And so I guess it has begun...

[Port Knox]

+1

And the "6" in the box meant the LB's were lined up 6 yards off the LOS

 

[Pennmed Canefan]

I don't save posts or threads but one comment I made during the offseason was that I expected a large cohort of people predicting 6 or so wins to turn on Golden when it happened. The reason is that there is no way for 6 wins to look good. Thus you get the, "I don't care about losing, it's the WAY we lost" and all that other discussion. Realistically, 6 win teams don't go places like KSU and win. They get handled, like we did. They get handled by FSU, handled by VT. They eke out wins against bad teams like BC. That's what 6 win teams look like. The only other 6 win style is a team that really could win 9-10 games but underachieves (see us in 2010). Similarly, the fans turn on the coach because it looks bad. That's not us. We're the true, not-good-enough 6 win team. We're 2007, 1997 Miami.

I guess this will go on. People said this team would "take lumps" and yesterday was a lump but some people are losing it. These guys will probably phase in some young guys and phase out older guys (Moore/Ivery/Bush/Kirby etc in, Gaines/Robinson/Smith/Cornelius/Rodgers/Thompkins types out). They're going to take some beatings anyway. They'll simplify the D and get some younger guys more work on O. If they improve through the year and the guys keep trying hard, that is a good omen. If we stay stagnant, bad.

Bottom line, this year was not going to look good unless we won a lot more games than people were predicting. I'm not somebody who has 100% faith in Golden (it'd be hard to 1 year in), but this was going to be a 3-4 year project and that is for a reason.

What type of 6-6 team did we have last year?

A bit of both I suppose. It was definitely an underachiever in a sense--we had the talent to be better. But these weren't really his players and their tendency to play here-and-there was kind of established. With that said, we didn't have the talent of a 10 win team--maybe an 8 win type of team.

 

[CaneDaddy]

Penn...you're not the only person on the board making these kind of posts...but I just want to say you're missing the point here.

Most of us which are up in arms today are the same people who didn't think we'd be a good team, much less a good defense this year.

It's not WHAT they are are doing against us...it's HOW they are doing it. I can accept guys getting burned or outmuscled since those are the 2 things you would expect from freshman defenders. I expect freshmen to lose one-on-one battles against opposing upperclassmen. That's a given.

What we're talking about here is schematic. If anyone doesn't see it, doesn't realize it, doesn't understand it.....then you're probably not watching close enough. We just walked into a game against a predominately one dimensional K State team with a defensive gameplan that didn't call for pressuring Klein, crowding the box, and selling out to stop the run.

In addition...there's alot of talk of the freshman being confused by the D....well then why the **** are we predominately playing a soft zone???? Opposing receivers are running free, unchecked, unaccounted for at every level of the defense.

I'm sorry....but this post is way off base. A lot of the posters up in arms are among the most respected on this board. There is a SCHEMATIC issue here. "Onfrio" isn't the answer.

Klein killed us through the air, too. He completed passes against man, zone, whatever.

BTW KState won 10 games last year and put up a lot of points against a lot of teams.

We're just bad. For every schematic "correction", there's a counter. There's nothing we can successfully take away right now.

He killed us through the air because we didn't commit to stop ANYTHING.

We sat back in soft cover 2/3 shell and never had more than 6 or 7 in the box. When you can't stop the run it becomes ALOT easier to sneak in big passing plays.

Worst job of preparation/gameplanning I've seen in 30 years of being a Canes fan. Downright embarrassing. "Onfrio" should be ashamed of himself today.

I don't think there is any way I could possibly disagree with this line of reasoning anymore. If you don't see the schematic issue here.....well then there isn't much more to say.

I think it is schematic but it is also personnel. Even when we do blitz, our secondary bites on play action all day. Our corners are looking into the backfield and biting on pump fakes. Those are fundamentals and discipline issues that the players have not learned/perfected yet. You can blame coaching but you can also blame lack of game experience.

Either way, I think if you try to blame one thing then you are wrong. The entire defense is not good (coaching and personnel). At this point, the only thing we can do is play extremely aggressive on defense and let the youngins play.

 

[Miami82]

Penn...you're not the only person on the board making these kind of posts...but I just want to say you're missing the point here.

Most of us which are up in arms today are the same people who didn't think we'd be a good team, much less a good defense this year.

It's not WHAT they are are doing against us...it's HOW they are doing it. I can accept guys getting burned or outmuscled since those are the 2 things you would expect from freshman defenders. I expect freshmen to lose one-on-one battles against opposing upperclassmen. That's a given.

What we're talking about here is schematic. If anyone doesn't see it, doesn't realize it, doesn't understand it.....then you're probably not watching close enough. We just walked into a game against a predominately one dimensional K State team with a defensive gameplan that didn't call for pressuring Klein, crowding the box, and selling out to stop the run.

In addition...there's alot of talk of the freshman being confused by the D....well then why the **** are we predominately playing a soft zone???? Opposing receivers are running free, unchecked, unaccounted for at every level of the defense.

I'm sorry....but this post is way off base. A lot of the posters up in arms are among the most respected on this board. There is a SCHEMATIC issue here. "Onfrio" isn't the answer.

This. If your not going to attack, why even get on the plane much less play the **** game.

 

[Pennmed Canefan]

Penn...you're not the only person on the board making these kind of posts...but I just want to say you're missing the point here.

Most of us which are up in arms today are the same people who didn't think we'd be a good team, much less a good defense this year.

It's not WHAT they are are doing against us...it's HOW they are doing it. I can accept guys getting burned or outmuscled since those are the 2 things you would expect from freshman defenders. I expect freshmen to lose one-on-one battles against opposing upperclassmen. That's a given.

What we're talking about here is schematic. If anyone doesn't see it, doesn't realize it, doesn't understand it.....then you're probably not watching close enough. We just walked into a game against a predominately one dimensional K State team with a defensive gameplan that didn't call for pressuring Klein, crowding the box, and selling out to stop the run.

In addition...there's alot of talk of the freshman being confused by the D....well then why the **** are we predominately playing a soft zone???? Opposing receivers are running free, unchecked, unaccounted for at every level of the defense.

I'm sorry....but this post is way off base. A lot of the posters up in arms are among the most respected on this board. There is a SCHEMATIC issue here. "Onfrio" isn't the answer.

No offense, but this is typical and that's what I was saying when I said this months ago. The posts were bound to be "hey, it's not that we're losing, it's HOW we're losing." Of course it is--it can't be the fact that we're losing because that's what you expected. But teams that aren't good aren't good for a reason. Some aspect of them stinks. You're not 6-6 with a good defense and a good offense that just keep coming up short. You're 6-6 because your offense stinks or your defense stinks or both. And the fanbase always thinks they've identified some fatally flawed schematic design which is practically never the case. You stink because your players stink and/or you're not teaching your system well generally.

Let me just ask you this--if D'Onofrio has designed and employed some fatally flawed scheme, where the **** was Golden? GOLDEN WAS A DC. HE AND D'ONOFRIO ARE TIGHT. When D'Onofrio was off crafting this fatally flawed system, Golden was doing what? Working with the punter? After game one (and year one) of fatal flaw, WHERE WAS GOLDEN? Making UTough or whatever? If we have a fatal flaw, Golden would've corrected it. If not he should already be fired if he (a prior DC) and his defensive coordinator run a defense that a guy who works in a bank somewhere seems to know is fatally flawed.

As for why we're playing what we're playing, I've touched on that. We've played man. We played a lot last game. We have blitzed. It never works. It is generally early in games and gets wrecked then limps back to the playbook. Where I think they are compounding the problem is by having too much in their ****nal to START a game. Then it all goes to ***** and they say, "****, let's just play cover 3 and try to get a handle on this." The problem is that they're not all that great at cover 3 because they're also trying to be great at man, and 5 under, and Tampa 2, and zone blitzing. On top of that, they're asking 20 players to do it instead of 11. They need to pick a strategy, shorten the rotation, and just go IMO. The systematic flaw is too much complexity to begin with--they are basic by necessity when they should be basic by design.

 

[D7.]

Penn...you're not the only person on the board making these kind of posts...but I just want to say you're missing the point here.

Most of us which are up in arms today are the same people who didn't think we'd be a good team, much less a good defense this year.

It's not WHAT they are are doing against us...it's HOW they are doing it. I can accept guys getting burned or outmuscled since those are the 2 things you would expect from freshman defenders. I expect freshmen to lose one-on-one battles against opposing upperclassmen. That's a given.

What we're talking about here is schematic. If anyone doesn't see it, doesn't realize it, doesn't understand it.....then you're probably not watching close enough. We just walked into a game against a predominately one dimensional K State team with a defensive gameplan that didn't call for pressuring Klein, crowding the box, and selling out to stop the run.

