Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports

Pat Dye Field => War Damn Eagle => Topic started by: Shug Dye on September 27, 2012, 11:08:57 PM

Title: Stanford v Washington
Post by: Shug Dye on September 27, 2012, 11:08:57 PM
Some general observations.....

Stanford stinks. And if they beat USC....USC has got some pain coming their way.

Jesse Palmer is a fucking clown....totally idiotic comments....."Stanford looks exactly like the 49ers on defense? Christ almighty. Go back to Canada.


I may or may not be drunk.
Title: Re: Stanford v Washington
Post by: Tiger Wench on September 27, 2012, 11:16:05 PM
Get outta my head, drunk new girl.  I was just logging in to start this.

Stanford does look like shit.  They miss ole Fugly as Fuck Luck, don't they?

I would not be surprised if Washington pulls this one out somehow.  Which does not bode well for my pick em this week.

And Jesse Palmer dumb ass douchedness is well documented.  He couldn't even pay a girl to like him on the Bachelor.  And he is not nearly as hot as he thinks he is.

But Reese Davis is still a cutie, bammer or not.  His real name is (heehee) Laurece... snerk...
Title: Re: Stanford v Washington
Post by: Tiger Wench on September 27, 2012, 11:23:12 PM
Never mind - looks like the Stanford D is gonna keep them in it...

Pick 6...  :facepalm:
Title: Re: Stanford v Washington
Post by: Tiger Wench on September 27, 2012, 11:29:38 PM
Or not...
Title: Re: Stanford v Washington
Post by: Shug Dye on September 27, 2012, 11:38:21 PM
Our offensive coordinator snuck on to Stanford's sideline.
Title: Re: Stanford v Washington
Post by: Tiger Wench on September 27, 2012, 11:48:16 PM
That 13-10 score in the fourth quarter with an underdog playing a top ten team on the underdog's home field is almost like deja vu...
Title: Re: Stanford v Washington
Post by: Tiger Wench on September 27, 2012, 11:59:23 PM
SEE!!!  See what happens when you have even a modicum of offense and a defense that is fired up!!!!!!!!

 :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

17 - 13 Washington with 3 minutes and change to go in the 4th.
Title: Re: Stanford v Washington
Post by: Tiger Wench on September 28, 2012, 12:08:17 AM
Hello?  Drunk new girl?

**tap tap**

Is this thing on?

Upset alert pending!!

COME ON OLE MISS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Stanford v Washington
Post by: Tiger Wench on September 28, 2012, 12:13:08 AM
Finally - the X gets it's fantasy:  (somewhat) drunken girl on girl action that involves college football.

And no one is here to witness it.

I myself am sober, but wish desperately I was not.

Insomnia is a bitch.
Title: Re: Stanford v Washington
Post by: Tiger Wench on September 28, 2012, 12:16:06 AM
Interception.

Barring a MASSIVE cluster fuckup by UDub, The Tree is chopped down.

17-13 UDub.

Sark the Shark wins.
Title: Re: Stanford v Washington
Post by: chinook on September 28, 2012, 12:25:12 AM
hmmmm...this thread might be a first.  girl on girl.
Title: Re: Stanford v Washington
Post by: JR4AU on September 28, 2012, 05:40:13 AM
hmmmm...this thread might be a first.  girl on girl.

2 girls, one cup?
Title: Re: Stanford v Washington
Post by: Yoda on September 28, 2012, 09:23:41 AM
SEE!!!  See what happens when you have even a modicum of offense and a defense that is fired up!!!!!!!!

 :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

17 - 13 Washington with 3 minutes and change to go in the 4th.

Also Washington coach realized they were the underdog and hanging around, defense was playing stout, and he decides to go for it on 4th down twice.  First 4th and 1 they bust it for a TD after the pick 6, second 4th and 1 they make it and drive results in game winning TD.  The second 4th down conversion was at the 6:40 mark in the 4th quarter around mid field, seem familiar?
Title: Re: Stanford v Washington
Post by: AUChizad on September 28, 2012, 10:00:21 AM
LSU beat Washington 41-3.

Just sayin'.
Title: Re: Stanford v Washington
Post by: Godfather on September 28, 2012, 10:04:06 AM
LSU beat Washington 41-3.

