Official Indiana Site
Indianapolis Star-local media coverage
Indiana Message Board
| |
|
|
|
|
Series History Since 1950
Overall Series Record: Wisconsin leads 21-13-1
Longest Wisconsin winning streak: 6 (1993-2000)
Longest Indiana winning streak: 5 (1986-1992)
Best Wisconsin "run": Wisconsin defeated Indiana six straight times from 1993 to 2000.
Best Indiana "run": Indiana beat Wisconsin 5 straight times from '86 to '92.
Wisconsin record when favored: 18-3-1
Indiana record when favored: 9-2
Tossup games: Split 1-1.
Biggest Wisconsin upset: #90 Wisconsin upsets #63 Indiana 30-14 in 1977.
Biggest Indiana upset: #64 Indiana defeats #40 Wisconsin 20-17 in 1982.
Most important game: Hard to find since both teams have had stretches of being VERY bad. So,
the runaway winner winds up being 1993, when Big Ten champ and #6 ranked Wisconsin defeats 8-4, #26 ranked Indiana by a score
of 27-15.
Least meaningful game: So many to choose from. #85 Wisconsin and #108 Indiana tie 9-9 in 1975 before 65,000 "to be commended" fans
at Camp Randall.
Biggest Wisconsin blowout: Wisconsin defeats Indiana 59-0 in 1999.
Biggest Indiana blowout: Indiana beats Wisconsin 63-32 in 2001.
October 12, 2002
Analysis of Badgermaniac's Keys to the Game
Overall, the Badgers were fairly successful on the ground. However, what was important is that they could not gash the ball in the fourth quarter when they needed to, as one solid five minute drive would have won them the game.
Wisconsin's front four put fairly decent pressure on Hamdan. However, "decent" pressure wasn't nearly enough, as when Hamdan DID have time, he torched the Badger secondary repeatedly.
Well, the less than intimidating IU atmosphere did little to phase the Badgers as they jumped out to a methodical 29-10 lead through nearly 3 quarters.
When the wheels fell off, one would be hard pressed to blame being on the road.
All of the offensive line played a solid game. Dielman had a few moments as good players do, but was not a factor defensively.
Maybe I should quit predicting this year, as my prognosticating has been dismal. Actually, through nearly 3 quarters my game prognosis was right on the money. However, as we all know, the game turned out quite differently than nearly any Badger fan would have guessed..
Badgermaniac's Keys to the Game
The vaunted Badger running game has virtually disappeared this year as the Badgers rank 10th in the Big Ten. However, opponents have been gashing a very thin IU defensive line on the ground this year. If Wisconsin can't run on the Hoosiers, it will be a long game and a sign of truly disturbing future fortunes.
Indiana's linebackers are also undersized, so being physical early could pay dividends late.
Gibran Hamdan is a big and relatively immobile QB. IU will try to run the ball, but since they have not been overly successful, will proably need to throw to win by getting the game into a shootout, so the Badgers must pressure him and force him out of the pocket, a unique circumstance as of late when playing IU QBs.
This could he easier said than done though. Indiana has at least one quality tackle in Enoch DeMar while Wisconsin has not generated a consistent pass rush this year. Without the QB mobility and without a big running threat, look for the Badgers to blitz more than normal.
Last week, the question was how PSU would react to their first road game. This week, the Badgers play on the road for just the second time all season and the first in a month. Indiana is 2-0 at home and has a modest 5 game home winning streak.
With so much Badger youth on the field, this could be a concern.
On the bright side, Wisconsin has not lost to IU in Bloomington since 1992.
Dielman, a converted TE, has been the anchor of the IU defensive line with 7 TFLs through 5 games. He is one of the few Hoosiers who would be considered a playmaker on the defensive side of the ball. Clinkscale is coming off a very poor game against PSU, so a rebound is necessary.
I expect IU to play hard and to hang in the game for a while, but head coach Jerry DiNardo just doesn't have the horses to compete at a high level right now. Look for the Badgers to assert themselves on the offensive line and look to control the ball via the run and quicker passes to keep the heat off of Bollinger. The Badgers lead by a FG at halftime, but take over in the second half to win, 30 to 17.
The Line Says...
Sagarin has Wisconsin as an 8 point favorite. Howell has the Badgers as a 12.5 point favorite with a 70% chance of winning and a projected score of 32-19.