In addition...there's alot of talk of the freshman being confused by the D....well then why the **** are we predominately playing a soft zone???? Opposing receivers are running free, unchecked, unaccounted for at every level of the defense.

I'm sorry....but this post is way off base. A lot of the posters up in arms are among the most respected on this board. There is a SCHEMATIC issue here. "Onfrio" isn't the answer.

This. If your not going to attack, why even get on the plane much less play the **** game.

It's their philosophy, plain and simple. It's obvious we're willing to give up chunks of yardage and hope they make a mistake in execution. They're willing to play for third down/red zone and try to win one play out of three to get off the field.

Problem is, we're not even winning one play out of 8 or 9, much less every three.

It's not working, and Golden&friends are going to have to try something else. Or do nothing, and Coach D might be shown the door at the end of the season to placate the howling from the miniscule fanbase. The rest of this season is going to be very interesting, one way or another.

Well said.

 

[CanesAreAble]

Penn...you're not the only person on the board making these kind of posts...but I just want to say you're missing the point here.

Most of us which are up in arms today are the same people who didn't think we'd be a good team, much less a good defense this year.

It's not WHAT they are are doing against us...it's HOW they are doing it. I can accept guys getting burned or outmuscled since those are the 2 things you would expect from freshman defenders. I expect freshmen to lose one-on-one battles against opposing upperclassmen. That's a given.

What we're talking about here is schematic. If anyone doesn't see it, doesn't realize it, doesn't understand it.....then you're probably not watching close enough. We just walked into a game against a predominately one dimensional K State team with a defensive gameplan that didn't call for pressuring Klein, crowding the box, and selling out to stop the run.

In addition...there's alot of talk of the freshman being confused by the D....well then why the **** are we predominately playing a soft zone???? Opposing receivers are running free, unchecked, unaccounted for at every level of the defense.

I'm sorry....but this post is way off base. A lot of the posters up in arms are among the most respected on this board. There is a SCHEMATIC issue here. "Onfrio" isn't the answer.

No offense, but this is typical and that's what I was saying when I said this months ago. The posts were bound to be "hey, it's not that we're losing, it's HOW we're losing." Of course it is--it can't be the fact that we're losing because that's what you expected. But teams that aren't good aren't good for a reason. Some aspect of them stinks. You're not 6-6 with a good defense and a good offense that just keep coming up short. You're 6-6 because your offense stinks or your defense stinks or both. And the fanbase always thinks they've identified some fatally flawed schematic design which is practically never the case. You stink because your players stink and/or you're not teaching your system well generally.

Let me just ask you this--if D'Onofrio has designed and employed some fatally flawed scheme, where the **** was Golden? GOLDEN WAS A DC. HE AND D'ONOFRIO ARE TIGHT. When D'Onofrio was off crafting this fatally flawed system, Golden was doing what? Working with the punter? After game one (and year one) of fatal flaw, WHERE WAS GOLDEN? Making UTough or whatever? If we have a fatal flaw, Golden would've corrected it. If not he should already be fired if he (a prior DC) and his defensive coordinator run a defense that a guy who works in a bank somewhere seems to know is fatally flawed.

As for why we're playing what we're playing, I've touched on that. We've played man. We played a lot last game. We have blitzed. It never works. It is generally early in games and gets wrecked then limps back to the playbook. Where I think they are compounding the problem is by having too much in their ****nal to START a game. Then it all goes to ***** and they say, "****, let's just play cover 3 and try to get a handle on this." The problem is that they're not all that great at cover 3 because they're also trying to be great at man, and 5 under, and Tampa 2, and zone blitzing. On top of that, they're asking 20 players to do it instead of 11. They need to pick a strategy, shorten the rotation, and just go IMO. The systematic flaw is too much complexity to begin with--they are basic by necessity when they should be basic by design.

I forgot to mention this.

Now that we have two games worth of tape, I think it's time to cull the herd a little bit.

Guys like Cornelius and Rodgers need to be sitting. If they're going to look as clueless as true freshmen, then play the true freshmen.

Listening to Golden in the off-season, it seemed like he REALLY wanted Kirby in the lineup getting snaps.

 

[Port Knox]

I hardly saw any blitzing yesterday from the little that I want to remember. It seemed more like a reactive gameplan than a proactive one (defensively). You are right about the rotation, although you don't want young guys getting too many reps early if they are unsure, and getting their @ss kicked. And I think Golden has entrusted his good buddy with creating a scheme that utilizes the STRENGTHS of his team, rather than throwing guys out their in some kind of umbrella scheme in an attempt to rate players on the fly. Somethings gotta give.