Just sayin'.

So we are > USC

#13 Auburn bitches


Seriously though LSU beat us 12-10 what's your point? We might be better than Stanford? Fuck those west coast hippie smart leftists.

Title: Re: Stanford v Washington
Post by: Snaggletiger on September 28, 2012, 10:06:12 AM
So we are > USC

#13 Auburn bitches

I like the way you think, son.  We'll be keeping our eyes on you.
Title: Re: Stanford v Washington
Post by: AUChizad on September 28, 2012, 10:11:39 AM
Seriously though LSU beat us 12-10 what's your point? We might be better than Stanford? Fuck those west coast hippie smart leftists.
Everyone here seems to think last week's game was more of an indication that LSU sucks and will get their shit pushed inside out when they play bammer, rather than the idea that we might have shown some legitimate improvement.
Title: Re: Stanford v Washington
Post by: Snaggletiger on September 28, 2012, 10:17:59 AM
Everyone here seems to think last week's game was more of an indication that LSU sucks and will get their shit pushed inside out when they play bammer, rather than the idea that we might have shown some legitimate improvement.

Tell em' to stop JC Copeland from running his mouth about the opposing team and they won't come in with a serious mad on when they play them next time.

On another note, I watched a good bit of the replay the other night and was looking for what we were doing on D that was different.  First, we were getting a nice push in the middle, something that was completely missing from the first 3 games. Second, BVG did actually change things up and disguise a lot more blitzes.  I also think some of the personnel changes helped.  Joshua Holsey might just be a real playa.
Title: Re: Stanford v Washington
Post by: Godfather on September 28, 2012, 10:18:31 AM
Everyone here seems to think last week's game was more of an indication that LSU sucks and will get their shit pushed inside out when they play bammer, rather than the idea that we might have shown some legitimate improvement.
No I agree that we showed improvement, but I also don't think that LSU looked all that great.  We also played them at home and it was Mettenbergers first road game in an hostile environment.  Regardless of how Washington beat Stanford (another team in another conference) in their own home.  Really doesn't prove much to me. 

Now if LSU goes out and dismantles Florida or beats bammer, I will agree more with you.
Title: Re: Stanford v Washington
Post by: Kaos on September 28, 2012, 10:33:36 AM
Everyone here seems to think last week's game was more of an indication that LSU sucks and will get their shit pushed inside out when they play bammer, rather than the idea that we might have shown some legitimate improvement.

You're forgetting the word of the day:  Anomaly.

When there is a trend rather than a one-game aberration then the feeling might change. 

I think people were okay with the Clemson loss.  Offense struggled some, lots of new faces, new QB with his first start in a strange environ.  Some kinks to work out.  Damn, that defense looked bad at times but it's gonna get better. 

Okay with it even though every orange and blue son of a bitch on the planet expected to knock Clemson off the ball and win the old fashioned way.  Okay with it even though nobody in their tiger minds could have imagined Clemson gashing us over and over even without Weedie.  Okay because it was a decent opponent. 

Every bit of that went right out the window at State.  The offense looked worse than it did on the 3-2 day (which we won),  as bad or worse than it did during last season's abortion.  It created new definitions for inept.  The defense was some better in the first half, but Holland was so god awful shitty that his sucktastic play left a bad taste for everyone. 

Offense was no better against ULM.  Defense better at first, still folded at the end.  But why the fuck are we comparing ourselves to a Sunbelt team to measure progress?  We beat the War Fucks 34-0 in 2008 with the Franklin debacle.  Beat them 52-3 in 2010 and Cam didn't get to run a single time.  Didn't even play in the second half. 

Dammit Chizad, we shoudn't be digging through acres of dirt hoping to find a sliver of fool's gold in the fourth year of a coaching regime that's allegedly recruited as well as this one has. 

I want to be positive, I want this to work out if for no other reason than to silence the yapping fools on the radio.  But I have my doubts.   

