More wrangling over 3 snaps with a lead.   Yep, lack of accountability from a game that is now two weeks old.

I guess it should have been freaking Montee Ball under center instead!

puddyellow:

More wrangling over 3 snaps with a lead.   Yep, lack of accountability from a game that is now two weeks old.

I guess it should have been freaking Montee Ball under center instead!

puddy, don't you know that the UW coach is supposed to be mistake free at all times.  WTF is wrong with you!!

wmvusa:

Just got done reading the Badger Plus article on Phillips.  It makes me wonder even more what the coaching staff was thinking when they put Phillips in against Iowa.  His struggles against Purdue clearly show he had no business being on the field in a critical game.  Hopefully, BB and his staff have inserted this into their lessons learned manual to avoid making the same dumb decision twice.

Which brings me to the second point, BB's lack of accountability.  The Phillips snafu was an opportunity to show some humility.  Instead he reaffirmed the perception that he believes that he is above reproach when it comes to questioning his program.  I think his justification was, it was scripted so we stayed with the plan.  Nice attempt to justify a bad decision. 

 

Not sure how you say that his performance against Purdue justifies him not being on the field against Iowa, considering they played iowa before Purdue.  3 snaps against Iowa, 3 snaps, thats it, not any more not any less.  CP played in a blowout to get snaps, it wasn't in a critical situation, it was in a blowout, when he should be getting snaps. 

To the point about accountability, did you want him to come out and say we made a huge mistake putting Phillips in there, I can't believe I was that stupid.  It was 3 snaps.

puddyellow:

More wrangling over 3 snaps with a lead.   Yep, lack of accountability from a game that is now two weeks old.

I guess it should have been freaking Montee Ball under center instead!

Well, Montee Ball is the 2nd coming, the greatest back since Brent Moss according to WMV.

puddyellow:

More wrangling over 3 snaps with a lead.   Yep, lack of accountability from a game that is now two weeks old.

I guess it should have been freaking Montee Ball under center instead!

Are you suggesting that Bret should have surprised Iowa with the "Wildcat Offense".  Imagine, Clay, Ball and Phillips in the backfield and various other formations.  It surly would have been a triumphant triple threat.

Hope Bret reads you idea and puts it into his script. 

82 Brew:

Not sure how you say that his performance against Purdue justifies him not being on the field against Iowa, considering they played iowa before Purdue.  3 snaps against Iowa, 3 snaps, thats it, not any more not any less.  CP played in a blowout to get snaps, it wasn't in a critical situation, it was in a blowout, when he should be getting snaps. 

To the point about accountability, did you want him to come out and say we made a huge mistake putting Phillips in there, I can't believe I was that stupid.  It was 3 snaps.

Phllips played 5 series in the Purdue game.  In 22 plays the offense generated 48 yards.  He passed 6 times and had one interception.  He must be a great practice player for Bret to have wanted to have him play in a critical game while what was on the field was working. 

I'm glad Phillips got his snaps in a blowout.  That's where he should get them.  The results showed he still needs some work. 

Hopefully you can figure out for yourself how Phillips accomplishments in the Purdue game relate to my comment about the Iowa game. 

I'm now convinced, after PY suggested it, the "Wildcat" would have been a better choice.

wmvusa:

82 Brew:

Not sure how you say that his performance against Purdue justifies him not being on the field against Iowa, considering they played iowa before Purdue.  3 snaps against Iowa, 3 snaps, thats it, not any more not any less.  CP played in a blowout to get snaps, it wasn't in a critical situation, it was in a blowout, when he should be getting snaps. 

To the point about accountability, did you want him to come out and say we made a huge mistake putting Phillips in there, I can't believe I was that stupid.  It was 3 snaps.

Phllips played 5 series in the Purdue game.  In 22 plays the offense generated 48 yards.  He passed 6 times and had one interception.  He must be a great practice player for Bret to have wanted to have him play in a critical game while what was on the field was working. 

I'm glad Phillips got his snaps in a blowout.  That's where he should get them.  The results showed he still needs some work. 

Hopefully you can figure out for yourself how Phillips accomplishments in the Purdue game relate to my comment about the Iowa game. 

I'm now convinced, after PY suggested it, the "Wildcat" would have been a better choice.

 

So you don't think Phillips can play, but you want him in on the Wildcat?  Which is it?  If Phillips has a great game down the road, can I point to you and say that he should have received more snaps in the Iowa game based on a performance that has yet to happen?

82 Brew:

So you don't think Phillips can play, but you want him in on the Wildcat?  Which is it?  If Phillips has a great game down the road, can I point to you and say that he should have received more snaps in the Iowa game based on a performance that has yet to happen?

Figure the first part out yourself.

What you can say is, when Phillips shows that he can contribute more in mop up duty the coaching staff should consider inserting him into a critical game if things are not working.