 

[Port Knox]

Kirby is done for the year, isn't he? Knee injury I believe it was.

 

[CanesAreAble]

Kirby is done for the year, isn't he? Knee injury I believe it was.

Last I heard they said he MIGHT be back for Georgia Tech.

 

[Port Knox]

Cool!!!! We need him!!!

 

[scrantoncane]

I don't save posts or threads but one comment I made during the offseason was that I expected a large cohort of people predicting 6 or so wins to turn on Golden when it happened. The reason is that there is no way for 6 wins to look good. Thus you get the, "I don't care about losing, it's the WAY we lost" and all that other discussion. Realistically, 6 win teams don't go places like KSU and win. They get handled, like we did. They get handled by FSU, handled by VT. They eke out wins against bad teams like BC. That's what 6 win teams look like. The only other 6 win style is a team that really could win 9-10 games but underachieves (see us in 2010). Similarly, the fans turn on the coach because it looks bad. That's not us. We're the true, not-good-enough 6 win team. We're 2007, 1997 Miami.

I guess this will go on. People said this team would "take lumps" and yesterday was a lump but some people are losing it. These guys will probably phase in some young guys and phase out older guys (Moore/Ivery/Bush/Kirby etc in, Gaines/Robinson/Smith/Cornelius/Rodgers/Thompkins types out). They're going to take some beatings anyway. They'll simplify the D and get some younger guys more work on O. If they improve through the year and the guys keep trying hard, that is a good omen. If we stay stagnant, bad.

Bottom line, this year was not going to look good unless we won a lot more games than people were predicting. I'm not somebody who has 100% faith in Golden (it'd be hard to 1 year in), but this was going to be a 3-4 year project and that is for a reason.

I pretty much agree with all of this, aside from the believing in Golden part. I'm not gonna complain about him after Shannon and Coker.

 

[Jedi Master Cane]

Penn...you're not the only person on the board making these kind of posts...but I just want to say you're missing the point here.

Most of us which are up in arms today are the same people who didn't think we'd be a good team, much less a good defense this year.

It's not WHAT they are are doing against us...it's HOW they are doing it. I can accept guys getting burned or outmuscled since those are the 2 things you would expect from freshman defenders. I expect freshmen to lose one-on-one battles against opposing upperclassmen. That's a given.

What we're talking about here is schematic. If anyone doesn't see it, doesn't realize it, doesn't understand it.....then you're probably not watching close enough. We just walked into a game against a predominately one dimensional K State team with a defensive gameplan that didn't call for pressuring Klein, crowding the box, and selling out to stop the run.

In addition...there's alot of talk of the freshman being confused by the D....well then why the **** are we predominately playing a soft zone???? Opposing receivers are running free, unchecked, unaccounted for at every level of the defense.

I'm sorry....but this post is way off base. A lot of the posters up in arms are among the most respected on this board. There is a SCHEMATIC issue here. "Onfrio" isn't the answer.

No offense, but this is typical and that's what I was saying when I said this months ago. The posts were bound to be "hey, it's not that we're losing, it's HOW we're losing." Of course it is--it can't be the fact that we're losing because that's what you expected. But teams that aren't good aren't good for a reason. Some aspect of them stinks. You're not 6-6 with a good defense and a good offense that just keep coming up short. You're 6-6 because your offense stinks or your defense stinks or both. And the fanbase always thinks they've identified some fatally flawed schematic design which is practically never the case. You stink because your players stink and/or you're not teaching your system well generally.

Let me just ask you this--if D'Onofrio has designed and employed some fatally flawed scheme, where the **** was Golden? GOLDEN WAS A DC. HE AND D'ONOFRIO ARE TIGHT. When D'Onofrio was off crafting this fatally flawed system, Golden was doing what? Working with the punter? After game one (and year one) of fatal flaw, WHERE WAS GOLDEN? Making UTough or whatever? If we have a fatal flaw, Golden would've corrected it. If not he should already be fired if he (a prior DC) and his defensive coordinator run a defense that a guy who works in a bank somewhere seems to know is fatally flawed.

