NAU @ UM

[91catAlum]

The griz should be thanking their lucky stars that such a stupid play was called. I doubt the QB spends much time practicing blocking. Changed the whole dynamic of the game. Cookus was carving their secondary up. He doesn't get kicked out NAU wins going away. But it is what it is and that is a W.

At the same time, everyone seems to forget the Griz used their 4th string QB, lost their starting RB, and were without their starting stud safety. Everyone is quick to bring up how the Cookus ejection Hurt NAU so badly but no one wants to recognize how depleted the Griz were and still earned a big win. It should go both ways. There aren't many teams who could win Amy FCS game on their third and fourth string QBs. Stitt has had that problem every year. It's almost eerie.

When you're QB gets ejected in the first quarter, you're screwed. Your backup didn't get a weeks worth of reps with the first team, the OC didn't have a week to gameplan for the backups strength, etc.
Totally different deal than suffering injuries in previous games.
EWU has a chance to prepare their backup this week. Much better for them than losing Gubrud in the first quarter, don't you agree?

[Grizaddict]

The griz should be thanking their lucky stars that such a stupid play was called. I doubt the QB spends much time practicing blocking. Changed the whole dynamic of the game. Cookus was carving their secondary up. He doesn't get kicked out NAU wins going away. But it is what it is and that is a W.

At the same time, everyone seems to forget the Griz used their 4th string QB, lost their starting RB, and were without their starting stud safety. Everyone is quick to bring up how the Cookus ejection Hurt NAU so badly but no one wants to recognize how depleted the Griz were and still earned a big win. It should go both ways. There aren't many teams who could win Amy FCS game on their third and fourth string QBs. Stitt has had that problem every year. It's almost eerie.

When you're QB gets ejected in the first quarter, you're screwed. Your backup didn't get a weeks worth of reps with the first team, the OC didn't have a week to gameplan for the backups strength, etc.
Totally different deal than suffering injuries in previous games.
EWU has a chance to prepare their backup this week. Much better for them than losing Gubrud in the first quarter, don't you agree?

I can agree with that rational. But I still think it interesting that folks are willing to give NAU a pass for not having Cookus but Griz get no pass being on their 3rd and 4th string. I actually think it's a big time game if Gresch was able to go. The NAU O line was dominated and gave up like 8 sacks. Cookus would have worked some magic out of that but the constant pressure made him have one of the worst games in his career last time he played in Washington Griz. Would have been interesting is all.

[Blackfoot Griz]

Isn't Cookus a sophomore? If so, he should have at least one more game in Missoula.
I'd be willing to bet that somebody on the Cats' defense will ask him "who is your backup" this Saturday!

[onceacat]

The griz should be thanking their lucky stars that such a stupid play was called. I doubt the QB spends much time practicing blocking. Changed the whole dynamic of the game. Cookus was carving their secondary up. He doesn't get kicked out NAU wins going away. But it is what it is and that is a W.

At the same time, everyone seems to forget the Griz used their 4th string QB, lost their starting RB, and were without their starting stud safety. Everyone is quick to bring up how the Cookus ejection Hurt NAU so badly but no one wants to recognize how depleted the Griz were and still earned a big win. It should go both ways. There aren't many teams who could win Amy FCS game on their third and fourth string QBs. Stitt has had that problem every year. It's almost eerie.

When you're QB gets ejected in the first quarter, you're screwed. Your backup didn't get a weeks worth of reps with the first team, the OC didn't have a week to gameplan for the backups strength, etc.
Totally different deal than suffering injuries in previous games.
EWU has a chance to prepare their backup this week. Much better for them than losing Gubrud in the first quarter, don't you agree?

I can agree with that rational. But I still think it interesting that folks are willing to give NAU a pass for not having Cookus but Griz get no pass being on their 3rd and 4th string. I actually think it's a big time game if Gresch was able to go. The NAU O line was dominated and gave up like 8 sacks. Cookus would have worked some magic out of that but the constant pressure made him have one of the worst games in his career last time he played in Washington Griz. Would have been interesting is all.

Losing guys to injury is part of football. 1 or 2 guys out of the 75 that play in a given game is going to suffer a season ending injury. Thats normal. For refs to eject a guy on a textbook clean block is absurd. The video clip of Cookus laying the wood on the Griz defender should be shown to every high school kid as a way to make a clean block and a clean play-playing hard while protecting the important soft tissues between the ears.

I love the targeting rule. I think it needs to be enforced more consistently. And Cookus needs to be held up as an example of what a clean, hard hit looks like.

Ejecting someone for a clean hit is completely unpredictable. Injuries are completely predictable.

Totally different circumstances.

[Grizaddict]

The griz should be thanking their lucky stars that such a stupid play was called. I doubt the QB spends much time practicing blocking. Changed the whole dynamic of the game. Cookus was carving their secondary up. He doesn't get kicked out NAU wins going away. But it is what it is and that is a W.

At the same time, everyone seems to forget the Griz used their 4th string QB, lost their starting RB, and were without their starting stud safety. Everyone is quick to bring up how the Cookus ejection Hurt NAU so badly but no one wants to recognize how depleted the Griz were and still earned a big win. It should go both ways. There aren't many teams who could win Amy FCS game on their third and fourth string QBs. Stitt has had that problem every year. It's almost eerie.

When you're QB gets ejected in the first quarter, you're screwed. Your backup didn't get a weeks worth of reps with the first team, the OC didn't have a week to gameplan for the backups strength, etc.
Totally different deal than suffering injuries in previous games.
EWU has a chance to prepare their backup this week. Much better for them than losing Gubrud in the first quarter, don't you agree?

I can agree with that rational. But I still think it interesting that folks are willing to give NAU a pass for not having Cookus but Griz get no pass being on their 3rd and 4th string. I actually think it's a big time game if Gresch was able to go. The NAU O line was dominated and gave up like 8 sacks. Cookus would have worked some magic out of that but the constant pressure made him have one of the worst games in his career last time he played in Washington Griz. Would have been interesting is all.

Losing guys to injury is part of football. 1 or 2 guys out of the 75 that play in a given game is going to suffer a season ending injury. Thats normal. For refs to eject a guy on a textbook clean block is absurd. The video clip of Cookus laying the wood on the Griz defender should be shown to every high school kid as a way to make a clean block and a clean play-playing hard while protecting the important soft tissues between the ears.

I love the targeting rule. I think it needs to be enforced more consistently. And Cookus needs to be held up as an example of what a clean, hard hit looks like.

Ejecting someone for a clean hit is completely unpredictable. Injuries are completely predictable.

Totally different circumstances.

So you truly think that was not targeting as per the NCAA rule? Either you are truly so biased you are blind, or you are just trolling and trying to pick a fight. 99% of your own fan base can admit that was definitely targeting. I don't love the rule but there was no doubt whatsoever that was the literal definition of targeting. Please read the rule and the two criteria that were easily met and then get back to me.

[Grizaddict]

Onceacat I did the homework for you. Please tell me where none of this happened?



Here is the verbiage directly from the NCAA rule book:

ONE of these has to happen first:

- Making “forcible contact against an opponent with the helmet crown,” or the top of the tackler’s head.
- Making “forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent.”

Cookus made forcible contact to the head of a defenseless opponent, no doubt about that at all. So the first criteria was met.

Once that is established, the play ALSO needs ONE of these "indicators" to be called targeting:

- Launching, or “leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area”
- A crouch and upward thrust to make head or neck contact, even if the hitter still has feet on the ground
- Leading with the “helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area”
- Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet

Cookus met point #3 of the second criteria as well, no question about it. He led with his helmet to the head or neck area of the linebacker.

I actually think this was one of the easier targeting calls refs have had to make in a while. It was reviewed and upheld in the booth and one of the posters on Egriz who knows a replay official in the booth that day said it was a very easy call.

[iaafan]

Once Cookus went down it became a game between two average teams. Jensen and Cookus make them slightly better than average. Nothing about this game stood out to me. Neither team was good on either side of the ball.

[Grizaddict]

The griz should be thanking their lucky stars that such a stupid play was called. I doubt the QB spends much time practicing blocking. Changed the whole dynamic of the game. Cookus was carving their secondary up. He doesn't get kicked out NAU wins going away. But it is what it is and that is a W.

At the same time, everyone seems to forget the Griz used their 4th string QB, lost their starting RB, and were without their starting stud safety. Everyone is quick to bring up how the Cookus ejection Hurt NAU so badly but no one wants to recognize how depleted the Griz were and still earned a big win. It should go both ways. There aren't many teams who could win Amy FCS game on their third and fourth string QBs. Stitt has had that problem every year. It's almost eerie.

No kidding!!! That Stitt is an offensive genius! 44 passing yards for the game with 18 wide receivers on the roster. You guys should give him a lifetime contract extension.

Why do you bash Stitt for using a 4th string QB to throw for 44 and run for over 100 but embrace Choate for doing the exact same thing....with a starting QB. I mean at least the Griz won doing it that way.

[Cataholic]

The griz should be thanking their lucky stars that such a stupid play was called. I doubt the QB spends much time practicing blocking. Changed the whole dynamic of the game. Cookus was carving their secondary up. He doesn't get kicked out NAU wins going away. But it is what it is and that is a W.

At the same time, everyone seems to forget the Griz used their 4th string QB, lost their starting RB, and were without their starting stud safety. Everyone is quick to bring up how the Cookus ejection Hurt NAU so badly but no one wants to recognize how depleted the Griz were and still earned a big win. It should go both ways. There aren't many teams who could win Amy FCS game on their third and fourth string QBs. Stitt has had that problem every year. It's almost eerie.

No kidding!!! That Stitt is an offensive genius! 44 passing yards for the game with 18 wide receivers on the roster. You guys should give him a lifetime contract extension.

Why do you bash Stitt for using a 4th string QB to throw for 44 and run for over 100 but embrace Choate for doing the exact same thing....with a starting QB. I mean at least the Griz won doing it that way.

You got to quit making sh1t up. I love Choate, but I definitely think we have a long ways to improve on offense, especially at QB. I also don’t ever recall Choate categorizing himself as an offensive genius. Stitt is so full of himself as an offensive guru and his 44 yards of passing with 18 receivers clearly shows his prowess. On top of that, one of your scores last week was by SPECIAL TEAMS. You give Stitt a lot of credit for winning last week when I don’t see the data to back it. Given your support of Stitt above, you should be supporting a lifetime extension for him. Or are you just trying to be argumentative again?

By the way, Cookus was 4 of 6 for 44 yards after one series. He was moving the ball very efficiently. His replacement which played for 3.5 quarters passed for 99 yards. NAU has no offense without Cookus. No chance the Griz win that game if Cookus was not thrown out for a ridiculously bad call by the refs.

I am rooting for a Griz win over UNC this week. It might get you into the playoffs and seal an extension for Stitt. We would love to see that!!!! Given your support of Stitt above, I am guessing you are supporting an extension as well????

[Grizaddict]

The griz should be thanking their lucky stars that such a stupid play was called. I doubt the QB spends much time practicing blocking. Changed the whole dynamic of the game. Cookus was carving their secondary up. He doesn't get kicked out NAU wins going away. But it is what it is and that is a W.

At the same time, everyone seems to forget the Griz used their 4th string QB, lost their starting RB, and were without their starting stud safety. Everyone is quick to bring up how the Cookus ejection Hurt NAU so badly but no one wants to recognize how depleted the Griz were and still earned a big win. It should go both ways. There aren't many teams who could win Amy FCS game on their third and fourth string QBs. Stitt has had that problem every year. It's almost eerie.

No kidding!!! That Stitt is an offensive genius! 44 passing yards for the game with 18 wide receivers on the roster. You guys should give him a lifetime contract extension.

Why do you bash Stitt for using a 4th string QB to throw for 44 and run for over 100 but embrace Choate for doing the exact same thing....with a starting QB. I mean at least the Griz won doing it that way.

You got to quit making sh1t up. I love Choate, but I definitely think we have a long ways to improve on offense, especially at QB. I also don’t ever recall Choate categorizing himself as an offensive genius. Stitt is so full of himself as an offensive guru and his 44 yards of passing with 18 receivers clearly shows his prowess. On top of that, one of your scores last week was by SPECIAL TEAMS. You give Stitt a lot of credit for winning last week when I don’t see the data to back it. Given your support of Stitt above, you should be supporting a lifetime extension for him. Or are you just trying to be argumentative again?

By the way, Cookus was 4 of 6 for 44 yards after one series. He was moving the ball very efficiently. His replacement which played for 3.5 quarters passed for 99 yards. NAU has no offense without Cookus. No chance the Griz win that game if Cookus was not thrown out for a ridiculously bad call by the refs.

I am rooting for a Griz win over UNC this week. It might get you into the playoffs and seal an extension for Stitt. We would love to see that!!!! Given your support of Stitt above, I am guessing you are supporting an extension as well????

You can slice it any way you want and you can whine and cry about it any way you want but the bottom line is this, a 4th string QB who hasn't thrown a pass for 2 years should never beat a 2nd string QB. And you can say "if Cookus" all you want just as easily as I could say "if Phillips" or "if Gresch".

The gameplan of running the ball for 75% of their plays, getting completely away from their pass heavy offense, is a coaching move that deserves credit. Also pulling the 3rd string after one series because he knew the team would respond better to their senior Simis is a coaching move that deserves credit.

If Stitt gets this VERY YOUNG Griz team to playoffs, then yep I support an extension. I think the coaching carousel has hurt the Griz more than anything else. We need stability right now.

You still didn't answer my question, why bash Stitt for utilizing a 4th string QB and gameplan to use his strengths as a runner and not a passer (which led to a win over the 9th ranked team by the committee) but embrace Choate for doing the exact same. Heck Simis stats looked just like a MSU game.

[Cataholic]

The griz should be thanking their lucky stars that such a stupid play was called. I doubt the QB spends much time practicing blocking. Changed the whole dynamic of the game. Cookus was carving their secondary up. He doesn't get kicked out NAU wins going away. But it is what it is and that is a W.

At the same time, everyone seems to forget the Griz used their 4th string QB, lost their starting RB, and were without their starting stud safety. Everyone is quick to bring up how the Cookus ejection Hurt NAU so badly but no one wants to recognize how depleted the Griz were and still earned a big win. It should go both ways. There aren't many teams who could win Amy FCS game on their third and fourth string QBs. Stitt has had that problem every year. It's almost eerie.

No kidding!!! That Stitt is an offensive genius! 44 passing yards for the game with 18 wide receivers on the roster. You guys should give him a lifetime contract extension.

Why do you bash Stitt for using a 4th string QB to throw for 44 and run for over 100 but embrace Choate for doing the exact same thing....with a starting QB. I mean at least the Griz won doing it that way.

You got to quit making sh1t up. I love Choate, but I definitely think we have a long ways to improve on offense, especially at QB. I also don’t ever recall Choate categorizing himself as an offensive genius. Stitt is so full of himself as an offensive guru and his 44 yards of passing with 18 receivers clearly shows his prowess. On top of that, one of your scores last week was by SPECIAL TEAMS. You give Stitt a lot of credit for winning last week when I don’t see the data to back it. Given your support of Stitt above, you should be supporting a lifetime extension for him. Or are you just trying to be argumentative again?

By the way, Cookus was 4 of 6 for 44 yards after one series. He was moving the ball very efficiently. His replacement which played for 3.5 quarters passed for 99 yards. NAU has no offense without Cookus. No chance the Griz win that game if Cookus was not thrown out for a ridiculously bad call by the refs.

I am rooting for a Griz win over UNC this week. It might get you into the playoffs and seal an extension for Stitt. We would love to see that!!!! Given your support of Stitt above, I am guessing you are supporting an extension as well????

You can slice it any way you want and you can whine and cry about it any way you want but the bottom line is this, a 4th string QB who hasn't thrown a pass for 2 years should never beat a 2nd string QB. And you can say "if Cookus" all you want just as easily as I could say "if Phillips" or "if Gresch".

The gameplan of running the ball for 75% of their plays, getting completely away from their pass heavy offense, is a coaching move that deserves credit. Also pulling the 3rd string after one series because he knew the team would respond better to their senior Simis is a coaching move that deserves credit.

If Stitt gets this VERY YOUNG Griz team to playoffs, then yep I support an extension. I think the coaching carousel has hurt the Griz more than anything else. We need stability right now.

You still didn't answer my question, why bash Stitt for utilizing a 4th string QB and gameplan to use his strengths as a runner and not a passer (which led to a win over the 9th ranked team by the committee) but embrace Choate for doing the exact same. Heck Simis stats looked just like a MSU game.

Who is whining and crying? It seems you are the poor soul that is saying (insert baby voice here)”why doesn’t Stitt get any credit for winning with a 4th string QB”.

Since you are such a huge Griz fan, you probably know that your 3rd string QB was not taking Stitts play calls when he was in. That was an incredibly insightful move by Stitt to pull him and put in his 4th string guy. It would seem to me that Stitt did not have a choice. But then again, you probably already knew that. An even greater move by Stitt was to not recognize any issues with his 3rd string guy during the week of preparation to not make a change until the game has already started! That is some world class coaching! I am in agreement with you, STITT SHOULD GET A MAJOR EXTENSION IN HIS CONTRACT! I am thinking that you should make up a sign supporting Stitt and wear it around your neck to Saturday’s game at WA Griz. If you do, chances are you won’t be posting here for awhile since you will most likely be hospitalized on Sunday.

As for your last question, I realize that your reading comprehension is not at the same level as us, but as stated earlier, I am pretty sure that I have never embraced Choate not having a passing game. Like I said before, please don’t make sh1t up.

[onceacat]

Onceacat I did the homework for you. Please tell me where none of this happened?



Here is the verbiage directly from the NCAA rule book:

ONE of these has to happen first:

- Making “forcible contact against an opponent with the helmet crown,” or the top of the tackler’s head.
- Making “forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent.”

Cookus made forcible contact to the head of a defenseless opponent, no doubt about that at all. So the first criteria was met.

Once that is established, the play ALSO needs ONE of these "indicators" to be called targeting:

- Launching, or “leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area”
- A crouch and upward thrust to make head or neck contact, even if the hitter still has feet on the ground
- Leading with the “helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area”
- Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet

Cookus met point #3 of the second criteria as well, no question about it. He led with his helmet to the head or neck area of the linebacker.

I actually think this was one of the easier targeting calls refs have had to make in a while. It was reviewed and upheld in the booth and one of the posters on Egriz who knows a replay official in the booth that day said it was a very easy call.

I watched the replay multiple times. Cookus hit the Griz player squarely on the shoulder pad. Negating #1.

Since there is no forcible contact to the head or neck, it can't meet #3 on the indicators. The rule does state taht when it doubt, eject-so I guess it's possible the replay booth didn't see enough to overturn what I thought was a pretty bad call.

I'm not trying to troll-I just don't see how you can teach a guy to block if you cant lead to the shoulder/chest.

[77matcat]

Only watched it once at full speed. No disrespect to Cookus but my impression was it was a powder puff contact that wouldn’t be capable of doing any damage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[BozoneCat]

I’m in full agreement with grizzly fans in favor of giving Stitt an extension. I hope he’s there for the next 20 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Grizaddict]

Onceacat I did the homework for you. Please tell me where none of this happened?



Here is the verbiage directly from the NCAA rule book:

ONE of these has to happen first:

- Making “forcible contact against an opponent with the helmet crown,” or the top of the tackler’s head.
- Making “forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent.”

Cookus made forcible contact to the head of a defenseless opponent, no doubt about that at all. So the first criteria was met.

Once that is established, the play ALSO needs ONE of these "indicators" to be called targeting:

- Launching, or “leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area”
- A crouch and upward thrust to make head or neck contact, even if the hitter still has feet on the ground
- Leading with the “helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area”
- Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet

Cookus met point #3 of the second criteria as well, no question about it. He led with his helmet to the head or neck area of the linebacker.

I actually think this was one of the easier targeting calls refs have had to make in a while. It was reviewed and upheld in the booth and one of the posters on Egriz who knows a replay official in the booth that day said it was a very easy call.

I watched the replay multiple times. Cookus hit the Griz player squarely on the shoulder pad. Negating #1.

Since there is no forcible contact to the head or neck, it can't meet #3 on the indicators. The rule does state taht when it doubt, eject-so I guess it's possible the replay booth didn't see enough to overturn what I thought was a pretty bad call.

I'm not trying to troll-I just don't see how you can teach a guy to block if you cant lead to the shoulder/chest.

Come on now. That is a blatant head to head shot.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BozoneCat]

Come on now. That is a blatant head to head shot.

Blatant? Give me a break. The crown of his helmet is pointing literally 45 degrees away from the defender he's trying to block. I can see both sides of the debate as to whether this should fall under the "targeting" label as far as the rules are written, but a blatant helmet-to-helmet hit this was not.

[Grizaddict]

Come on now. That is a blatant head to head shot.

Blatant? Give me a break. The crown of his helmet is pointing literally 45 degrees away from the defender he's trying to block. I can see both sides of the debate as to whether this should fall under the "targeting" label as far as the rules are written, but a blatant helmet-to-helmet hit this was not.

I posted this for onceacat who said Cookus hit the LB squarely on the shoulder pad. I said it was blatant head to head as there is no way in hell that is a hit on the shoulder pad. I have no idea what you are talking about as far as the crown or where that even fits into the convo. Any hit to the head or neck area is targeting, and it DOESN'T need to be with the crown nor does it even need to be with the helmet.

[BozoneCat]

Come on now. That is a blatant head to head shot.

Blatant? Give me a break. The crown of his helmet is pointing literally 45 degrees away from the defender he's trying to block. I can see both sides of the debate as to whether this should fall under the "targeting" label as far as the rules are written, but a blatant helmet-to-helmet hit this was not.

I posted this for onceacat who said Cookus hit the LB squarely on the shoulder pad. I said it was blatant head to head as there is no way in hell that is a hit on the shoulder pad. I have no idea what you are talking about as far as the crown or where that even fits into the convo. Any hit to the head or neck area is targeting, and it DOESN'T need to be with the crown nor does it even need to be with the helmet.

That’s not even remotely “blatantly” a head-to-head contact block. And if I️ had any respect for your intellect, I’d say you damn well know it. Getting kicked out of a game for something like that is absurd. The pussy-fication of football is being taken to new levels by the Big Sky Conference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cataholic]

Come on now. That is a blatant head to head shot.

Blatant? Give me a break. The crown of his helmet is pointing literally 45 degrees away from the defender he's trying to block. I can see both sides of the debate as to whether this should fall under the "targeting" label as far as the rules are written, but a blatant helmet-to-helmet hit this was not.

I posted this for onceacat who said Cookus hit the LB squarely on the shoulder pad. I said it was blatant head to head as there is no way in hell that is a hit on the shoulder pad. I have no idea what you are talking about as far as the crown or where that even fits into the convo. Any hit to the head or neck area is targeting, and it DOESN'T need to be with the crown nor does it even need to be with the helmet.

That’s not even remotely “blatantly” a head-to-head contact block. And if I️ had any respect for your intellect, I’d say you damn well know it. Getting kicked out of a game for something like that is absurd. The pussy-fication of football is being taken to new levels by the Big Sky Conference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not sure how many saw this, but Stitt was celebrating the ejection on the sideline. Pure bush league. Classless act from a classless leader. Reminds me of the fake run into the punter by the Griz two years ago. The punter was acting like he just lost his leg. After the penalty is assessed, he was walking on the sideline laughing and celebrating.

[go96griz]

Not sure how many saw this, but Stitt was celebrating the ejection on the sideline. Pure bush league. Classless act from a classless leader. Reminds me of the fake run into the punter by the Griz two years ago. The punter was acting like he just lost his leg. After the penalty is assessed, he was walking on the sideline laughing and celebrating.

You're right Cataholic, no coach should show emotion or excitement or celebrate during a game. The perfect coaching role model was Rob Ash. Mr. Khaki Pants stood stoic throughout his tenure, only expressing emotion when one of his players showed too much excitement on the field. Football would be better off if everybody acted like Rob!