Brian Calhoun

Germainfitch1 · Post by **Germainfitch1** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 3:17 pm

11 carries for 42 yards against Temple.

04forheisman · Post by **04forheisman** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 3:20 pm

unfalconbelievable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

UK Peregrine · Post by **UK Peregrine** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 3:23 pm

And this just in, Temple lost 65-0 and only had 45 yards of total offense!

1987alum · Post by **1987alum** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 3:26 pm

To your point, Gfitch, I remember reading an ASU-Temple preview in which the Sun Devil coach said that Temple's defense was built to stop the run first. Clearly, the Sun Devils loved the idea, given their pass-happy attitude.

BG, on the other hand, has a defense that is clearly built to MAC specifications. That is, stop the pass. No, I don't think we're in a position to develop a defense that can consistently stop both against a high level of competition ... yet.

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 3:28 pm

1987alum wrote: BG, on the other hand, has a defense that is clearly built to MAC specifications. That is, stop the pass.

And it works brilliantly to. It took many hours before the coaching staff figured out that if you let the opponent run for 6+ yards a carry they won't pass!

1987alum · Post by **1987alum** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 3:32 pm

hammb wrote:
1987alum wrote: BG, on the other hand, has a defense that is clearly built to MAC specifications. That is, stop the pass.
And it works brilliantly to. It took many hours before the coaching staff figured out that if you let the opponent run for 6+ yards a carry they won't pass!

Hey, if it were easy, anyone could do it.

UK Peregrine · Post by **UK Peregrine** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 3:40 pm

1987alum wrote:To your point, Gfitch, I remember reading an ASU-Temple preview in which the Sun Devil coach said that Temple's defense was built to stop the run first. Clearly, the Sun Devils loved the idea, given their pass-happy attitude.

BG, on the other hand, has a defense that is clearly built to MAC specifications. That is, stop the pass. No, I don't think we're in a position to develop a defense that can consistently stop both against a high level of competition ... yet.

Oh that was his point.

Well in that case, Wisconsin still rushed for 263 yards and averaged 5.0 yards per carry. Better than what we did against their run sure, but to be fair nine players rushed the ball against Temple whereas four Wisconsin players took all of the carries against us. In fact, Calhoun was out of the game after the first quarter.

Germainfitch1 · Post by **Germainfitch1** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 3:41 pm

I actually did not have a point. I was just presenting information

PGY Tiercel · Post by **PGY Tiercel** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 3:44 pm

UK Peregrine wrote:
1987alum wrote:To your point, Gfitch, I remember reading an ASU-Temple preview in which the Sun Devil coach said that Temple's defense was built to stop the run first. Clearly, the Sun Devils loved the idea, given their pass-happy attitude.

BG, on the other hand, has a defense that is clearly built to MAC specifications. That is, stop the pass. No, I don't think we're in a position to develop a defense that can consistently stop both against a high level of competition ... yet.
Oh that was his point. Well in that case, Wisconsin still rushed for 263 yards and averaged 5.0 yards per carry. Better than what we did against their run sure, but to be fair nine players rushed the ball against Temple whereas four Wisconsin players took all of the carries against us. In fact, Calhoun was out of the game after the first quarter.

So what you're saying UK, is let us extrapolate and give Calhoun 168yrds for 4 quarters. Oh and add 6 more minutes of playing time to his first quater appearance.

BGSU33 · Post by **BGSU33** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 3:44 pm

Yeah, if you read some of the postgame stories, it talks about how Alvarez said Wisconsin didn't play most of their starters long because it was hot, they got way ahead early, and they wanted their starters fresh and healthy for their next game at North Carolina. Somewhere in one of the stories he basically said they weren't going to feed Calhoun the ball all game just to give him yards and TDs. I'm not sure he would have matched his runner efforts like he did against us, but I'll at least say Temple held him more in check for 11 carries than we probably did.

UK Peregrine · Post by **UK Peregrine** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 3:49 pm

PGY Tiercel wrote:So what you're saying UK, is let us extrapolate and give Calhoun 168yrds for 4 quarters. Oh and add 6 more minutes of playing time to his first quater appearance.

No, what I'm saying is the best way to stop Calhoun is to be trailing 24-0 after the first quarter, have your offense only get two first downs in the first quarter (five for the game) so Wisconsin perceives you as NO threat and they take Calhoun out of the game. Apparently that's the best way to stop Brian.

BRILLIANT, why didn't we think of that?

1987alum · Post by **1987alum** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 3:53 pm

Germainfitch1 wrote:I actually did not have a point.

As Hunter S. Thompson often said, the thing speaks for itself.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Schadenfreude · Post by **Schadenfreude** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 4:39 pm

Germainfitch1 wrote:11 carries for 42 yards against Temple.

They sat him down early, from what I understand.

Germainfitch1 · Post by **Germainfitch1** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 4:42 pm

1987alum wrote:
Germainfitch1 wrote:I actually did not have a point.
As Hunter S. Thompson often said, the thing speaks for itself.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Hunter S. Thompson also commited Suicide.

1987alum · Post by **1987alum** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 4:44 pm

Germainfitch1 wrote:
1987alum wrote:
Germainfitch1 wrote:I actually did not have a point.
As Hunter S. Thompson often said, the thing speaks for itself.

Sorry, couldn't resist.
Hunter S. Thompson also commited Suicide.

Um, is there a point to that post?

Brian Calhoun

Brian Calhoun

Re: Brian Calhoun