With the SF game on the horizon, and Harbaugh still talking

The Essential Online Seahawks Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. RATING: PG-13
  • Harbaugh is such an unlikable douche.
    BeahawksSlow
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 11
    Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 6:47 pm


  • FrankTheTank21 wrote:But what shenanigans are we talking about?

    Punching Jim Kelly 20 years ago? Flipping over card tables during poker games with the Bears? Slapping Jim Schwartz on the back?

    I'm just not sure how that relates to his interaction with his players. I think coaches get in trouble when they pull antics ON THEIR PLAYERS without gaining their respect. I remember when Marty Mornhinweg tried to prove a point by kicking all of his players out of the first practice or something like that. It just comes across corny. I'm not privy to what goes on behind closed doors, but all indications are that the players love Harbaugh. It's just a far cry from the Nolan/Singletary days (aka "the dark times").

    BTW I'm a Bruin so I despise Pete Carroll. :D


    It's the entirety of everything. You can boil it down to even the last 7 days. Complaining about the QB hitting rules like a baby, responding to the fight on the sidelines after the late hit on Kaepernick, the very unreasonable arguing and emotional outbursts on the sidelines during a game. It's all pretty ridiculous.

    I really think that most people here actually like him as a football brain and even a "short term motivator" - but his personality, his antics, and his track record are something that are just inexcusable in my humble opinion. Honestly, I think I'd be embarrassed to have him is the coach of my favorite team (if I was a Niner fan).
    Image
    User avatar
    nsport
    * NET Sports Handicapper *
     
    Posts: 1460
    Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 9:13 am


  • FrankTheTank21 wrote:But what shenanigans are we talking about?

    Punching Jim Kelly 20 years ago? Flipping over card tables during poker games with the Bears? Slapping Jim Schwartz on the back?

    I'm just not sure how that relates to his interaction with his players. I think coaches get in trouble when they pull antics ON THEIR PLAYERS without gaining their respect. I remember when Marty Mornhinweg tried to prove a point by kicking all of his players out of the first practice or something like that. It just comes across corny. I'm not privy to what goes on behind closed doors, but all indications are that the players love Harbaugh. It's just a far cry from the Nolan/Singletary days (aka "the dark times").

    BTW I'm a Bruin so I despise Pete Carroll. :D


    It's the entirety of everything. You can boil it down to even the last 7 days. Complaining about the QB hitting rules like a baby, responding to the fight on the sidelines after the late hit on Kaepernick, the very unreasonable arguing and emotional outbursts on the sidelines during a game. It's all pretty ridiculous.

    I really think that most people here actually like him as a football brain and even a "short term motivator" - but his personality, his antics, and his track record are something that are just inexcusable in my humble opinion. Honestly, I think I'd be embarrassed to have him is the coach of my favorite team (if I was a Niner fan).
    Image
    User avatar
    nsport
    * NET Sports Handicapper *
     
    Posts: 1460
    Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 9:13 am


  • FrankTheTank21 wrote:I understand the Harbaugh hate, but I think you've gone to great lengths to downplay his accomplishments.

    Harbaugh didn't have Andrew Luck his first year. Tavita Pritchard was the QB, and he beat USC in the Coliseum when Stanford was a 41-point underdog.

    I don't understand the Alex Smith point. Harbaugh revived his moribund career. He doesn't get any credit for developing him as a player?

    Harbaugh never faced adversity? Taking over a floundering program that was 1-11 the year before he got there isn't adversity? Chip Kelly was the head coach of Oregon for 4 years, same number of years as Harbaugh. Kelly was about to get hit with a show-cause penalty after the recruiting scandal, but you don't seem to be accusing him of jumping ship. BTW he took over a solid program that Mike Belotti shepherded for a long time. I'm not downplaying his accomplishments. I'm just pointing out that the situations at Stanford and Oregon were not analogous.

    How does a team go from 1-11 to 12-1 in a power conference with "garbage" recruiting? How does that happen?

    Pete Carroll's run at SC was legendary. He took over for Paul "Can't" Hackett, and returned SC to glory. Carroll is unquestionably a Hall of Fame coach. However, SC is a traditional power. Stanford isn't. Harbaugh's achievements at Stanford shouldn't be dismissed.


    Ha ha ha, cute post. I especially enjoyed the part about Harbaugh taking Stanford from 1-11 to 12-1. Too bad that never happened, woulda made a great story.

    In fact, in Harbaugh's 4 seasons at Stanford, they looked like this:

    2007: 4-8, 7th place in the Pac 10
    2008: 5-7, 6th place in Pac 10
    2009: 8-5, 2nd place in Pac 10, lost bowl game to Oklahoma
    2010: 12-1, 2nd place in Pac 10, beat VA Tech in Orange Bowl

    LOL. And even though he was just a flash in the pan, he still doesn't have the career win percentage of Carroll. Doesn't even come close actually. His career record? 29-21, win pct of .580. Carroll was 90-21, win pct of .811. Any argument about where they started would actually favor Carroll because he inherited a program that was in worse shape and had little funding, where Harbaugh came into a program with a newly renovated stadium and a huge influx of donations to the athletic programs including massive funding for scholarships and facilities. That stuff was done before he even got there.

    One thing you have to give him credit for, in four short seasons, he was able to lose as many games as Carroll did in his entire career at USC.

    Carroll's assistant coaches have actually had greater success than Harbaugh. He knows that and it drives him nuts.

    Even funnier is that he was a colossal douchebag at Stanford, and was making highly questionable statements to the press from day one, like this little gem:
    "Pete Carroll's only got one more year, though. He'll be there one more year. That's what I've heard. I heard it inside the staff." (In fact, Carroll would be at USC for three more years.)
    User avatar
    HansGruber
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2288
    Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 4:39 pm


  • Are we really debating Harbaugh's college coaching career? Dude turned Stanford into a physical team. Of course I cant back that up with numbers, I simply watched the games and grew up with Pac-10 football. Anyone that converts Stanford into a power-rush, physical team, is a savant. Harbaugh IS a savant.

    Do I like him? No. Do I think he's a good coach, hell yes. But, I need to see a bit more before I call him legendary. He's a brilliant running game tactician, simply genius. But, I need to see him do that without being handed a ready made offensive line and RB, a bit.
    @ryanadamdavis
    User avatar
    pehawk
    * Report Button *
     
    Posts: 10544
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:08 pm


  • HansGruber wrote:Ha ha ha, cute post. I especially enjoyed the part about Harbaugh taking Stanford from 1-11 to 12-1. Too bad that never happened, woulda made a great story.

    In fact, in Harbaugh's 4 seasons at Stanford, they looked like this:

    2007: 4-8, 7th place in the Pac 10
    2008: 5-7, 6th place in Pac 10
    2009: 8-5, 2nd place in Pac 10, lost bowl game to Oklahoma
    2010: 12-1, 2nd place in Pac 10, beat VA Tech in Orange Bowl



    In Walt Harris's last year (2006), Stanford went 1-11.

    How was my statement wrong?
    User avatar
    FrankTheTank21
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 23
    Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 10:39 am


  • pehawk wrote:Are we really debating Harbaugh's college coaching career? Dude turned Stanford into a physical team. Of course I cant back that up with numbers, I simply watched the games and grew up with Pac-10 football. Anyone that converts Stanford into a power-rush, physical team, is a savant. Harbaugh IS a savant.

    Do I like him? No. Do I think he's a good coach, hell yes. But, I need to see a bit more before I call him legendary. He's a brilliant running game tactician, simply genius. But, I need to see him do that without being handed a ready made offensive line and RB, a bit.


    A physical team? What makes you say that? Not trying to attack you, I'm honestly curious how you'd define Stanford as "physical".

    I watched their games as well, am a Pac 10 football fanatic. Luck used his size advantage to scramble effectively and Fleener often won his matchups, was able to use his size to break tackles and gain yards, but it's not like they had some bruising run offense that could wear you down. That's why they got stomped by Oregon in 2010. They just didn't have the size or physicality to run at Oregon and control the clock, and their defense just wasn't stout enough to slow down Oregon's offense, so Oregon was able to come back in that game and then just blow them out. That lack of physicality was really apparent when Auburn put a beating on Oregon's offense, the contrast of those games really shows the difference (in 2010) between the Pac-10 and SEC.
    User avatar
    HansGruber
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2288
    Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 4:39 pm


  • Their offense was a lot closer to SF's than the Colt's current offense. And, it was indeed physical for Stanford. He added a toughness.

