• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

NDSU vs the Scats

How badly will the Scats get pummeled this week?

  • 7 or fewer points

    Votes: 9 9.5%
  • 8-14

    Votes: 15 15.8%
  • 15-28

    Votes: 43 45.3%
  • 28-50

    Votes: 23 24.2%
  • more than 50 points

    Votes: 5 5.3%

  • Total voters
    95
  • Poll closed .
I thought the 28 point factor was a big high. I change my mind, that was generous to the Cats. Bison could win this by 50 if they wanted to. We may see their 2nd and 3rd strings in the 3rd Q.
 
35-3....any cat fan who thought they’d be competitive in this one is just fucking delusional.
FTC
 
uofmman1122 said:
behappp said:
uofmman1122 said:
Copper Griz said:
Ifanse can run and run hard. He is impressive. Griz need some of that and an offensive line.
Really don’t like the idea of having to deal with him for the next 3 years.

We shouldn't care. Do we want a team that worries about a team like the Scats or one that can compete with EWOOO , SDSU and hopefully NDSU at some point?
I want a team that worries about and gameplans for some of the best offensive players we’ll have to face, which includes Ifanse. Or did you miss him dragging and pushing several of our defenders consistently for extra yards two weeks ago?

Watching this game, I don't think NDSU "worried" about gameplans for ILfanse and Andersen, they just went out and made their own gameplan for an opposing team that is so one-dimensional. Of course they have the players to do that.

I want a team that has those quality players or at least an EWU quality team that beat the Scats 34-17 in Bozeman.

Sorry if I'm being overcritical of your choice of words, but I think I'm still hurting from losing to a team as average as the Scats at home.
 
bigsky33 said:
This is why the Cats are seeded numer 23 and Bison 1.

Unfortunately cats look like they are #60. Embarrassing the Big Sky. I was hoping they’d at least put up a little fight and represent the conference well.
 
HookedonGriz said:
biga75 said:
35-3....any cat fan who thought they’d be competitive in this one is just f***[*] delusional.
FTC

There were plenty of them. Very unrealistic fans

Unfortunately, the last 3 years have spawned a few unrealistic GRIZ fans. We now know unrealistic all too well. :(
 
I think we’ve seen more chop blocks called in this game than we saw the rest of the season, @ any level.
 
behappp said:
uofmman1122 said:
behappp said:
uofmman1122 said:
Really don’t like the idea of having to deal with him for the next 3 years.

We shouldn't care. Do we want a team that worries about a team like the Scats or one that can compete with EWOOO , SDSU and hopefully NDSU at some point?
I want a team that worries about and gameplans for some of the best offensive players we’ll have to face, which includes Ifanse. Or did you miss him dragging and pushing several of our defenders consistently for extra yards two weeks ago?

Watching this game, I don't think NDSU "worried" about gameplans for ILfanse and Andersen, they just went out and made their own gameplan for an opposing team that is so one-dimensional. Of course they have the players to do that.

I want a team that has those quality players or at least an EWU quality team that beat the Scats 34-17 in Bozeman.

Sorry if I'm being overcritical of your choice of words, but I think I'm still hurting from losing to a team as average as the Scats at home.
Yeah, I think you’re misreading this. We shouldn’t have lost to the cats, and if they don’t get a proper QB, they’ll be one-dimensional.

But as a fan, I can admit that Ifanse is gonna be really good, and the cats will be harder to play than if they didn’t have him. Hopefully we can get to the point where we’re so much better that it doesn’t matter.
 
Would you rather have your team sitting at home this weekend than being embarrassed on national TV with this type of shellacking?

Let's hope, Weber, EWU and Davis rep Big Sky and give us a shred of credibility after this.
 
Back
Top