(01-02-2017 10:48 PM)huskie1stdown Wrote:  I was impressed on how well WMU ran the ball. WMU offense and defense lines played well.
It didn't look like Wisconsin was really into it.

They did manhandle Wisconsin up front, makes me wonder if they didn't get off to such a bad start, they could have controlled that game on the ground.

(01-02-2017 10:40 PM)7 Wrote:  

(01-02-2017 09:54 PM)VegasHuskie Wrote:  

(01-02-2017 07:07 PM)7 Wrote:  WMU certainly didn't embarrass themselves, but they also recovered 5 (FIVE!!!!) fumbles and had a miracle TD pass and still never came close to winning.

So, congrats to them?

Yes, congrats to them. They went undefeated this season and represented themselves very well in their bowl game.

When you say they recovered five fumbles, that is insignificant. If they would have lost any of those fumbles, the following ones would not have occurred. The fumble recovered by Wisconsin would have created a change of possession, and everything that occurred subsequently would have been completely different. Different play calls, different field positions, etc.

We were begging the college football world to respect our efforts against Florida State, so I think we should show a little humility and give props to the Broncos for putting up a good fight against a talented Badger football team.

Huh? If you don't think them recovering five of their own fumbles is lucky, I don't know what to tell you. It's the definition of luck.

If you want to sell me on the Davis touchdown having some measure of skill, I could hear that argument. He deserves credit for making an incredible play on the ball. Still think there's luck to that type of play, but Davis does deserve credit.

Falling on 5 fumbles though? Yeah, it's luck, and you're right, everything would have been different. Hard to draw the conclusion Wisconsin falling on any of those would have helped WMU though.

What if on the first WMU fumble, Wisconsin recovered. Isn't it possible the very next play they could have lined up and thrown a pick six?

Highly improbable, of course. My only point is a recovered fumble by the team already with possession does not alter the course of a game. It is no different than if the player didn't fumble at all. A recovered fumble by the team without possession changes everything.

You say it's "lucky" that WMU recovered all of those fumbles. Perhaps, but we can't know how the game would have played out if one of those was recovered by Wisconsin.

Wisconsin literally threw one incomplete pass today, and it was a dropped TD.

So yes, highly improbable to say the least.

To try to sit here and paint recovering your own fumble 5 times in a game as anything other than blind luck is laughable. It was luck.

WMU had a hell of a season. 13-1 is great by any means.

They were the clearly inferrior team today.

I don't think I'd use the term inferior. Wisconsin had a tight end that saved the day over and over. WMU was able to run. Wisconsin was better but in 10 games I believe WMU beats them 3 or 4 times.

(01-03-2017 01:35 AM)dekalb222 Wrote:  I don't think I'd use the term inferior. Wisconsin had a tight end that saved the day over and over. WMU was able to run. Wisconsin was better but in 10 games I believe WMU beats them 3 or 4 times.

Boy, we really have a bunch of WMU fans on here don't we?

WMU trailed the entire game. At no point in that game was Wisconsin in any danger of losing.

Wisconsin threw 1 incomplete pass the entire game. WMU kept it close, but there was nothing in that game to show WMU could win.

(01-03-2017 01:48 AM)7 Wrote:  

(01-03-2017 01:35 AM)dekalb222 Wrote:  I don't think I'd use the term inferior. Wisconsin had a tight end that saved the day over and over. WMU was able to run. Wisconsin was better but in 10 games I believe WMU beats them 3 or 4 times.

Boy, we really have a bunch of WMU fans on here don't we?

WMU trailed the entire game. At no point in that game was Wisconsin in any danger of losing.

Wisconsin threw 1 incomplete pass the entire game. WMU kept it close, but there was nothing in that game to show WMU could win.

Why do you feel that way? I think the preponderance of people on this board have been mocking the performance of WMU, which I think is unfair.

You're correct, Wisconsin controlled the game, but WMU looked like a real football team on the field. It was a tough task to go on a national stage and beat a team the caliber of Wisconsin. They didn't pull it off, but I think you overstate if you imply that they couldn't have done so.

Before we, as NIU fans, get too high and mighty, let's remember we are a team that played the worst game in the history of collegiate football last year against Boise. We also didn't receive a bowl bid this year. We have nothing to hang our hats on right now.

(01-02-2017 11:07 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  

(01-02-2017 10:48 PM)huskie1stdown Wrote:  I was impressed on how well WMU ran the ball. WMU offense and defense lines played well.
It didn't look like Wisconsin was really into it.

They did manhandle Wisconsin up front, makes me wonder if they didn't get off to such a bad start, they could have controlled that game on the ground.

I understand your focus being on WMU, but that's the problem. You paid no attention to what Wisconsin was doing. WMU didn't manhandle them up front. Wisconsin went into a bend-don't-break defense. They just sat back and said...you can get small gains, but you'll have to do it 12xs or more to score. The Badger D only rushed 4 down linemen(vs 6 WMU blockers). They Brought a 5th on third down occasionally. They sat in a nickel and waited for WMU to make a mistake or a t.o. This is why those 5 fumble recoveries are big. It's exactly how Wisconsin def was playing it, but the ball bounced WMUs way inexplicably 5 times in a row.

The Badger offense did the same after the quick 14 points. They only did one more end around after the 14 point lead....it went for 50 yards. Then they quit end arounds and just ran the ball up the middle(while WMU sold out and had 9 guys in the box! 9! That's goal line defense). Wisconsin is a very conservative minded team. They knew they would easily win after the first quarter and basically shut it down. Remember, this is the same team that played Georgia State to a 23-17 victory. Georgia State did not manhandle them.

And from those of us who bet Wisconsin -7.5, a huge thank you to the Western Michigan kicker for missing that last extra point.

As for the game, Western Michigan really got shelled early by the power of Wisconsin and the winner was decided quickly. It was never really a game. I was impressed how Western Michigan adjusted and both lines played very well, especially in the second half.

In retrospect, Wisconsin was probably the best match up of all the big teams for Western Michigan. Their methodical running game chewed up a ton of clock and there was never a chance for a track meet.

After watching the USC QB in the Rose Bowl, I can see them easily scoring 50+ in the opener against WMU next year. That team will be one of the best 5-10 next year, easily.

Congrats to WMU on the clean season and thanks for representing the winless MAC as well as possible.

Seems to be a lot of jealousy on here, and it's coloring the view of what happened. Total yards were 362 to 280. Big deal. Hardly dominating. And being ahead by 7 or 8 doesn't mean the game is "out of reach" by any stretch of the imagination.

And I'm pretty sure there were not 5 fumbles if you don't include the one where Franklin was already down.

(01-02-2017 09:33 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  [No one likes a liar Illinois fan

If you spent any time reading other threads or not constantly making the same posts over and over again, you would know that I am not / never have been / and never will be an ILLness fan. Of course, your snap judgements are as accurate and lacking in proof as your opinions.

(01-02-2017 04:46 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  

(01-02-2017 04:30 PM)huskiebob Wrote:  

(01-02-2017 04:21 PM)RitzHuskie Wrote:  It was a poor showing by WMU. Wisconsin could have easily scored at the end. Five fumbles. Embarrassing. Our conference was just terrible this year and WMU showed they did not belong in this game.

What? WMU lost by 8 to a Top-10 program and played with class. They were physically overmatched and still hung in there. Their defense really tightened up against the run in the 2nd Half. They just couldn't match up with Fumigalli, the big TE.

The Broncos represented the MAC very well, IMO.

A couple of 8 minute plus drives against one of the best defenses in the country and you call that a poor showing? That's comical

I totally agree on this. They held up much better then I expected while watching the first quarter. After that, it was fairly close. Turn overs made the difference.

I kept saying to myself this totally reminds me of the NIU FL ST game. The only difference, is that WM came back with a score after the devastating turnover, NIU did not. Hence the difference in final score. But, hats off to the Broncos, they played a decent game. Like any other school, turnovers kill. They got lucky that they kept the 5 fumbles.

(01-03-2017 09:40 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  Seems to be a lot of jealousy on here, and it's coloring the view of what happened. Total yards were 362 to 280. Big deal. Hardly dominating. And being ahead by 7 or 8 doesn't mean the game is "out of reach" by any stretch of the imagination.

And I'm pretty sure there were not 5 fumbles if you don't include the one where Franklin was already down.

That's a pretty sizable yardage difference in a game where there were only 111 offensive plays run (which is exceedingly low in this day and age). Wisconsin averaged 7.0 yards per play, WMU averaged 4.7; that's a huge gap.

That said, I thought WMU did fine, they found a way to stay in the game and I thought the adjustments they made after the first 15-20 minutes made a huge difference.

(01-03-2017 09:40 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  Seems to be a lot of jealousy on here, and it's coloring the view of what happened. Total yards were 362 to 280. Big deal. Hardly dominating. And being ahead by 7 or 8 doesn't mean the game is "out of reach" by any stretch of the imagination.

And I'm pretty sure there were not 5 fumbles if you don't include the one where Franklin was already down.

I don't think it's jealousy. Just a reflection of the actual play on the field, not the stats or score. It was really about imposing ones will and playing your own game. Wisconsin defense gave WMU underneath short gains all they wanted. The badgers never needed to deviate from that game plan. Same on offense. 13/14 passing?? I mean, if they wanted to, what do you think the score would be if they threw it 30 times?? WMU would have had to get the safeties, corners, line backers, ball boys, sideline reporters and tackling sleds out of the box and start playing the pass.

Wisconsin was a whisker away from the rose bowl vs USC and even a possible slot in the playoffs. This game was a huge let down for them and they played it like a glorified scrimmage after the early lead. I think Western surprised them a little by staying competitive, but Wisconsin was coasting. It only being an 8 point loss was a blessing for WMU. They fumbled twice on back to back plays before the Davis Td to cut it to 8. The badgers also took a knee at the 6 with over a minute left when they could have let a senior score just because. That's how close 24-16 is to 31-10. I'm not knocking WMU. I was impressed with their play. But never were they the better team on the field.

(01-03-2017 10:33 AM)Rabid Squirrel Wrote:  

(01-03-2017 09:40 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  Seems to be a lot of jealousy on here, and it's coloring the view of what happened. Total yards were 362 to 280. Big deal. Hardly dominating. And being ahead by 7 or 8 doesn't mean the game is "out of reach" by any stretch of the imagination.

And I'm pretty sure there were not 5 fumbles if you don't include the one where Franklin was already down.

I don't think it's jealousy. Just a reflection of the actual play on the field, not the stats or score. It was really about imposing ones will and playing your own game. Wisconsin defense gave WMU underneath short gains all they wanted. The badgers never needed to deviate from that game plan. Same on offense. 13/14 passing?? I mean, if they wanted to, what do you think the score would be if they threw it 30 times?? WMU would have had to get the safeties, corners, line backers, ball boys, sideline reporters and tackling sleds out of the box and start playing the pass.

Wisconsin was a whisker away from the rose bowl vs USC and even a possible slot in the playoffs. This game was a huge let down for them and they played it like a glorified scrimmage after the early lead. I think Western surprised them a little by staying competitive, but Wisconsin was coasting. It only being an 8 point loss was a blessing for WMU. They fumbled twice on back to back plays before the Davis Td to cut it to 8. The badgers also took a knee at the 6 with over a minute left when they could have let a senior score just because. That's how close 24-16 is to 31-10. I'm not knocking WMU. I was impressed with their play. But never were they the better team on the field.

I never said WMU was better. But I will say the game was fairly close. It doesn't matter if Wisconsin was "coasting". That probably happens in a lot of games. If your players can't get up to play in the Cotton Bowl, then that's a problem, especially when they weren't winning by much most of the way.

(01-03-2017 10:23 AM)UIHuskie Wrote:  

(01-03-2017 09:40 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  Seems to be a lot of jealousy on here, and it's coloring the view of what happened. Total yards were 362 to 280. Big deal. Hardly dominating. And being ahead by 7 or 8 doesn't mean the game is "out of reach" by any stretch of the imagination.

And I'm pretty sure there were not 5 fumbles if you don't include the one where Franklin was already down.

That's a pretty sizable yardage difference in a game where there were only 111 offensive plays run (which is exceedingly low in this day and age). Wisconsin averaged 7.0 yards per play, WMU averaged 4.7; that's a huge gap.

That said, I thought WMU did fine, they found a way to stay in the game and I thought the adjustments they made after the first 15-20 minutes made a huge difference.

80 yards is basically one drive.

It's not jealously whatsoever. It was a game where Wisconsin was in control from literally start to finish. It's reality.

If you guys want to sit here and pat WMU on the back and tell them good job, good effort, by all means go for it.

They lost and the MAC went 0-6 in bowl games.

(01-03-2017 10:55 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  80 yards is basically one drive.

An average drive is nowhere near 80 yards long. It's about half of that, which was consistent with WMU's average drive yesterday covering 39 yards (excluding the kneel down to end the first half).

The WMU offensive line dominated Wisconsin at times. Had WMU not gotten down early it would have been a completely different game. WMU looked like the 15th ranked team in the nation out there. Terrell is what held WMU back from a W imo.

(01-03-2017 11:32 AM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  The WMU offensive line dominated Wisconsin at times. Had WMU not gotten down early it would have been a completely different game. WMU looked like the 15th ranked team in the nation out there. Terrell is what held WMU back from a W imo.

WMU ran 30xs for 120 yards and Terrell had a QB rating of 48 and this was against basically a 4 man front, prevent defense. Lowest yards total by 125+ yards for the Bronco offense this year. You and I have different views of dominating.

(01-03-2017 11:38 AM)Rabid Squirrel Wrote:  

(01-03-2017 11:32 AM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  The WMU offensive line dominated Wisconsin at times. Had WMU not gotten down early it would have been a completely different game. WMU looked like the 15th ranked team in the nation out there. Terrell is what held WMU back from a W imo.

WMU ran 30xs for 120 yards and Terrell had a QB rating of 48 and this was against basically a 4 man front, prevent defense. Lowest yards total by 125+ yards for the Bronco offense this year. You and I have different views of dominating.

Wisky averaged 4.8 on the ground, WMU averaged 4.0. I don't call that domination. And they threw for 21 more yards. That isn't dominating either, though 13 out of 14 is obviously very good. Edit: you were responding to MD, not me, sorry.