When it's a trend and not just a single game here and there?  Talk to me. 
Title: Re: Stanford v Washington
Post by: Snaggletiger on September 28, 2012, 10:37:29 AM
I think the bottom line is our D played the way they're capable of.  It wasn't dominant but it was more along the lines of what we expect and are used to at AU.  I honestly don't think it was an "off night" for LSU or that Mettenturder was phased by the crowd or a road game.  If LSU's running game is gashing folks like they do just about every game, he can stand back there on play action and take his pick of stud receivers.  He looked like Tom Brady against Washington because every running play was 7 yards...9 yards...6 yards.  Our D got the push and penetration they needed to disrupt everything and not let LSU run downhill all night.

Think about it.  How many times did we say, "Wow, we got lucky on that one.  Mettzenbirder totally missed that guy."  Nope, we wouldn't let him get comfortable and our DB's did one of their better jobs in coverage.  But, I will say that teams like UF will definitely look at this film (When have we ever said that?) and get an idea of how to slow LSU down.

For LSU, they did exactly what I thought they'd do to our offense.  10 points and about 185 total yards?  You'll win 99% or 7/8ths of your games with that.   
Title: Re: Stanford v Washington
Post by: Kaos on September 28, 2012, 10:41:02 AM
I think the bottom line is our D played the way they're capable of.  It wasn't dominant but it was more along the lines of what we expect and are used to at AU.  I honestly don't think it was an "off night" for LSU or that Mettenturder was phased by the crowd or a road game.  If LSU's running game is gashing folks like they do just about every game, he can stand back there on play action and take his pick of stud receivers.  He looked like Tom Brady against Washington because every running play was 7 yards...9 yards...6 yards.  Our D got the push and penetration they needed to disrupt everything and not let LSU run downhill all night.

Think about it.  How many times did we say, "Wow, we got lucky on that one.  Mettzenbirder totally missed that guy."  Nope, we wouldn't let him get comfortable and our DB's did one of their better jobs in coverage.  But, I will say that teams like UF will definitely look at this film (When have we ever said that?) and get an idea of how to slow LSU down.

For LSU, they did exactly what I thought they'd do to our offense.  10 points and about 185 total yards?  You'll win 99% or 7/8ths of your games with that.

Do it once?  Ok.

Do it consistently?  Then we have something to discuss.

For what it's worth, I have many contacts in Arkansas.  Their view is the same as ours. 

"Lose to Auburn and this season is over.  No reason to lose to a team as bad as they are.  We'll score 21-31 points, no way they can score that much even if the defense doesn't get on the bus and we have to put the cheerleaders out there."

THAT'S who we are now.  And that's what I cannot abide. 
Title: Re: Stanford v Washington
Post by: Godfather on September 28, 2012, 10:42:58 AM
You're forgetting the word of the day:  Anomaly.

When there is a trend rather than a one-game aberration then the feeling might change. 

I think people were okay with the Clemson loss.  Offense struggled some, lots of new faces, new QB with his first start in a strange environ.  Some kinks to work out.  Damn, that defense looked bad at times but it's gonna get better. 

Okay with it even though every orange and blue son of a bitch on the planet expected to knock Clemson off the ball and win the old fashioned way.  Okay with it even though nobody in their tiger minds could have imagined Clemson gashing us over and over even without Weedie.  Okay because it was a decent opponent. 

Every bit of that went right out the window at State.  The offense looked worse than it did on the 3-2 day (which we won),  as bad or worse than it did during last season's abortion.  It created new definitions for inept.  The defense was some better in the first half, but Holland was so god awful shitty that his sucktastic play left a bad taste for everyone. 

Offense was no better against ULM.  Defense better at first, still folded at the end.  But why the fuck are we comparing ourselves to a Sunbelt team to measure progress?  We beat the War Fucks 34-0 in 2008 with the Franklin debacle.  Beat them 52-3 in 2010 and Cam didn't get to run a single time.  Didn't even play in the second half. 

Dammit Chizad, we shoudn't be digging through acres of dirt hoping to find a sliver of fool's gold in the fourth year of a coaching regime that's allegedly recruited as well as this one has. 

I want to be positive, I want this to work out if for no other reason than to silence the yapping fools on the radio.  But I have my doubts.   

When it's a trend and not just a single game here and there?  Talk to me.
100%

Mississippi State was game #1.  Game #2 is Arkansaw.  We best not lose that game...all I'm saying.
Title: Re: Stanford v Washington
Post by: Godfather on September 28, 2012, 10:44:58 AM
Do it once?  Ok.

Do it consistently?  Then we have something to discuss.

For what it's worth, I have many contacts in Arkansas.  Their view is the same as ours. 

"Lose to Auburn and this season is over.  No reason to lose to a team as bad as they are.  We'll score 21-31 points, no way they can score that much even if the defense doesn't get on the bus and we have to put the cheerleaders out there."

THAT'S who we are now.  And that's what I cannot abide.
Again agree.  Have we become MSU a team that will scare you, but you know at the end of the day you are going to beat?
Title: Re: Stanford v Washington
Post by: JR4AU on September 28, 2012, 10:56:06 AM
Everyone here seems to think last week's game was more of an indication that LSU sucks and will get their shit pushed inside out when they play bammer, rather than the idea that we might have shown some legitimate improvement.

I think it's more they're overrated, but we improved, slight though it was. 
Title: Re: Stanford v Washington
Post by: AUChizad on September 28, 2012, 11:00:18 AM
Again agree.  Have we become MSU a team that will scare you, but you know at the end of the day you are going to beat?
Arkansas is high if they think that of us right now.

Their season is unequivocally more abysmal than ours so far. MSU > Rutgers. They actually lost to ULM, not just got a scare. Barely scraped out a win against Jacksonville State, and got a bigger raping by Bama than either Western Kentucky or FAU, and neither were even close.
Title: Re: Stanford v Washington
Post by: Snaggletiger on September 28, 2012, 11:02:11 AM
Do it once?  Ok.

Do it consistently?  Then we have something to discuss.

For what it's worth, I have many contacts in Arkansas.  Their view is the same as ours. 

"Lose to Auburn and this season is over.  No reason to lose to a team as bad as they are.  We'll score 21-31 points, no way they can score that much even if the defense doesn't get on the bus and we have to put the cheerleaders out there."

THAT'S who we are now.  And that's what I cannot abide.

Oh, I agree on this.  Just breaking down that one game.
Title: Re: Stanford v Washington
Post by: AWK on September 28, 2012, 11:04:32 AM
Arkansas is high if they think that of us right now.

Their season is unequivocally more abysmal than ours so far. MSU > Rutgers. They actually lost to ULM, not just got a scare. Barely scraped out a win against Jacksonville State, and got a bigger raping by Bama than either Western Kentucky or FAU, and neither were even close.
The fact that this is a bragging point, is terribly fucking sad.
Title: Re: Stanford v Washington
Post by: AUChizad on September 28, 2012, 11:08:29 AM
The fact that this is a bragging point, is terribly fucking sad.
Not bragging, just saying for apples-to-apples comparison's sake, it beats the alternative. And Arkansas lived the alternative.

That said, ULM will make the rest of their schedule their bitch if their three showings against major conference schools is any indication.
Title: Re: Stanford v Washington
Post by: Godfather on September 28, 2012, 11:09:59 AM
Not bragging, just saying for apples-to-apples comparison's sake, it beats the alternative. And Arkansas lived the alternative.

That said, ULM will make the rest of their schedule their bitch if their three showings against major conference schools is any indication.
But are they "elite"?
Title: Re: Stanford v Washington
Post by: Snaggletiger on September 28, 2012, 11:10:05 AM
100%

Mississippi State was game #1.  Game #2 is Arkansaw.  We best not lose that game...all I'm saying.

We're in the same boat.  As I've said, the two things I want/have to see, are improvement...fight against LSU, and a win against Arkansas.  Even though the O didn't do squat, the defense did enough for me to say #1 was accomplished. Lose to Arkansas, and I'll take my blood pressure medication and try to have calm and rational discussions about who the next coach will be at Auburn.
Title: Re: Stanford v Washington
Post by: AWK on September 28, 2012, 11:11:01 AM
But are they "elite"?
Really, really elite?
Title: Re: Stanford v Washington
Post by: AUChizad on September 28, 2012, 11:16:42 AM
We're in the same boat.  As I've said, the two things I want/have to see, are improvement...fight against LSU, and a win against Arkansas.  Even though the O didn't do squat, the defense did enough for me to say #1 was accomplished. Lose to Arkansas, and I'll take my blood pressure medication and try to have calm and rational discussions about who the next coach will be at Auburn.
Agree.
Title: Re: Stanford v Washington
Post by: AUChizad on September 28, 2012, 11:17:15 AM
But are they "elite"?
I think they are solidly a "kinda-sorta-good" team.
Title: Re: Stanford v Washington
Post by: Snaggletiger on September 28, 2012, 11:21:04 AM
I think they are solidly a "kinda-sorta-good" team.