NCAA Stat Rankings
Here is how the two teams rank in terms of NCAA stats:
Rushing Offense: WIS 58, IU 87
Passing Offense: WIS 68, IU 37
Passing Efficiency: WIS 26, IU 71
Total Offense: WIS 75, IU 62
Scoring Offense: WIS 58, IU 90
Rushing Defense: WIS 60, IU 101
Passing Defense: WIS 71, IU 40
Passing Efficiency Defense: WIS 21, IU 73
Total Defense: WIS 61, IU 84
Scoring Defense: WIS 24, IU 95
Turnover Margin: WIS 4, IU 91
October 6, 2001
Indiana Season Preview
Here are the Game Grades
QB: C
In general, Bollinger did a nice job of trying to make plays when he had time to throw. He threw for 220+ yards in 3 quarters. Not all of the passes were pretty, but most
of them got the job done.
He did have two turnovers, though who gets the blame on each is unknown.
RB: D+
Pettus made some nice moves in the open field, but had a tendency to run parallel to the line rather than making his initial move up the field. There was not a consistent
rushing attack, and the backs need to share in the blame.
WR/TE: C+
Evans was also his usual solid self with a productive day, especially in getting behind the IU defense. Evans did have a big fumble however and could not come up
with a pretty well thrown ball on the first play from scrimmage.
The rest of the receivers did not assert themselves despite playing against a poor secondary.
OL: F
DL: F
LB: D-
The other problem was extensive missed tackles. Even Nick Greisen, despite a gaggle of tackles, missed his fair share as the LB's often found themselves out of position and taking bad angles to the ballcarrier.
DB: D-
Even Mike Echols was a sieve, including the ISO plays to Williams up the middle in which he was responsible for filling the hole, only to be out of position.
Special Teams: D-
However, the punt team surrendered a touchdown on a block and the kickoff teams lost the field position battle all day long.
Analysis of Badgermaniac's Keys to the Game
Bollinger threw the ball fairly well, though the other problems the team had rendered this fact moot.
2.) First half miseries
3.) Myler/Brandt vs. Smith/James
4.) Levron Williams in the passing game
5.) Kirk Munden vs. ????
PREDICTION:
Here are my Keys to the Game
On the other side of the ball, the IU defense has been horrible against the pass. The catch here however is that Wisconsin is coming off of
two straight games in which their downfield passing game has been far from effective. While I have supported Brooks Bollinger in the QB debates,
I actually believe that this is the type of game in which Sorgi might be the better option. IU does not have an aggressive front 7 (which would
indicate a need to use Bollinger to exploit overpursuit) and a good downfield passing attack should work wonders.
2.) First half miseries
To the contrary however, if they come out strong and establish some momentum, it could be a game to the wire as IU has nothing to lose and should be playing lose.
3.) Myler/Brandt vs. Smith/James
4.) Levron Williams in the passing game
5.) Kirk Munden vs. ????
PREDICTION:
Here is how the Badgers and Hoosiers compare:
Total offense: WIS 44, IND 80
Wisconsin has played the 25th toughest schedule in the nation. Indiana has played the 23rd toughest schedule in the country.
For Wisconsin...
Anthony Davis is 4th in the nation in yards rushing per game, 27th in all-purpose running, and 97th in total offense per game.
For Indiana...
Levron Williams is 88th in the nation in yards rushing per game, 96th in scoring, 6th in all-purpose running, and 33rd in kickoff returns.
Sagarin has Wisconsin as a 23 point favorite. Howell has the Badgers as a 23 point favorite with an 85% chance of winning.
Projected score is 37-13.
November 11, 2000
Here are the game grades:
QB: A
RB: B-
WR: A
TE: A
OL: A-
DL: B+
LB: B
DB: A-
Special Teams: B
Here are how Badgermaniac's Keys to the Game went:
1.) Football, not track
2.) The Handball Court, Take 3
3.) Re-establish the run
4.) Punting
PREDICTION:
Here are Badgermaniac's Keys to the Game:
1.) Football, not track
2.) The Handball Court, Take 3
3.) Re-establish the run
4.) Punting
PREDICTION:
Sagarin has the game as a 10 point favorite. Howell has Wisconsin as a 13 point favorite with a 68% chance of winning. Projected score is 35-22.