    I respect the hell our of Harbaugh.
    @ryanadamdavis
    User avatar
    pehawk
    * Report Button *
     
    Posts: 10544
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:08 pm


  • FrankTheTank21 wrote:
    HansGruber wrote:Ha ha ha, cute post. I especially enjoyed the part about Harbaugh taking Stanford from 1-11 to 12-1. Too bad that never happened, woulda made a great story.

    In fact, in Harbaugh's 4 seasons at Stanford, they looked like this:

    2007: 4-8, 7th place in the Pac 10
    2008: 5-7, 6th place in Pac 10
    2009: 8-5, 2nd place in Pac 10, lost bowl game to Oklahoma
    2010: 12-1, 2nd place in Pac 10, beat VA Tech in Orange Bowl



    In Walt Harris's last year (2006), Stanford went 1-11.

    How was my statement wrong?


    Harbaugh didn't take that team from 1-11 to 12-1. He took them from 1-11 to 4-8, then started with a new QB, and took them from 4-8 to 5-7. In year 3, Luck was already obviously the best QB in college football and they still only got from 5-7 to 8-5 and it wasn't that impressive. It wasn't until Harbaugh's final year they finally got from 8-5 to 11-1. And that was after 2 years of playing in the weakest PAC-10 in history, weaker than the ACC, weaker than any division in the NCAA. And they still didn't win anything meaningful. Unless you were impressed by that weak bowl game against a cream puff VA Tech (gimme a break). There's a reason the AP & BCS didn't take Stanford seriously. Sorry that your 49er homerism prevents you from seeing that truth.

    And I think you know how your statement is dishonest, or at the least, not quite the way you're trying to present it.
    User avatar
    HansGruber
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2288
    Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 4:39 pm


  • HansGruber wrote:
    pehawk wrote:Are we really debating Harbaugh's college coaching career? Dude turned Stanford into a physical team. Of course I cant back that up with numbers, I simply watched the games and grew up with Pac-10 football. Anyone that converts Stanford into a power-rush, physical team, is a savant. Harbaugh IS a savant.

    Do I like him? No. Do I think he's a good coach, hell yes. But, I need to see a bit more before I call him legendary. He's a brilliant running game tactician, simply genius. But, I need to see him do that without being handed a ready made offensive line and RB, a bit.


    A physical team? What makes you say that? Not trying to attack you, I'm honestly curious how you'd define Stanford as "physical".

    I watched their games as well, am a Pac 10 football fanatic. Luck used his size advantage to scramble effectively and Fleener often won his matchups, was able to use his size to break tackles and gain yards, but it's not like they had some bruising run offense that could wear you down. That's why they got stomped by Oregon in 2010. They just didn't have the size or physicality to run at Oregon and control the clock, and their defense just wasn't stout enough to slow down Oregon's offense, so Oregon was able to come back in that game and then just blow them out. That lack of physicality was really apparent when Auburn put a beating on Oregon's offense, the contrast of those games really shows the difference (in 2010) between the Pac-10 and SEC.


    um...huh?

    In 2012 they ran for 2440 yards. In 2011 they ran for 2738 yards. In 2010 they ran for 2779 yards. In 2009 they ran for 2837 yards.

    What on earth are you talking about? The Harbaugh offense is all about the run game. If you don't know that they you haven't been paying attention. Andrew Luck got the pub, but that was a RUNNING team. Especially with Gerhart. Jeez...they guy had 1800 plus yards and 27 TDs for cryin' out loud.
    Last edited by Marvin49 on Wed Sep 11, 2013 3:38 pm, edited 3 times in total.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3582
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


  • HansGruber wrote:
    FrankTheTank21 wrote:
    HansGruber wrote:Ha ha ha, cute post. I especially enjoyed the part about Harbaugh taking Stanford from 1-11 to 12-1. Too bad that never happened, woulda made a great story.

    In fact, in Harbaugh's 4 seasons at Stanford, they looked like this:

    2007: 4-8, 7th place in the Pac 10
    2008: 5-7, 6th place in Pac 10
    2009: 8-5, 2nd place in Pac 10, lost bowl game to Oklahoma
    2010: 12-1, 2nd place in Pac 10, beat VA Tech in Orange Bowl



    In Walt Harris's last year (2006), Stanford went 1-11.

    How was my statement wrong?


    Harbaugh didn't take that team from 1-11 to 12-1. He took them from 1-11 to 4-8, then started with a new QB, and took them from 4-8 to 5-7. In year 3, Luck was already obviously the best QB in college football and they still only got from 5-7 to 8-5 and it wasn't that impressive. It wasn't until Harbaugh's final year they finally got from 8-5 to 11-1. And that was after 2 years of playing in the weakest PAC-10 in history, weaker than the ACC, weaker than any division in the NCAA. And they still didn't win anything meaningful. Unless you were impressed by that weak bowl game against a cream puff VA Tech (gimme a break). There's a reason the AP & BCS didn't take Stanford seriously. Sorry that your 49er homerism prevents you from seeing that truth.

    And I think you know how your statement is dishonest, or at the least, not quite the way you're trying to present it.


    Again...HUH?

    The team was 1-11 when he took it over. They were 12-1 the last year he was there. He took the team from 1-11 to 12-1.

    Not complicated.

    Trying to paint what he did at Stanford as anything other than miraculous is comical.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3582
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


  • The best line of this thread? A reference to Oregon's "size and physicality".
    @ryanadamdavis
    User avatar
    pehawk
    * Report Button *
     
    Posts: 10544
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:08 pm


  • pehawk wrote:The best line of this thread? A reference to Oregon's "size and physicality".


    LOL. :D

    It sounds like someone has the teams in reverse.

    Team SPEED is what killed at Oregon...and thats one reason why Chip Kelly in Philly scares me a bit. They have some of the horses to make that thing go.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3582
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


  • pehawk wrote:The best line of this thread? A reference to Oregon's "size and physicality".


    Whoever said Oregon had size or physicality? If you're referring to my post, you should go back and re-read it and you'll find that I said Auburn was a physical team that dominated Oregon due to a lack of size and physicality on Oregon's team. I'm getting very bored of you trying to misquote every single one of my posts because you have some trollish vendetta against me. I accepted it in the Shack, but we're in the main forum. Go back to the Shack if you want to troll.


    I also find it hilarious that some 49er moron is quoting stats from 2011 and 2012 to talk about Harbaugh's Cardinal team. Typical of a Niners fan. Probably doesn't realize Harbaugh wasn't there.


    Further, hilarious argument that running yards = physicality. And then you say Oregon wasn't physical. Of course, you probably don't realize that Oregon had far more rushing yards than Stanford every single year that Harbaugh and Gerhart were there. Does that mean Oregon is more physical? Was Oregon a physical team?

    Funniest of all, go to this site and look for yourself at rushing totals per season, with all Div-1a teams ranked:

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/sta ... /year/2007
    Woops. Stanford at 103, with 1334 total yards. According to this chart, Navy and Air Force were the most physical teams in NCAA football that year. :lol:

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/sta ... /year/2008
    Uh oh. Stanford up a bit at 31, but still behind #3-ranked Oregon, #1-ranked Navy, #4-ranked Nevada (a spread offense, but they were apparently far more physical than Stanford), and those physical powerhouses at New Mexico, TCU, Ball State, Connecticut, Air Force, etc.

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/sta ... /year/2009
    Well, Stanford's up to #10 in 2009, but still behind #1 Nevada, Oregon, TCU, Navy, Air Force, and Fresno State. None of whom would be considered "physical", but uh... yeah.

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/sta ... /year/2010
    Back down to #18 in 2010. What I find hilarious about this year is that right above Stanford in the physicality rankings in Virginia Tech. If I have to explain why that's funny, you probably don't watch college football anyway, so why bother. Hilarious that once again, Oregon is up at #5.


    According to the 49er geniuses here, that would make Oregon more of a "physical" offense than Stanford every single year that Harbaugh was coaching.

    But wait a second... didn't they run the notorious Chip Kelly spread offense? And how about Nevada? They ranked consistently in the top-5 as well. I thought they were a spread offense, too?

    Well, yes sir, they were. See, that's kind of the point of a spread offense. It allows runners to take advantage of less men along the defensive front and pick up a lot of yards. Kind of like how Stanford played with those 4-receiver sets and double-TE's, with Luck scrambling out of the backfield and throwing on the move quite a bit.

    This is almost too easy. It's not fair, really.
    User avatar
    HansGruber
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2288
    Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 4:39 pm


  • HansGruber wrote:
    pehawk wrote:Are we really debating Harbaugh's college coaching career? Dude turned Stanford into a physical team. Of course I cant back that up with numbers, I simply watched the games and grew up with Pac-10 football. Anyone that converts Stanford into a power-rush, physical team, is a savant. Harbaugh IS a savant.

    Do I like him? No. Do I think he's a good coach, hell yes. But, I need to see a bit more before I call him legendary. He's a brilliant running game tactician, simply genius. But, I need to see him do that without being handed a ready made offensive line and RB, a bit.


    A physical team? What makes you say that? Not trying to attack you, I'm honestly curious how you'd define Stanford as "physical".

    I watched their games as well, am a Pac 10 football fanatic. Luck used his size advantage to scramble effectively and Fleener often won his matchups, was able to use his size to break tackles and gain yards, but it's not like they had some bruising run offense that could wear you down. That's why they got stomped by Oregon in 2010. They just didn't have the size or physicality to run at Oregon and control the clock, and their defense just wasn't stout enough to slow down Oregon's offense, so Oregon was able to come back in that game and then just blow them out. That lack of physicality was really apparent when Auburn put a beating on Oregon's offense, the contrast of those games really shows the difference (in 2010) between the Pac-10 and SEC.
    Last edited by pehawk on Wed Sep 11, 2013 4:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    @ryanadamdavis
    User avatar
    pehawk
    * Report Button *
     
    Posts: 10544
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:08 pm


  • pehawk wrote:The best line of this thread? A reference to Oregon's "size and physicality".


    I love how you consistently open your mouth and remove all doubt. You really do my work for me. See above post and get back to me on the Oregon thing and how rushing yards equate to physicality.

    And I'm dying to hear your thoughts on how Auburn consistently ranked lower than both Oregon and Stanford in rushing yards, which must mean Auburn was less "physical". Right?
    User avatar
    HansGruber
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2288
    Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 4:39 pm


  • Umm, are you really going to sit here and say Oregon running backs are "similar" to, I don't know, Gerheart?

    If you cant see the difference between Harbaugh's power running game and Oregon's spread running game, then, yeah. Okay, I'll just say you're right?
    @ryanadamdavis
    User avatar
    pehawk
    * Report Button *
     
    Posts: 10544
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:08 pm


  • pehawk wrote:
    HansGruber wrote:
    pehawk wrote:Are we really debating Harbaugh's college coaching career? Dude turned Stanford into a physical team. Of course I cant back that up with numbers, I simply watched the games and grew up with Pac-10 football. Anyone that converts Stanford into a power-rush, physical team, is a savant. Harbaugh IS a savant.

    Do I like him? No. Do I think he's a good coach, hell yes. But, I need to see a bit more before I call him legendary. He's a brilliant running game tactician, simply genius. But, I need to see him do that without being handed a ready made offensive line and RB, a bit.


    A physical team? What makes you say that? Not trying to attack you, I'm honestly curious how you'd define Stanford as "physical".

    I watched their games as well, am a Pac 10 football fanatic. Luck used his size advantage to scramble effectively and Fleener often won his matchups, was able to use his size to break tackles and gain yards, but it's not like they had some bruising run offense that could wear you down. That's why they got stomped by Oregon in 2010. They just didn't have the size or physicality to run at Oregon and control the clock, and their defense just wasn't stout enough to slow down Oregon's offense, so Oregon was able to come back in that game and then just blow them out. That lack of physicality was really apparent when Auburn put a beating on Oregon's offense, the contrast of those games really shows the difference (in 2010) between the Pac-10 and SEC.