Also, I never said Phillips cannot play.  I hope he is the next  Tim Tebow, minus the poor or average passing.  I'll leave it to the experts too define what that is ..............or is not.

wmvusa:

82 Brew:

So you don't think Phillips can play, but you want him in on the Wildcat?  Which is it?  If Phillips has a great game down the road, can I point to you and say that he should have received more snaps in the Iowa game based on a performance that has yet to happen?

Figure the first part out yourself.

What you can say is, when Phillips shows that he can contribute more in mop up duty the coaching staff should consider inserting him into a critical game if things are not working.

Also, I never said Phillips cannot play.  I hope he is the next  Tim Tebow, minus the poor or average passing.  I'll leave it to the experts too define what that is ..............or is not.

Tolzien sucked in the OSU and Iowa game also

willie key:

I hope he is the next  Tim Tebow, minus the poor or average passing.

Now how would you define "poor"?  LOL.

Do you think Bret has part ownership in a moped dealership?  Maybe his players would gain some stamina for the fourth quarter if they actually walked to class.

By the way, how did so many players on the team go everywhere they went while they were carrying the football and driving a moped?

If the coaching staff had any sensibility they would make it a team rule that there is no driving mopeds, period!

See, Maurice Moore and the DUI

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/69522902.html

From MrRivals150

Honestly, you could just stand outside the KK bar in Madison and ticket about a dozen players driving home on their moped. This isn't just some rare occurance.

wmvusa:

By the way, how did so many players on the team go everywhere they went while they were carrying the football and driving a moped?

nice structure.

wmvusa:

If the coaching staff had any sensibility they would make it a team rule that there is no driving mopeds, period!

good one.  that would make sense (sarcasm off)

wmvusa:

Honestly, you could just stand outside the KK bar in Madison and ticket about a dozen players driving home on their moped. This isn't just some rare occurance.

honestly?

Top of your game today!

runningwithscissors:

How am I diminishing a win?  wasn't UW supposed to win this game?  Saying that special teams probably had an easier time executing against a 3-5 team how is that diminishing a win? 

Baumer:  "if you make posts that diminish wins because the opponent was poor, then you should do the same when we lose to a opponent who is good."

 Huh, I'm supposed to diminish a loss when we lose to an opponent who is good?  Baumer, you are talking in circles.

If you want to "explain" why it was easier, then you should also give "excuses" why it was tougher.

thebaumer:

runningwithscissors:

How am I diminishing a win?  wasn't UW supposed to win this game?  Saying that special teams probably had an easier time executing against a 3-5 team how is that diminishing a win? 

Baumer:  "if you make posts that diminish wins because the opponent was poor, then you should do the same when we lose to a opponent who is good."

 Huh, I'm supposed to diminish a loss when we lose to an opponent who is good?  Baumer, you are talking in circles.

No, you arent' suppose to diminish it, you are suppose to also give a reason why it was tougher to do well against a tougher opponent.

If you want to "explain" why it was easier, then you should also give "excuses" why it was tougher.

umm, i'm not going to insult the footbal IQ of readers on here by explaining in detail why it is tougher to execute against a tougher opponent.  I think that is a waste of time for everyone.  Ditto for why it is easier to run an offense or any unit against a lesser opponent.  You really think that this needs to be explained?  Please stop......i welcome the different opinions but don't tell me or anyone else on this board what we should be doing or not do.  You are not the e-police.

Plus you are talking about a game from 10-days ago and copying and pasting from a post from 3 days ago.  Let it go man...you'll find you will have much more time on your hand to b!tch about the packers instead.

runningwithscissors:

thebaumer:

runningwithscissors:

How am I diminishing a win?  wasn't UW supposed to win this game?  Saying that special teams probably had an easier time executing against a 3-5 team how is that diminishing a win? 

Baumer:  "if you make posts that diminish wins because the opponent was poor, then you should do the same when we lose to a opponent who is good."

 Huh, I'm supposed to diminish a loss when we lose to an opponent who is good?  Baumer, you are talking in circles.

No, you arent' suppose to diminish it, you are suppose to also give a reason why it was tougher to do well against a tougher opponent.

If you want to "explain" why it was easier, then you should also give "excuses" why it was tougher.

umm, i'm not going to insult the footbal IQ of readers on here by explaining in detail why it is tougher to execute against a tougher opponent.  I think that is a waste of time for everyone.  Ditto for why it is easier to run an offense or any unit against a lesser opponent.  You really think that this needs to be explained?  Please stop......i welcome the different opinions but don't tell me or anyone else on this board what we should be doing or not do.  You are not the e-police.

Plus you are talking about a game from 10-days ago and copying and pasting from a post from 3 days ago.  Let it go man...you'll find you will have much more time on your hand to b!tch about the packers instead.

Didn't say you had to do anything. Just said it if you didn't, showed your bias.

All you have done is is prove that you diminish accomplisments while not excusing poor performances against better teams.

Nobody forced you to respond, so, don't tell me what to post.