As for why we're playing what we're playing, I've touched on that. We've played man. We played a lot last game. We have blitzed. It never works. It is generally early in games and gets wrecked then limps back to the playbook. Where I think they are compounding the problem is by having too much in their ****nal to START a game. Then it all goes to ***** and they say, "****, let's just play cover 3 and try to get a handle on this." The problem is that they're not all that great at cover 3 because they're also trying to be great at man, and 5 under, and Tampa 2, and zone blitzing. On top of that, they're asking 20 players to do it instead of 11. They need to pick a strategy, shorten the rotation, and just go IMO. The systematic flaw is too much complexity to begin with--they are basic by necessity when they should be basic by design.

Well no offense....but this is typical of the blind defense of coaching that has gone on in the Canes community over the last 10 years.

I remember when we complained about Shannon upon hire and hope sprang eternal at first. Nobody here will want to admit it but Shannon was a sacred cow his first couple of years on the job.

I remember *****ing about Coker's simplistic schemes the year after we won the NC and it got a similar response. I heard "he's a player's coach and the guys love him and will play hard for him" about 4 million times.

I feel even more confident this time around. I'm not an anti Golden guy.....it's not like I have some sort of agenda here. I'm a pro Canes guy....I simply want what is best for the program.

I've seen nothing from Onfrio that makes me believe he's not garbage. I'm actually pretty shocked some of you are completely overlooking the manner in which we were shredded...not the shredding itself.

To each their own but I'm standing by the assessment this his scheme is absolute and complete utter garbage.

 

[drifters1234]

I agree Penn, its going to take time... A lot of our fans place unrealistic expectations on this team for whatever reason... We see threads pop up talking about this backer is better than Spence, our qb play is way better than last year, oh and my favorite "Streeter, TB, and Miller will not be missed thread"... Haha it seemed like a lot of poseters allowed personal biases to influence them into not using logic... This team has a lot of growing to do and it will take time... Too be honest, Ithought our team was better than 6 wins last year and the reason why didnt get blowed out is because we should have beat those teams... Anyway its a new season and we must endure... Its a 4 year project and we must be patient...

Translation. There are a lot of delusional fans, and the same discussions reinvent themselves every year, irrespective of how little experienced talent we have

 

[Staybon]

I don't save posts or threads but one comment I made during the offseason was that I expected a large cohort of people predicting 6 or so wins to turn on Golden when it happened. The reason is that there is no way for 6 wins to look good. Thus you get the, "I don't care about losing, it's the WAY we lost" and all that other discussion. Realistically, 6 win teams don't go places like KSU and win. They get handled, like we did. They get handled by FSU, handled by VT. They eke out wins against bad teams like BC. That's what 6 win teams look like. The only other 6 win style is a team that really could win 9-10 games but underachieves (see us in 2010). Similarly, the fans turn on the coach because it looks bad. That's not us. We're the true, not-good-enough 6 win team. We're 2007, 1997 Miami.

I guess this will go on. People said this team would "take lumps" and yesterday was a lump but some people are losing it. These guys will probably phase in some young guys and phase out older guys (Moore/Ivery/Bush/Kirby etc in, Gaines/Robinson/Smith/Cornelius/Rodgers/Thompkins types out). They're going to take some beatings anyway. They'll simplify the D and get some younger guys more work on O. If they improve through the year and the guys keep trying hard, that is a good omen. If we stay stagnant, bad.

Bottom line, this year was not going to look good unless we won a lot more games than people were predicting. I'm not somebody who has 100% faith in Golden (it'd be hard to 1 year in), but this was going to be a 3-4 year project and that is for a reason.

What type of 6-6 team did we have last year?

exactly what i was thinking. we only won 6 last year but didn't get blown out and were mostly competitive. fans could take that even if it was frustrating watching the DC's scheme last year as well.

 

[Staybon]

+1

And the "6" in the box meant the LB's were lined up 6 yards off the LOS

6 in the box when we should have had 8 in the box. 3rd string QB was in and we still have 6/7 in the box with a safety playing center field. the players weren't the only ones who quit.

 

[Pennmed Canefan]

Jedi,

Assuming you read the post, I acknowledged where I think the coaching has compounded the problem. Considering that, I have no idea how one could conclude that I've "blindly defended" anybody. **** I don't even know what will become of Golden. What I'm saying is that if you predicted 6-6, there's no cute way to get there. If somebody who predicted 6-6 has turned on the coaches, I consider that foolish. If you were a non-believer to begin with, fine. But there was essentially no way for this team to go 6-6 in a fashion that makes one go, "Hey we're extremely well-coached." If there is (and in PRACTICE, not in theory), I don't know it.

