From: paul@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Paul R Krueger)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.college
Subject: Re: UW vs NIU *gasp*
Date: 28 Sep 1992 16:15:34 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

In article <1992Sep28.003152.2664@doug.cae.wisc.edu> tsau@cae.wisc.edu (Johne Tsau) writes:
>I will admit it.  I was one of those who thought UW would blow out
>NIU by at least 20 points.  Even if I wasn't looking ahead to
>OSU, the Badgers were.
   
   I also believed UW would win by about two TDs, but I wouldn't say
   they were looking ahead to the Bucks.

>Wisconsin had 2 fumbles and an interception within the red zone and a
>missed easy field goal and turned what could have been a blow out
>into an almost disaster.
   
   I'm actually glad the game was so close. It proved that the Badgers
   could play a pretty sloppy game and still win. Good teams find a way
   to win poorly played games. And any time you give the ball up 5 times
   and have 0 takeaways, you have to be happy to win.

>NIU scored 2 touchdowns within 1 minute, by picking off another Bevell
>pass to set up the 2nd.  NIU led 17-3 in the 4th quarter.
>Wisconsin then made a nice drive (one pass was  good for 1st on 4th-10) to
>set the score 17-10.  The defence held NIU to almost no yardage at their
>own 5 yard line to force a punt.  UW started deep in NIU territory and
>scored the touchdown, and a VERY close 2 point conversion, with a 2 minutes
>and 10 seconds.   UW's defence allowed NIU to get to their 40 or so, way
>out of fg goal range, and NIU lost on downs.
   
   Overall, the D played well, giving up only one scoring drive of over 26
   yards all day. Super-quick backs like Leshon Johnson will give them
   trouble, but they stuff the line pretty well. The pass D is still suspect,
   but not real bad.

>NIU played well with few mistakes, but while watching... *blah*
>It seemed to me that Wisconsin now has a great running game (fletcher and
>moss had 5-6 yards/carry), but the passing is terrible... can't they
>ever put both together?  It was obvious when we were down that we had
>no long plays in our play book (at least we didnt use them).
   
   UW looks to have a very good running game. 51-269 is a hell of a day
   running the ball considering #1 tailback Fletcher got hurt in the 3rd
   quarter, #2 TB Jason Burns was hurt and didn't play, #1 fullback Montgomery
   didn't play, and #2 FB Brent Moss looked real good at TB after FLetcher
   was hurt.

>caused the turnovers... but they didnt really force any, and they
>didn't appear to be concentrating all that hard.
   
   UW led the nation in takeaways/giveaways going into this game, I wouldn't
   worry about it too much.
     
>BTW, does anyone know the status of Terrel Fletcher, he went out with
>a sore ankle I believe... we need him for Ohio!
   
   I believe he's questionable. I'm really hoping either he or Burns will
   be ready.

>But this win is probably better for them than a blow out would be...
>maybe this will work for us vs OSU...  Go Badgers!
>
   Definitely it's better. I seriously doubt if UW will have any illusions
   of grandeur after this game. You Buckeyes better look out, Bucky's starting
   to roll and your next in his path...

   salty


Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.college