From: davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks)
Subject: Re: Apple Cup (was Re: Washington vs. Arizona)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 15:25:21 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: VMARK Software, Inc.

In article <sHB=cC+@engin.umich.edu> chyang@australorp.engin.umich.edu (Chung Hsiung Yang) writes:
>
>	Well, I give a lot of credits to Arizona's defense and Tomey's game
>plan.  But when a team turn the ball over four times in a defensive battle, 
>it is likely that the team will lose.  BTW, 3/4 turn overs came at the hand
>of young players on the team (Kaufman and Shelley): 

Couple of points.  Kaufman has been the offensive standout for the team of
late.  If the team is going to use him and count on him so much, let's not
hear about "young" players...  He has had a LOT of playing time.

>
>	1. Kaufman dropped punt returns twice and lost the ball once.

But, it did not lead to any points, as Arizona gave the ball right back when
they had a sure 3 pts (and the QB dropped the ball without anyone touching
him)

How many points did Arizona get off of the turnovers???  
I distinctly remember a key situation that pointed to the whole UW situation.
4th down in Arizona territory, close enough for an easy FG.  UW goes for
the 4th down and gets stuffed.  The walk away with no points.  

>	My God!  These are gifts from the Heaven to Arizona.  I don't know.
>I guess it just wasn't to be.  The Huskies was able to move the ball when 
>they needed to and out gain the WildCats all the way until the fourth 
>quarter.  But they beat themselves constantly with the turnovers.   

The Huskies did not appear to move the ball all that well.  They had a whole
lot more than 4 possessions and yet they were only able to score a single
FG.  Arizona handed UW a number of "gifts" as well, such as the fumble on
the 4 yard line or so.  WIthout that you either add 3 or possibly 7 points on
the board for Arizona.  Arizona won the game largely because they stopped 
UW from scoring.  Arizona had little offense until the end of the game, when
they had worn the UW defense down.  They capitalized on their few chances 
where UW did not.  I give Arizona credit for that.  This was the big difference
in the Miami/Arizona game.  Miami capitalized better, and won by 1 point.  They
forced Arizona to go for a LONG FG attempt, and they missed it.  Arizona played
great against Miami as well, but you kept talking your trash about how weak
Arizona was, and how Miami wasn't that great if they could let Arizona do 
what they did.  Well, Washington got DAWGED by Arizona...
>
>That is why I am prettyb bummed out.  If the Huskies had played a flawless 
>game and still got beat, I wouldn`t have been as depressed as I am now.  I 
>would have acknowledge Arizona as unquestionably better than the Huskies.  
>But the Huskies just gave the game away...  Gosh, Darn it!

It is unfortunate that you see it that way.  Of course, you are also quick to
say that Arizona just "gave the game away" against Miami as well.  If Miami
had played a flawless game, and did not have those injuries, they would have
destroyed Arizona... There... If UW played flawless, they might have made it
a closer game than it was...
-- 
David T. Meeks            || "New shadows tugging at the corner of his eye
VMark Software, Inc.      ||  Jostling for attention as the sunlight flares
uvmark!davem@merk.com     ||  Through a curtains tear, shuffling its beams
davem%uvmark@merk.com     ||  As if in nervous anticipation of another day"
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.college