Beyond that, I hope you realize that if D'Onofrio's scheme has some intrinsic fatal flaw, Golden is a fool for not recognizing it. I can assure you that D'Onofrio didn't unilaterally compose this defense over the past half-decade or so while Golden worked on the kicking game and O line.

 

[Staybon]

Jedi,

Assuming you read the post, I acknowledged where I think the coaching has compounded the problem. Considering that, I have no idea how one could conclude that I've "blindly defended" anybody. **** I don't even know what will become of Golden. What I'm saying is that if you predicted 6-6, there's no cute way to get there. If somebody who predicted 6-6 has turned on the coaches, I consider that foolish. If you were a non-believer to begin with, fine. But there was essentially no way for this team to go 6-6 in a fashion that makes one go, "Hey we're extremely well-coached." If there is (and in PRACTICE, not in theory), I don't know it.

Beyond that, I hope you realize that if D'Onofrio's scheme has some intrinsic fatal flaw, Golden is a fool for not recognizing it. I can assure you that D'Onofrio didn't unilaterally compose this defense over the past half-decade or so while Golden worked on the kicking game and O line.

maybe he's a fool.

 

[Jedi Master Cane]

Jedi,

Assuming you read the post, I acknowledged where I think the coaching has compounded the problem. Considering that, I have no idea how one could conclude that I've "blindly defended" anybody. **** I don't even know what will become of Golden. What I'm saying is that if you predicted 6-6, there's no cute way to get there. If somebody who predicted 6-6 has turned on the coaches, I consider that foolish. If you were a non-believer to begin with, fine. But there was essentially no way for this team to go 6-6 in a fashion that makes one go, "Hey we're extremely well-coached." If there is (and in PRACTICE, not in theory), I don't know it.

Beyond that, I hope you realize that if D'Onofrio's scheme has some intrinsic fatal flaw, Golden is a fool for not recognizing it. I can assure you that D'Onofrio didn't unilaterally compose this defense over the past half-decade or so while Golden worked on the kicking game and O line.

I have zero issue with anyone who criticizes Golden at this point. While I like him...a big part of being a good coach is the ability to spot and amass a competent staff. If Golden is a package deal with Onfrio or if he refuses to get rid of him if these schematical issues continue....then I'll be the first one calling for his head at season's end.

The program is more important than any one coach. Like I said before overall I have a positive opinion of Golden as of right now...but I'm more than willing to change or concede that if something isn't done about Onfrio. This isn't my first rodeo...I've seen a ton of assistants come and go through this program...and to me the ones that are garbage have always been easy to spot.

And there is just zero doubt in my mind Onfrio reaks of garbajo.

 

[tcgrad1014]

Jedi,

Assuming you read the post, I acknowledged where I think the coaching has compounded the problem. Considering that, I have no idea how one could conclude that I've "blindly defended" anybody. **** I don't even know what will become of Golden. What I'm saying is that if you predicted 6-6, there's no cute way to get there. If somebody who predicted 6-6 has turned on the coaches, I consider that foolish. If you were a non-believer to begin with, fine. But there was essentially no way for this team to go 6-6 in a fashion that makes one go, "Hey we're extremely well-coached." If there is (and in PRACTICE, not in theory), I don't know it.

Beyond that, I hope you realize that if D'Onofrio's scheme has some intrinsic fatal flaw, Golden is a fool for not recognizing it. I can assure you that D'Onofrio didn't unilaterally compose this defense over the past half-decade or so while Golden worked on the kicking game and O line.

Actually, I think last year's 6-6 gave some people the notion that we were extremely well coached because of all the drama surrounding the program and the primadonnas he inherited from Shannon. Golden came out after the season and said how we weren't well conditioned and were getting pushed all over the field....what we as fans have known for years. So then we get the "U Tough" business. The message is that we might lose, but we aren't going to get pushed all over the field any more. Well guess what, yesterday was a prison raping. Both sides of the ball got pushed around like a high school team, and then, most importantly, they flat out quit.

So in conclusion I disagree with there not being a "cute way" to get to 6-6. If we hadn't had our **** pushed in by K State's second teamers because we quit, I (and many posters) wouldn't be so ****ed off. This was the first game in Golden's tenure that the team quit on him. Typically I'm not one to question coaches until I see a team quit on the field. I hadn't seen it happen to Golden before yesterday. Now I have.