    Physical teams like Auburn have defenses that can shut down the run. They have DEs that can dominate at the OL and shutdown an entire offensive game plan - see last few BCS championships for examples. Auburn, Alabama and Texas are teams that I would call "physical". Harbaugh-era Stanford?
    :roll:

    Stanford was completely unable to shutdown Oregon's pass attack, the rush, anything. They got absolutely destroyed by Oregon's offense. I was at that game. It was a joke. Stanford had the lead and should have won, but instead, Oregon started picking off your boy Luck, started smacking around that Stanford offense like a pee-wee team. Stanford made Oregon look like Auburn on defense. Then Oregon's offense would get back on the field and put up another 7 points in less than a minute. It's kinda what put Chip Kelly's offense in the national spotlight and the reason they went to the BCS Championship in 2010. If you actually watched college football that year, you would already know that, and it's amazing to me that you would even argue it.

    Further, it's hilarious to me that you would argue that Stanford was a "physical" team. Tells me you didn't even watch them play. Sure, they weren't Nevada or Oregon, they weren't running some crazy spread offense all the time, but they were more spread than old-school SEC smash-mouth football. In fact, in 2010, that was the argument - that the PAC-10 was all soft, no physicality anywhere (which wasn't true - Cal and USC were physical teams that could beat you with defense). I'm literally stunned that you're trying to argue the opposite. It's actually pretty funny.
    User avatar
    HansGruber
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2288
    Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 4:39 pm


  • Umm, yeah, I think you should probably stop now Hans. I know you think its cool to attack me and stuff on other life issues, but with football, you're out of your depths. You just are, really.

    Stanford/Harbaugh runs from traditional I or split sets, with close to 50% of those runs, coming off the A gap. That means power run game. And, the fact you're mixing and comparing conferences, is well, again, you should really stop. I'm being honest.

    I respect the hell out of what Harbaugh did. Again, he converted a team populated solely of engineers and pre-med students run into a power running game. I apologize if you took me sticking up for that personal or as trolling, but, I would've interjected regardless of who said it on the main forum. It makes us all look bad.
    @ryanadamdavis
    User avatar
    pehawk
    * Report Button *
     
    Posts: 10544
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:08 pm


  • come on guys, let's get things back on track.
    The 46 Defense shall set you free.
    User avatar
    BuddyRyans46
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 142
    Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2012 9:53 am


  • pehawk wrote:Umm, are you really going to sit here and say Oregon running backs are "similar" to, I don't know, Gerheart?

    If you cant see the difference between Harbaugh's power running game and Oregon's spread running game, then, yeah. Okay, I'll just say you're right?


    Say whatever you want. I'm saying Stanford was not a "physical" team, they were not a physical offense, and you have yet to show how they would fall into that category.

    Gerhart was tall and put up a lot of rushing yards. Ok. And TCU put up more. So did Navy and Air Force. And a handful of other teams that were anything but "power running" teams. I'm telling you the "power rush" thing was nonsense, and hype.

    Go back and look at Stanford's 2010 schedule and results. They were putting up 40 points a game. They could run because people were scared of Luck. Luck could scramble and throw on the run, or he could kill you from within the pocket. It's a whole lot easier to run when everyone is expecting you to throw for 400-500 yards a game.

    Take Stanford out of the butter-soft Pac-10 and they weren't so "physical". You want to explain what happened against Oklahoma in 2009? That was their only "physical" opponent from 09-10, and they got whooped. How do you explain those losses to TCU in 2007 and 2008? Those were another of their very few non-PAC10 games, and they got owned and that "power rush" was nowhere to be found. Or how about Notre Dame in 2007? They couldn't put up more than 14 there, either.

    Physical teams don't put up 40 every week, face one strong run team, and suddenly collapse. Just because the press called Harbaugh's run offense a "power rush" that doesn't suddenly make them physical. You prove your physicality by winning those non-conference games, by running even when you face a great defense.

    Let's go back to the Oregon-Stanford matchup. Stanford put up 170 yards rushing to Oregon's 380. LaMichael James, who you just said was not a physical back, ran for 257 yards against Stanford by himself. How is that physical? Just a few weeks after that, Auburn totally shutdown Oregon's offense, and specifically their run game. How do you correlate that?
    User avatar
    HansGruber
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2288
    Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 4:39 pm


  • Back on track.....Harbaughs a douchebag
    It's about damn time TEZ is in the HOF
    tacomahawk
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 375
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:36 am
    Location: T-town


PreviousNext


It is currently Fri Oct 31, 2014 11:43 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information
  • Who is online