FRESNO STATE SHIVS BOISE STATE
Despite being on the west coast, the Fresno State Bulldogs apparently don’t read College Football Resource or the Heisman Pundit. Had they only known about the offensive revolution that Boise State was bringing with them, they surely would not have beaten them last night. Boise’s membership in the “Gang of Six” alone would have intimidated Fresno into the ground. Instead, Fresno jumped on Boise early and stifled them with defense down the stretch. Considering they play USC next week, it is a really good thing they don’t read those guys or they’d lose by 70 instead of 50 next week.
Pat Hill had his team ready for the Gang of Six member.
Loading ...
1
CFR says:
Who knew Zabransky would go into a shell one play into the season and never come out?
One of HP’s rules was you need an efficient QB. No efficient QB, you’re not going to play like you’re on the list. Maybe their next QB won’t piss his pants and they’ll go back to being very good.
Oh well.
November 11th, 2005 at 1:51 pm
2
Kanu says:
Another one of HP’s rules is, when a Gang Of Six team starts sucking, just replace them with another team with a dynamic, balanced, offense that is currently doing well(although ND two best wins this year seem to be their loss to SC and their loss to MSU, both at home). Will Boise be replaced by, hmmm, how about Oregon? They have a dynamic, balanced, offense, have only one loss (to a Gang of Six team no less!), and hell, they beat Fresno State.
Stranko – SWEET pic of Teutel – I’ve been pimping that ’seperated at birth’ for a long, long time.
If Spurrier wins tomorrow you just have to throw up a pic of J.R. Ewing…
November 11th, 2005 at 3:30 pm
3
Solon says:
Actually, CFR, Zabransky is arguably having a better year than he did last year–the difference being that UGA was on the schedule, and Fresno has a much better D than they did last season.
2004: 244 ypg, 8.95 ypa, 16-12 ratio
2005 (against UGA and Fresno): 130 ypg, 5.31 ypa, 0-6 ratio
2005 (against all others): 224 ypg, 7.93 ypa, 15-6 ratio
Keep in mind that he’ll still get to add to his stats against Idaho, Louisiana Tech, and in a bowl game.
I’d guess in the end, his overall production will be up in terms of yards, and way up in terms of TDs. He’ll have more INTs, but, as listed, that’s probably a product of better opponents, not his ineptitude.
But, in any event, I don’t think you can say that the Georgia game destroyed his (and Boise’s) season.
November 11th, 2005 at 3:34 pm
4
Brian says:
One of HP’s rules was you need an efficient QB. No efficient QB, you’re not going to play like you’re on the list. Maybe their next QB won’t piss his pants and they’ll go back to being very good.
Just like all of HP’s “rules,” that’s circular. If you have an efficient QB you will obviously have an efficient offense. This entire debate is you guys saying “Good == Good” and then wanting a cookie. The only substantive difference you’ve offered appears to be “they use their tight ends and fullbacks in the passing game,” which so trivial that I wrote it down on my hand and whenever I need a pick-me-up I look at it and emit a deep belly laugh.
November 11th, 2005 at 3:41 pm
5
CFR says:
Solon,
Yes, but the team’s overall scoring is down thanks to his general suckiness. That’s affected the run game, part of that whole offensive balance thing.
Obviously Boise now appears to be the weak link of the six, although I hold out hope for them. Just not with Zabransky.
Brian-Who shit on your breakfast every day of your life?
November 11th, 2005 at 5:10 pm
6
Kanu says:
Come on CFR. The Spirit of Bill Oliver is a much bigger ball of vitriol than Brian…
November 11th, 2005 at 5:20 pm
7
Kanu says:
CFR,
“Obviously Boise now appears to be the weak link of the six, although I hold out hope for them. Just not with Zabransky.”
Isn’t this antithetical to y’alls argument that the whole thing is based on the “system” rather then specific players/individuals? It seems that you cannot make the statement above(it’s the players not just the scheme/system), while at the same time still dismissing out of hand the argument that Auburn/Borges benefitted massively from the backfield talent rather then only his genius offensive scheme(it’s the scheme/system, not the players).
It seems to me that this is the biggest frustration with the whole “Gang Of Six”, scheme rules! thing – that many of the arguments made in it’s defense seem contradictory & antithetical, and it seems as if you lot are constantly moving the goalposts to try to make your theory work.
As always, I do appreciate that you are bringing thoughts to the table, so I disagree with you respectfully, because I don’t know shit about shit, I’m just a dude trying to get back in to the starting XI at West Brom of all places (god damn that is depressing to think about).
November 11th, 2005 at 5:30 pm
8
RowdyRoddyPiper says:
Okay, not quite sure why the “Big Six” record tracking stops at week 5, but here’s my update (for the sake of brevity, I’m just doing overall records at this point, adjusted for big 6 head to heads):
USC: Non-B6: 9-0 B6: 0-0
CAL: Non B6: 6-3 B6: 0-0
L’Ville: Non-B6: 7-2 B6: 0-0
BSU: Non-B6: 7-3 B6: 0-0
Utah: Non-B6: 5-4 B6: 0-0
Fla: Non-B6: 7-2 B6: 0-0
There have been no incidences of B-6 on B-6 violence as of yet. Though one is getting underway today. Add it all up and you have a total record of 41-14. A winning pct. of .745. I’m going to have to agree with Brian (incidentally I’ve been the one leaving steamers in your wheaties…my bad). You’ve got a population that was dominant last year and is borderline good this year. I would expect much more stability year to year if the theoretical explaination for their success matched the reality of the situation.
November 12th, 2005 at 2:08 pm