visitor
Oct 13, 2005
10:42 AM | | ;
|
Any recap of this game, never expected to see this score
|
| |
|
dave
Oct 13, 2005
10:55 AM | | | ; |
Holy sheetz I think 27-0 tells the story pretty good on its own!
| |
|
lol
Oct 13, 2005
11:10 AM | | | ; |
just doesn`t sound right, Spauldings a strong team, not saying anything bad about invequity just I`m sure everything was expecting a closer game
| |
|
update
Oct 13, 2005
11:49 AM | | | ; |
can anyone tell me what happened here? 27-0?
| |
|
Critter
Oct 13, 2005
12:00 PM | | | ; |
Apparently Spaulding`s QB was out so they used 2 different backup QBs. Wound up throwing 4 interceptions during the game (often giving Invequity the ball in great field position). Invequity scored a TD in the first half and kicked a 60 yard plus field goal on the last play of the half. Offensively, Invequity had a lot of success in short passes that turned into big gainers due to laterals and missed flag pulls (although the last TD was a deep bomb). The game actually had 9 minutes or so left when the refs called it due to the score.
| |
|
wow
Oct 13, 2005
12:20 PM | | | ; |
60 yarder ha...
missing a qb will do it to you everytime...
either way it didn`t matter they would have clinched playoffs either way...
| |
|
tom dempsey
Oct 13, 2005
12:28 PM | |
I was there
Oct 13, 2005
12:52 PM | | | ; |
Don`t remember if they were short of the 40 yard line or just past it but they were around the 40. Add the 17 for the snap to spot of kick and the goal line to posts and you get real close to 60. It was one hell of a kick.
| |
|
Sausage
Oct 13, 2005
1:10 PM | |
Sausage
Oct 13, 2005
1:12 PM | | | ; |
Oh I see now... 17 for snap PLUS the endzone distance.
No wonder the math didn`t seem to add up.
Either way, helluva kick.
| |
|
Impressive
Oct 13, 2005
1:46 PM | | | ; |
Yo AJ aren`t the skins still looking for a kicker
| |
|
Tilt
Oct 13, 2005
1:58 PM | | | ; |
Were they going towards the uprights that were tilted like / instead of --
I guess that would make them siderights? Great kick regardless.
| |
|
?
Oct 13, 2005
2:03 PM | | | ; |
Can we get one of our lineman to hang on the high side to even things out?
| |
|
tilted post
Oct 13, 2005
3:04 PM | | | ; |
i was there and it wasnt very close, it would have gone through from 10 yds back
| |
|
Critter
Oct 13, 2005
3:16 PM | | | ; |
The refs were shocked the kick went through. The one ref who blew his lid before the Invequity/Spaulding game and was screaming at Big Pimpin (calling them losers and telling them to hurry up and get off of the field), was actually so impressed it seemed to calm him down from his rage at Big Pimpin. Afterwards, he only seemed to want to slash their tires instead of taking out a contract on them.
| |
|
bug
Oct 13, 2005
3:34 PM | | | ; |
Hehe....that was pretty funny. That ref definitely popped his top, but deservedly so, they wouldn`t shut the hell up.
| |
|
Invequity
Oct 13, 2005
4:58 PM | | | ; |
Was actually a good game. Spaulding had a good squad and had a lot of class. They didn`t make excuses about losing the game, with or without the QBs. They played well with the exception of missed flag pulls. We just had good chemistry during that game and thought everything out in detail as we played. Game was actually better than the score showed. FOR REAL.
| |
|
Invequity
Oct 13, 2005
4:58 PM | | | ; |
Was actually a good game. Spaulding had a good squad and had a lot of class. They didn`t make excuses about losing the game, with or without the QBs. They played well with the exception of missed flag pulls. We just had good chemistry during that game and thought everything out in detail as we played. Game was actually better than the score showed. FOR REAL.
| |
|
spalding 22
Oct 15, 2005
1:28 PM | | | ; |
NO QB-
NO WR-
Best rusher out for year-
No excuses but that`s three major players missing.
Inequivuty is one hell of a team though.
| |
|
scoobe
Oct 15, 2005
1:29 PM | | | ; |
wow that`s almost half a lineup
| |
|
Outcast 50
Oct 16, 2005
10:22 PM | | | ; |
Cant believe that Spalding lost this bad... They destroyed us today. Old dudes are alright.. they yell at themselves so much..Funny.. We missed a couple people but...
| |
|
soooo
Oct 17, 2005
9:51 AM | | | ; |
does that mean that invequity is good..or that spaulding was just short handed and could beat them with all their players
| |
|
in division
Oct 17, 2005
10:47 AM | | | ; |
Of course invequity is good, why else would they be in first place. Not much difference between teams 1-4 in each division, any given night a team can be beat.
| |
|
answer
Oct 17, 2005
10:47 AM | | | ; |
Inequity is good, but I think it would have been closer if Spalding had all of their players.Can`t say they could have beat them, but the score would have been different.
| |
|
update
Oct 17, 2005
11:06 AM | | | ; |
invequity is a team that has learned how to win, they play the entire game through with the same intensity, however, my opinion if you shut down there laterals you can probably shut down there big plays that would give you the opportunity to get the ball out of there hands and beat them. Laterals is something many teams don`t use as much as they should, invequity does it all day long...
| |
|
quarterback
Oct 17, 2005
10:29 PM | | | ; |
i heard invequity`s QB is their best player..any thoughts?
| |
|
|