how his quarterback is already hurt this year. 
Title: Re: Cocks n Dores
Post by: GH2001 on August 31, 2012, 09:22:18 AM
And I don't get it. 

They have talent.  A lot of it too. 

Lattimore looked good.  Their offensive line is adequate.  They have talented receivers.  Their defense has some absolute studs. 

I guess their quarterbacks are that bad.  But the play calling was atrocious.  Spurrier ran his quarterback and he ran Lattimore.  It's how Lattimore got hurt last year and how his quarterback is already hurt this year.

Because, in a way, they are still South Carolina. SC and Vandy's all time records aren't THAT different. At least Vandy has the excuse of being hard to get into. I think the Ole Ball Corch looked off last night.
Title: Re: Cocks n Dores
Post by: Snaggletiger on August 31, 2012, 09:28:36 AM
Maybe it's just because USC is and always has been our bitch, but I never have looked at that program as anything other than Mississippi Skrate East. Looked just like em' last night too.
Title: Re: Cocks n Dores
Post by: GH2001 on August 31, 2012, 09:42:53 AM
Maybe it's just because USC is and always has been our bitch, but I never have looked at that program as anything other than Mississippi Skrate East. Looked just like em' last night too.

Right you are:

SC all time:       555–542–44 (.506) - 1 conf title in 1969 (ACC)  - 5 -12 bowl record
Vandy all time:  564–575–50 (.495) - 13 conf titles (SIAA/Southern) - 2-2-1 bowl record
Miss St all time: 507–544–39 (.483) - 1 conf title 1941 (SEC) - 10-6 bowl record

Vandy's w/l record is a little skewed by the last 20 years where all but 1 season (2008 Bobby Johnson 7-6) has been anywhere from a .182 to a .455 winning %. Before the last 20 years they were a better program than SC in the W/L %.
Title: Re: Cocks n Dores
Post by: CCTAU on August 31, 2012, 09:45:17 AM
All of this is nice, but Vandy is back to where they have the ability to knock off any opponent at any time. Kinda like when Cutler was there. I don't like being that opponent. In most years you never give them a second thought. This year?????
Title: Re: Cocks n Dores
Post by: Townhallsavoy on August 31, 2012, 10:41:10 AM
All of this is nice, but Vandy is back to where they have the ability to knock off any opponent at any time. Kinda like when Cutler was there. I don't like being that opponent. In most years you never give them a second thought. This year?????

They'll be tough.  I'm not worried yet, but that depends more on how we look tomorrow night. 
Title: Re: Cocks n Dores
Post by: War Eagle!!! on August 31, 2012, 10:49:42 AM
I thought Lattimore looked like half the runner he was before he got hurt. Maybe he he will get better as he gains confidence in his knee, but he just didn't look like he was running with the aggressiveness as he did before.
Title: Re: Cocks n Dores
Post by: Snaggletiger on August 31, 2012, 10:52:01 AM
Lattimore was Mike Dyer's bitch. 


But Mike was too high to realize it.
Title: Re: Cocks n Dores
Post by: GH2001 on August 31, 2012, 10:52:55 AM
I thought Lattimore looked like half the runner he was before he got hurt. Maybe he he will get better as he gains confidence in his knee, but he just didn't look like he was running with the aggressiveness as he did before.

And he def has a big OL to run behind. They put up a stat on the screen of SC's OL vs Vandy's DL. It read something like:

SC OL Avg - 6'5 309
Vandy DL Avg - 6'2 262

He should have made that his personal playground.
Title: Re: Cocks n Dores
Post by: Shug Dye on August 31, 2012, 11:08:33 AM
Clowney was sucking wind early.
Title: Re: Cocks n Dores
Post by: War Eagle!!! on August 31, 2012, 11:10:39 AM
Clowney was sucking wind early.

Great analysis...for a girl...
Title: Re: Cocks n Dores
Post by: Tiger Wench on August 31, 2012, 11:11:38 AM
Lattimore was Mike Dyer's bitch. 


But Mike was too high to realize it.

Yeah, I had a tiny moment of "what might have been" last night... But I'll take a Dyer BCS MVP and be grateful for what we had.
Title: Re: Cocks n Dores
Post by: CCTAU on August 31, 2012, 11:12:12 AM
And he def has a big OL to run behind. They put up a stat on the screen of SC's OL vs Vandy's DL. It read something like:

SC OL Avg - 6'5 309
Vandy DL Avg - 6'2 262

He should have made that his personal playground.
I saw that.
Vandy was more like 6'3" and I think around 290. But they wre smaller. And they got after it pretty good. They had a good defensive plan and they played with a lot more intensity that we are used to. They looked more like a Woody defense.
Title: Re: Cocks n Dores
Post by: GH2001 on August 31, 2012, 11:15:36 AM
I saw that.
Vandy was more like 6'3" and I think around 290. But they wre smaller. And they got after it pretty good. They had a good defensive plan and they played with a lot more intensity that we are used to. They looked more like a Woody defense.

Just went back and looked - we were both wrong. It was 6'2 269. Quite smaller than SC's OL. How the hell did he not have 567 yards?
Title: Re: Cocks n Dores
Post by: Buzz Killington on August 31, 2012, 11:20:17 AM
Just went back and looked - we were both wrong. It was 6'2 269. Quite smaller than SC's OL. How the hell did he not have 567 yards?

Because they're wiry
Title: Re: Cocks n Dores
Post by: bottomfeeder on August 31, 2012, 11:22:37 AM
Slive-balls. Where that picture of the LSU reception vs. the turds where the receiver was call out of bounds?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGMMtlOmRD8