Re: #25 Portland @ Idaho - Dec. 6

by the20pointmay on Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:14 pm

O M G....I'm keeping the faith, but dang, we looked so solid in anaheim, did we look past these vandals???

by VillaGorilla on Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:43 pm

It would be nice to avoid using words like crushing or humiliated, but after Anaheim somthing like this? One potential positive to take from this (based upon VandalNation's insightful statistical analysis on both teams' offensive prowess) is that we held them under 70 points. I was apprehensive that they'd drop 80+ on us. Looking at the stats, it was pretty even other than we couldn't hit anything from the field and rarely made it to the foul line. Very disappointing. Let's take notes and move on.

by ShipstadPilot11 on Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:18 pm

PilotNut wrote:Congrats to Nik for crossing the 1,000 point barrier (ok, there is something positive...)

I'm 99.94757283% sure that he did that against Portland State. He should have been at 1,002 coming into the game last night.

PilotNut wrote:Not really have anything positive to build off of after this game

Nik was 3-3 from the FT line?
We have a chance to redeem ourselves vs. Idaho later this month?
SP11 got an extra hour of sleep before his finals?

... just suggestions. I guess you have to appreciate the small things.

by **DaTruRochin** on Mon Dec 07, 2009 3:52 pm

Hmmm well Kansas did just beat UCLA by 14 less than we did... Does that help at all? Sigh.

by VandalNation on Mon Dec 07, 2009 4:02 pm

Wow. I honestly didn't see that coming either.

Coach Verlin made a special emphasis on defense coming off the shootout loss at Northridge, and it looks like our guys responded.

You'll get a return shot at us in a couple weeks... bet it will be a barn-burner in Chiles.

by PurplePrideTrumpet on Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:07 pm

VandalNation wrote: You'll get a return shot at us in a couple weeks... bet it will be a barn-burner in Chiles.

I'm sure both teams are aware of this. This should be a good one.

by mattywizz on Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:53 am

PurplePrideTrumpet wrote:
VandalNation wrote: You'll get a return shot at us in a couple weeks... bet it will be a barn-burner in Chiles.

I'm sure both teams are aware of this. This should be a good one.

Are you sure PPT? We didn't seem to be aware of the first matchup.

by mikemac65 on Tue Dec 08, 2009 12:13 pm

Hmmm. A case can be made for the lack of timeouts at crucial points of play. I think we saw that at the PSU game also. Just pondering. Pull Hair

by **PilotNut** on Tue Dec 08, 2009 12:30 pm

There were a couple points in the PSU game where we didnt call a timeout... but Rev must've been trying to allow the guys to fix the problem on their own; that was a focus on the Australia trip this summer...

by mattywizz on Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:06 pm

I thought that a couple times in Anaheim he could have called a timeout when he didn't. The team made it to the next TV timeout pretty much unscathed each time. I agree with Nut on Rev's intent.

by PurplePrideTrumpet on Tue Dec 08, 2009 7:43 pm

mattywizz wrote:
PurplePrideTrumpet wrote:
VandalNation wrote: You'll get a return shot at us in a couple weeks... bet it will be a barn-burner in Chiles.

I'm sure both teams are aware of this. This should be a good one.

Are you sure PPT? We didn't seem to be aware of the first matchup.

Well played, son.