Arizona wins by 3.
Every idot who bet on them is pissed off that the refs waved off the last play return of a forward lateral for a touchdown that would have covered.
:lol:
Arizona wins by 3.
Every idot who bet on them is pissed off that the refs waved off the last play return of a forward lateral for a touchdown that would have covered.
:lol:
Groundhog Day. But if Bill Murray can get through it and win the beautiful girl in the end, we can.You can pretty much rinse and repeat these stats every year.
Groundhog Day. But if Bill Murray can get through it and win the beautiful girl in the end, we can.
I think he means the hot blond he bangs first.I think he actually ends up with Andie McDowell in that movie.
Spreadable. The rep, not Andie .I think he actually ends up with Andie McDowell in that movie.
Me too. I don't get the hate. Especially from guys who'd hit anything that walked.I had a thing for Andie McDowell. Can't explain it.
Me too. I don't get the hate. Especially from guys who'd hit anything that walked.
I had a thing for Andie McDowell. Can't explain it.
I think he means the hot blond he bangs first.
I think Nik is used to bad acting during sex.Well. It coudn't be the acting.
[video=youtube;YqYUpXjpx5Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqYUpXjpx5Q[/video]
Inexplicably she's the love interest in two of my favorite movies: Groundhog Day and Four Weddings (the only romantic comedy I like).
I think Nik is used to bad acting during sex.
... it's a Hell of a lot easier to get to a bowl game in conference USA than in the PAC 12
I prefer good acting during sex, but I'm not picky.
If you had to choose between good acting or non-ambulatory, which would be your preference?
Why are you asking me? Your girlfriend already knows.If you had to choose between good acting or non-ambulatory, which would be your preference?
Really well coached veteran team with a mobile QB that stretched Zona's D in all sorts of ways and made them pay for every mistake. Also, Zona's offense sputtered in the red zone for a variety of reasons, including mediocre play calling and QB play.For those of you who watched the game, why was UTSA so successful. I get they're a veteran team, but it's not like they're loaded with blue chip athletes. Were their schemes just a matchup problem for Arizona, did the Wildcats just have a lackluster game, what gives?
For those of you who watched the game, why was UTSA so successful. I get they're a veteran team, but it's not like they're loaded with blue chip athletes. Were their schemes just a matchup problem for Arizona, did the Wildcats just have a lackluster game, what gives?
For those of you who watched the game, why was UTSA so successful. I get they're a veteran team, but it's not like they're loaded with blue chip athletes. Were their schemes just a matchup problem for Arizona, did the Wildcats just have a lackluster game, what gives?
For those of you who watched the game, why was UTSA so successful. I get they're a veteran team, but it's not like they're loaded with blue chip athletes. Were their schemes just a matchup problem for Arizona, did the Wildcats just have a lackluster game, what gives?
As others have said Zona was the much more talented team. They had big advantages in speed, in skill, in depth.
What UTSA did though was take a simple game plan that was a bad match up for Arizona nad execute it very well.
Zona's defense is build to deal with the high power, wide open offenses that many PAC teams present. UTSA didn't even bother with this and simply lined up and played smash mouth offense. Hit em in the nose, get up and do it again. Zona wore down and it looked like some of their players didn't have a lot of interest in sticking their noses into the pile over and over again.
They should consider themselves lucky not to have Stanford on the schedule because based on last night Stanford's running game would bury a bunch of them.
I think our defense had a lot of the same issues against CSU. By design, it's a nickel most of the time and most of our DL depth is undersized and supposed to chase versus be stout at the point of attack. Instead, we played a team that kept us in the 4-3 as the base and then ran right at us.
Arizona may have had the better scheme for that by playing a high risk/reward 3-3-5 scheme. At least with that, you may get some more TFLs and sacks that will screw up the schedule for a ball control offense. I think we should have blitzed more last Friday and trusted our corners in one-on-one coverage.
So, nik is more-or-less saying that we get to look forward to losing to Arizona at home by only 3 points in a couple of years... sigh...
These days, I think you would be depressed over the issues on special teams if CU beats UMass 41-0 with a missed XP. :smile2: