MothaFuckin N. Dakota Game Thread

[LoudHogRider]

There was a point in the broadcast where the camera was on both of them right next to each other and Whipple was yelling into the headset while frost wasn't talking at all. It's encouraging if it was indeed Whipple calling the plays.

I mean, FFS, @God is a Husker has been sending him "run the damn ball" messages non-stop since his plane arrived from Pittsburg. The message must have finally gotten through!

 

[alt f4]

Should it have been roughing the passer on the Thompson play though? Looked like the hit was late.

Yes, I agree with a roughing the passer, not sure why they didn't go with that and let replay look at targeting.

 

[vailhusker]

 

[Jim14510]

My wife and kids also say the same thing. Apparently they don't like officials either or maybe they just hate me in general.

Just because a player is hit in head or neck area, it doesn't mean it's targeting. These two are good examples of potential targetings, but the force was not directed at the head of the player. That contact was secondary or caused by the initial force (body or shoulder of defender).

Targeting on a defenseless player (rule 9-1-4) is two parts, defenseless player by rule and attacking or making forcible contact to head or neck area. Don't confuse this rule with the 9-1-3, which is lowering and leading with the crown of the helmet. That rule doesn't require a defenseless player.

He is defenseless "A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass".

Next step is the indicators.
1. Launch, player leaving his feet - not in the Thompson case
2. A crouch followed by upward thrust - not in the Thompson case.
3. Leading with the head to make forcible contact at the head or neck area - this is the one for this case. If you watch it, the chest/shoulder of defender is first contact, so he is not leading with his head.
4. Lowering of the head to make forcible contact with the crown of the helmet. The head basically is parallel to the ground - not in the Thompson case.

Definitely not 1, 2 or 4. Probably just need to watch it again but seemed like #3 to me. I'll take your word for it I guess.

 

[BorWhiskey]

My thoughts as misguided as they may be:

1)”Frost would just say it if it were whipple calling plays. Why not say your OC called plays if that’s what happened?” I think we all view him as an ego maniac at this point and there are strong rumors circulating about the dislike/distrust between he and Whip. In my eyes it’s just as likely that Frost wouldn’t want the recognition to be clearly handed to Whip as it is that he didn’t want to throw his OC under the bus. So, that’s nothing I can use in my guess.

2) I don’t think we trotted out a bunch of plays from last years playbook that aren’t being coached by Whip this year. Too many new players. Which means these are the plays in his playbook regardless if they are of the Frost flavor.

3) Whip said he wanted to hybrid what worked in Frosts playbook with his.

4) Whip said that adjusting during the course of a game will be major for him this year.

5) There were still traditional Whip run game concepts in the second half that we haven’t seen Frost use in the past. So, if Frost did take over duties then he’s also calling plays that aren’t his bag.

Conclusion: I don’t care necessarily who calls the plays if we get execution and a rhythm like we saw in most of the second half. If Whip called the plays and did adjust then fuck yeah. If Frost took the calling over and it pays off, great. I don’t want us to have a pissing match between HC and OC though. That spells doom if the team has to deal with that.

 

[Faux Sean Callahan]

Based on me losing hope in the Frost era, I will bet negative.

I got a leaked video of Frost post game...

Spoiler: Click me