You don't give them enough credit.  They are one the elite kinda-sorta-good teams.  And Auburn beat that ass.
Title: Re: Stanford v Washington
Post by: Godfather on September 28, 2012, 11:24:50 AM
Based on stats...

After 4 games and out of 120 teams.
(http://www.tigersx.com/images/game4_totd.jpg)
Title: Re: Stanford v Washington
Post by: djsimp on September 28, 2012, 11:36:53 AM
So we are > USC

#13 Auburn bitches


Seriously though LSU beat us 12-10 what's your point? We might be better than Stanford? Fuck those west coast hippie smart leftists.

You've just lost your Nookies House of Porn discount card.
Title: Re: Stanford v Washington
Post by: Godfather on September 28, 2012, 12:03:17 PM
You've just lost your Nookies House of Porn discount card.
I'm the silent partner I don't need a discount card.
Title: Re: Stanford v Washington
Post by: dallaswareagle on September 28, 2012, 12:43:13 PM
I'm have a silent partner I don't need a discount card.

Adjusted
Title: Re: Stanford v Washington
Post by: djsimp on September 28, 2012, 12:51:10 PM
Adjusted

You have a way with words.
Title: Re: Stanford v Washington
Post by: dallaswareagle on September 28, 2012, 01:13:08 PM
You have a way with words.

Its the pictures that get me in trouble. 
Title: Re: Stanford v Washington
Post by: Godfather on September 28, 2012, 02:11:32 PM
You have a way with words.
As in he doesn't know how to use them?
Title: Re: Stanford v Washington
Post by: Pell City Tiger on September 28, 2012, 07:08:26 PM
I'm utterly appalled at the lack of patience being shown in this thread.
Title: Re: Stanford v Washington
Post by: AUTiger1 on September 28, 2012, 11:37:54 PM
I'm utterly appalled at the lack of patience being shown in this thread.

 :thumsup:
Title: Re: Stanford v Washington
Post by: dallaswareagle on September 29, 2012, 12:02:12 PM
I'm utterly appalled at the lack of patience being shown in this thread.

I've been told it’s a virtue, but that may just be here in Texas?
Title: Re: Stanford v Washington
Post by: AUChizad on September 29, 2012, 10:53:45 PM
Not bragging, just saying for apples-to-apples comparison's sake, it beats the alternative. And Arkansas lived the alternative.

That said, ULM will make the rest of their schedule their bitch if their three showings against major conference schools is any indication.
LAMO 63 - Tulane 10
Title: Re: Stanford v Washington
Post by: RWS on September 29, 2012, 11:02:54 PM
LAMO 63 - Tulane 10
Not surprising. Tulane is now 0-4 and only scores on average 8 points a game. On average they allow 42 points a game. I think ULM will lose to Middle TN and also Western Kentucky.
Title: Re: Stanford v Washington
Post by: dallaswareagle on September 29, 2012, 11:05:46 PM
Not surprising. Tulane is now 0-4 and only scores on average 8 points a game. On average they allow 42 points a game. I think ULM will lose to Middle TN and also Western Kentucky.

Nobody and I  mean NOBODY should lose to directional school.
Title: Re: Stanford v Washington
Post by: RWS on September 29, 2012, 11:10:34 PM
Tulane's offense is ranked 120th out of 120 teams. It is 7 spots worse than Auburn's.

/thread
Title: Re: Stanford v Washington
Post by: dallaswareagle on September 29, 2012, 11:37:55 PM
Tulane's offense is ranked 120th out of 120 teams. It is 7 spots worse than Auburn's.

/thread

So we are better than somebody  -We can buid on that. :facepalm:
Title: Re: Stanford v Washington
Post by: JR4AU on September 30, 2012, 04:45:35 AM
So we are better than somebody  -We can buid on that. :facepalm:

All it means is there's room to devolve yet.  It can get worse.