IlliniKrush

Tebow style

Suicide watch for Justin

Way to go. Gave it away down the stretch with dumb play and overall with FT's.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Dec 8, 2007 -> 01:32 AM) I now have something resembling abs? Looks kinda like a six pack hidden under some snow or something. I demand pictures

QUOTE(Mr. Showtime @ Dec 8, 2007 -> 01:16 AM) I don't have much to add from an analysis standpoint. Everyone here has it covered. Attended the game this evening with Brian which was good times, the outcome of course not so much. Tony, we had a few D-Bags in the two seats in front of me this evening, I think you would've punched both of them. Perhaps I missed it while reading the thread, but thoughts on Lang's play this evening, and his play as of late? Also Tony, yeah, that goal that was close to going over the line wasn't in. From my seats we got a pretty good view of it. I wasn't very surprised that they didn't take a look, I'm pretty sure there is an official upstairs who could've called down if it was in. There was a bit of a delay between the whistle and draw. As others have said, need to make a trade for a D-Man, Zyuzin has gotta go. They were dressed to hit the clubs after the game, which is fitting because they took off with 5 minutes left (after showing up late and not waiting for a whistle). I think my favorite part about them was the one guy constantly yelling "play some defense already" when we were penalty killing and they had control of the puck, which is generally how a power play works if the other team gets it set up. He wanted the nearest player to immediately rush the player with the puck in this situation. As we noted during the game, Lang couldn't keep the damn puck on his stick. He couldn't catch a pass to save his life, and there was one neutral zone turnover that led to a goal.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Dec 7, 2007 -> 11:29 PM) To not send it upstairs was awful to me. It was certainly close enough to take a few looks. They spent 3 or 4 minutes looking at the Hawks last goal, and didn't give that one a second look. I thought it was a bad call. Well I think the ref was in good position to see it once and not need a 2nd look. And again, we're seeing diff things, but the puck was squarely on the goal line IMO and not very close to the whole thing being over. I could take or leave a review, but the overall call of no goal was correct.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Dec 7, 2007 -> 11:26 PM) I beat you by a few minutes, sounds like we saw the same thing. Couple things. 1. Did you think the Hawks scored on the no goal? 2. Did you think the Ducks goal a few minutes later was legit? I thought Bulin got crosschecked. 3. I don't know if you noticed tonight, but it seems like Kane has really hit a wall. I think we knew it would happen, but at least to me, you are really starting to see it, 2. I can't remember who it was, maybe Seabrook....but he was the one who threw the Ducks player into Habby, from what I remember. I honestly was fine with the no call.

That was a frustrating game. 40+ shots and we can't get a victory. JS was solid in net. Basically all three of the goals were flukes. He was really the difference tonight as the Hawks carried play 5 on 5 the entire night. Savvy didn't go with Buff on the first line, instead going with Kane-Toews-Havlat. While this line is super talented, the 2nd line of Ruutu/Lang/Buff is kind of mediocre. They weren't brutal tonight but I'm hoping this isn't permanent. I'd like to see sharp on the 2nd line somewhere. Getzlaf was pretty solid tonight. His 'sneaky' breakaway goal was sick and he had 2 assists. The goal that really hurt was Schneider's, as we gave it up to their 4th line (with our 4th line out there getting torched defensively). Props to Burish for that fight with Dipenta. It was the right time to do it, and he held his own in that one. It seemed to work, as the Hawks came out flying after it. It's a shame we were down 2 at that point, as you just knew we'd eventually get one. Two was just one too many to get in the 3rd period. The Buff turnover was beyond brutal, we would have had 30 more seconds to tie it up, but that's that. It was just one of those games. I'm not too worried about this loss as the Hawks played a damn good game and just couldn't solve JS. They bring that energy and effort every night and they will win way more games than they will lose. I was proud of the effort tonight. Also, Tony, that puck was not in the net. The replay showed the puck squarely on the goal line and then pulled out. The entire puck has to cross the goal line, and that wasn't even close to happening. They could have maybe reviewed it, but it wasn't even a question in my mind. Sure it was close, but it wasn't a goal. Finally, props to Ian (Mr Showtime) for the hospitality tonight.

QUOTE(The Critic @ Dec 7, 2007 -> 07:04 AM) Neither do I. Assign the guy a set role to play on this team and keep him there. Bouncing from D to F and back again will only hamper his growth as a defenseman. Bring up a forward from Rockford and play him. Keep Buff on the backline. ....just in case, I still want him on D even if he scores 4 goals tonight.... They are having trouble doing that with all the injuries. If they think he is a forward, that's fine, try to keep him up there. Personally, I don't really like him on defense for his lack of skating ability and coverage errors, I don't project him to be a decent defensively. Anyways, if you are going to put him up at forward don't put him on the 1st freakin line, as I said after Wed's game. Being big and physical and having a nice slap shot doesn't suit you to play on a team's first line. He can't keep up with Lang and Havlat and doesn't have a good idea of how to play forward. I can see his skating and passing ability hampering any sort of rushes through the neutral zone, as well as his ability to cycle down low and make passes and good decisions. He's better suited on a line that almost always has to dump and chase and forecheck really hard, as well as check the other team's big guns (because one thing Buff will do is finish his checks). It's ridiculously obvious, but put Ruutu (or a less talented Burish) on that line if you really want a physical guy up there. Buff should not be in the top 2 lines. I'll be shocked if Buff has a good game tonight. To me, this isn't putting your players (or team) in the best position to succeed.

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=91020&src=149 Buff will play on the first line tonight. I don't like it.

QUOTE(whitesoxin' @ Dec 6, 2007 -> 10:00 PM) And I'd expect nothing less than criticism from a U of I homer whose username on a White Sox message board is related to Illinois basketball. If you had our team you would be saying the same thing. I had a team in 05 much more talented than this IU team and never guaranteed a NC or a Final Four or anything of the sort. To do so is foolish. If you call "criticism" saying a team won't win the NC, then yes, I am criticizing IU for sure.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Dec 6, 2007 -> 07:29 PM) f***. I'm not even a Grossman fan, but I wanted him to play the rest of the season. Screw Greise, put in Rowand.

QUOTE(whitesoxin' @ Dec 6, 2007 -> 03:05 PM) What? I never reverted my guarentee, I was just pointing out that even if we don't win it all (this being the point in time when you bring back my post in March/April) we will (most likely) still have gone further than your beloved Illini. Sorry for not explaning my tacit statement because I failed to recognize your ten year old intelligence. I'd expect nothing less from a IU homer. Guaranteeing a championship, gotta love it.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Dec 6, 2007 -> 01:09 AM) Lets just turn this into the Rowand inside joke thread. I was looking for 'no, it's painfully boring'

Hey Justin, wanna watch some Scrubs with me?

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Dec 5, 2007 -> 09:36 PM) That's the dumbest thing I think I've ever seen posted on Soxtalk. And this is the smartest thing ever posted on soxtalk

QUOTE(Rex Hudler @ Dec 5, 2007 -> 11:31 PM) USC's loss to Stanford was the greatest upset in college history according to the point spread. They could not find another game where a 40+ point underdog won outright. Yeah, but there are games without lines, i.e. App St and Michigan. To me that's a bigger upset.

Just got back Savard had some weird lines going halfway through the game or so, I'm sure you noticed Keith but for those that didn't hear it, he had Buff up with Havlat and Lang. He said on the postgame that he had to adjust and be more physical up front, but I don't think putting Buff on that line is the answer because he is big. The guy is a defenseman (as of now) with little forward experience and you are going to put him on a line with Havlat and Lang, your '1st' line? I don't like it one bit. He's not good offensively and doens't have hands. I understand the philosophy, but if you want a grinder out there, either throw Ruutu up there and put someone (Sharp, Sammy, Perrault) with Kane/Toews or put someone like Burish or LaPointe up top. He said after the game he will think about that line tomorrow, but seriously, you can't play a defenseman turned forward on your first line, just like that, because he's big and 'grindy,' for lack of a better word. Buff is still a bad, er, BRUTAL skater, and was not very good tonight. Please don't turn him into a first line winger right now. Furthermore, though he has a big shot, he's not a good PP qb, at least not yet. No one bring up the hat trick game, as 2/3 goals were open nets and the 3rd was just a decent shot, which is what he possesses. He is not a good puck mover and he's slow, and any turnover turns into a neutral zone adventure with him. Beyond that, tonight was a game of ridiculous bounces for both teams. Keith I'm gonna disagree with you on Habby because 2/3 goals he had basically no chance on. The one he had the chance on, the backhander, was a wicked shot and that was Kane's blown coverage. The other one off the back boards was brutal defense by 3 diff guys, including Seabrook without a stick, and the shot was immediately put back off him after it was sent wide. The 3rd one was off Zyuzin's leg, no chance there. He was fine tonight and not the reason we lost. Luongo was pretty good but nothing spectacular really. A ton of shots were easy glove saves. Havlat's goal was certainly a ridiculous break, off Luongo off a skate and back into the net. Of course 2 of their 3 were fluke goals, so yeah, just a really odd game from that stand point. Kane almost tied it at the end with a sick move but he didn't have enough room or momentum going in the correct direction to either stuff it home or actually shelf it somehow. The Hawks played a decent game, certainly not a bad game, but Vancouver just matched them shift for shift for the most part. It was tough to get anything going 5 on 5 minus a few shifts because their dmen played physical and were pretty good positionally. Keith I see what you are saying about Zyuzin...and Sopel had some problems with the puck tonight as well. Zyuzin had a better 3rd period on the PP and pinching in a few times but early on he was pretty mediocre. The pickings, however, are slim back there, and someone's gotta play. I don't know who should be getting the 5/6 spots right now...but it'd sure be nice to grab some sort of impact dman sooner than later. And if MagJo ever touches the ice again I will go promptly go down there and bring him back to the press box. Would have been nice to get a point, but let's rebound Friday and we'll be fine.

QUOTE(whitesoxin' @ Dec 4, 2007 -> 11:22 PM) Please do. No matter how our season ends up I can guarentee it will be better than the Illini who are going to be "Krushed" this year unless Jordan's son becomes his father. Oh, so now your goal is to be better than the Illini and not win the whole thing? Got it. You have the mentality of a 10 year old.

QUOTE(whitesoxin' @ Dec 4, 2007 -> 03:17 PM) I changed my mind on choosing what college to go to many times. First it was DePaul, then Butler, and finally I chose Indiana. (Just like EJ) I would imagine the choice would be much much harder if I was the best basketball player in the country. Lay off him and stop being jealous because we're going to win it all this year. Edit: I should add that you can't be mad at Eric for taking so long to tell Illinois because I'm sure there was still a chance in his mind that he was going to end up going to U of I. I probably screwed over several kids by not telling other schools that I was not going to accept their tuition scholarships (that other students would have gotten if I didn't accept it) but that doesn't make me a bad person because I honestly did not know where I wanted to go until April. Alright, post #805. Will bring this back up sometime in March when you are crying into your candy stripe pants.

QUOTE(SnB @ Dec 3, 2007 -> 08:23 AM) it kinda blows that after waiting 4 years for some kind of bowl that the illini finally make one and it's waaaaaaaay too expensive for me to go to it. bah. A) I didn't get any bowl game while in school, so quit yer b****in B) It went from a reality last night to suddenly not happening? Odd

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Dec 2, 2007 -> 10:28 PM) I like what Herbstreit said the other day...either all conferences have Championship Games or none of them. If there aren't two divisions, then the top two teams play. I hate to use the word 'fair' but it isn't fair. Mizzou definitely got jobbed. Illinois probably shouldn't be in the BCS games, but the Rose Bowl has always been Big10/Pac10 and they are the Grandaddy of them all...so, I can't use that as an excuse. Also, the Cotton Bowl has the Big 12 runner-up tie-in, so, send an email to the Big 12 commissioner...that's all you can do.. But I agree, Mizzou got jobbed. This is the biggest problem with the 'system' right now.

I obviously don't like Mizzou, but you'd have to be a moron to think Mizzou didn't get screwed in regards to Kansas. Jimbo, they lost in the conference championship, Kansas didn't have the opportunity to lose because they didn't get into it. Kansas is a fine team this year, but there is no good argument to have Kansas in over Mizzou (and using number of losses is ignorant). The mizzou/illinois game next year should be fantastic and have ridiculous hype (maybe a college gameday appearance), though it will be tough to top the excitement of this year's game.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 2, 2007 -> 10:07 PM) I never said he shouldn't win it. He's put up great numbers this year in a system that features him...a lot. I brought up three losses because in those three games Florida was down and needed scores. When forced to throw Tebow isn't nearly as good. That was the point Jones was making and thats the point I agree with. I have watched a handful of Florida games this year and when he plays against GOOD teams (not teams like Troy, Florida Atlantic, Western Kentucky, Vanderbilt- oh boy, real tough) and when he's forced to pass he doesn't make all the throws. Yeah, sure Brennan plays cupcakes and doesn't ever play the greatest of competition. But he plays in a system where he's forced to pass the ball, not option it. Moreover, which team is full of 5* recruits? Which team has all-americans on it? Exactly. Any comparison to schedules need to be relative to the amount of talent surrounding them. And Crouch was a stud back in the day, hence why he's a Heismann Trophy winner. But I like how you skipped over other comparisons to Vick or Young. Option qb's suck ass in the NFL. How can you say Tebow is not an option QB? They run nothing but option plays - hence why he has sick rushing numbers. Brennan's system doesn't feature him...a lot? Tebow was forced to throw against actual defenses in the SEC and still had a great year. So they came up short in 3 games. Oh well. You name teams on Florida's schedule, do you really want me to break out Hawaii's schedule? I wouldn't bring up the easy teams Florida played (BTW, Vandy could beat almost everyone on Hawaii's schedule). Hawaii played a cupcake schedule through and through and Florida played an SEC schedule. It's extremely relevant. Oh and you are still on your NFL kick. I didn't skip Young or Vick. I told you it's irrelevant, which it is. Crouch won the Heisman, for good reason, and I could care less if he never played a down in the NFL or went on to win 10 Super Bowls. Neither situation is relevant to the Heisman trophy. Also, Tebow isn't an option quarterback like Crouch was. The guy can throw the ball 10X better than Crouch ever could in college. 2nd in passing efficiency means you must be able to throw the ball. Jones basically said Tebow is good because of the system he plays in (not only false, but ironic) and that he can't make nearly as many throws as Brennan, both of which are inaccurate statements. Go ahead on ESPN and say nice things about Brennan, but Jones made Tebow sound like a complete fluke, when in reality he's having one of the best statistical seasons in college football history. Very ignorant.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Dec 2, 2007 -> 09:56 PM) I think Tebow has had the best season, with McFadden possibly being the best football player (in the sense he's a bit more complete and projects better while still being a great college player at the same time). I'd give the vote to Tebow as statistically he's done somethings no QB has ever done and he's done it while playing elite competition. I would have had no problem going with Brennan if it weren't for him being injured for a couple games and his numbers suffering during that span. Tebow just had a ridiculous year. http://cfn.scout.com/2/705298.html