WISCONSIN'S TOTAL OFFENSE VS. INDIANA'S TOTAL DEFENSE:
INDIANA'S TOTAL OFFENSE VS. WISCONSIN'S TOTAL DEFENSE
INDIANA'S RUSHING OFFENSE VS. WISCONSIN'S RUSHING DEFENSE
WISCONSIN'S RUSHING OFFENSE VS. INDIANA'S RUSHING DEFENSE
INDIANA'S PASSING OFFENSE VS. WISCONSIN'S PASSING DEFENSE
Randle-El still can't throw. Wisconsin has been susceptible to the big play, but their pass defense is pretty good. Edge to Wisconsin.
WISCONSIN'S PASSING OFFENSE VS. INDIANA'S PASSING DEFENSE
Wisconsin has been throwing the ball very well since the return of Chambers, while Indiana has been shredded through the air. Look for Wisconsin to put up some big passing numbers (for them). 250 yards is very possible. Edge to Wisconsin.
INDIANA'S SCORING OFFENSE VS. WISCONSIN'S SCORING DEFENSE
Despite giving up some big yardage totals, the Badgers have done a good job of keeping teams out of the endzone. Look for Indiana to put about about 20-24. No advantage.
WISCONSIN'S SCORING OFFENSE VS. INDIANA'S SCORING DEFENSE
Same story here....everyone scores on IU. Look for Wisconsin to be somewhere around 30 at the very least. Edge to Wisconsin.
INDIANA PUNTING VS. WISCONSIN PUNT RETURNING
Indiana's punting is horrible, absolutely dreadful. Big edge to Wisconsin here.
WISCONSIN PUNTING VS. INDIANA PUNT RETURNING
Advantage Wisconsin.
WISCONSIN KICK RETURNS VS. INDIANA'S KICK RETURNS
WISCONSIN 3RD DOWN CONVERSIONS VS. INDIANA'S 3RD DOWN DEFENSE
No real edge here. Wisconsin has been pretty solid here the last few games under Bollinger.
INDIANA 3RD DOWN CONVERSIONS VS. WISCONSIN'S 3RD DOWN DEFENSE
Thanks to their super running game, IU has been solid on 3rd down. No real edge.
TURNOVER MARGIN
Huge edge. To have a chance IU must buck the trend big time.
WISCONSIN PASS RUSH VS. INDIANA'S PASS PROTECTION
While Wisconsin's pass rush has been nowhere as bad as some fans have made it out to be, don't expect any heat on Randle-El, as he simply is the hardest QB to sack in the Big Ten thanks to his escapability. Edge to IU.
INDIANA PASS RUSH VS. WISCONSIN'S PASS PROTECTION
IU doesn't look to be a team that can really take much advantage of Wisconsin's weakness
FG KICKING
What is surprising is how few attempts Indiana has made. No edge.
PENALTIES
No edge.
TIME OF POSSESSION
No edge.
Here is how the two teams rank in terms of NCAA stats:
Rushing Offense: WIS 25, IND 3
Individually...
Michael Bennett is 4th in rushing and 8th in all-purpose yards.
October 16, 1999
Here are the game grades for the Indiana game:
QB: A
Kavanagh did not play too bad, but as the running game got going, he wasn't needed. Kavs first throw was awful, though he was saved by a penalty on the interception. The best thing I could say about Kavanagh is that he was steady, which is pretty important for a backup.
Once again, no turnovers for the QBs which is allowing this team to really hammer the opponents.
RB: A
Bennett was very explosive, getting around the corner much faster than any back we have had in these parts since at least Rufus the Roadrunner. Once in the clear, he is gone.
Faulkner and Unertl each ran hard and were effective against a worn out defense.
WR: A
Wisconsin did not need to throw deep, but the receivers were effective underneath when they were needed.
TE: A
The blocking on the edge was also outstanding
(Sorry, but due to some carelessness on my part, I lost the rest of my '99 and all of my '98 info.)
Return to Game Previews/Reviews Page
Indiana Depth Chart
Indiana Stats
Bollinger's big fault was that the offense couldn't generate any kind of movement early in the game while IU was making their run. While
I agree that he should share in this responsibility (and in fact take a heavy dose of blame here), realize that other players dropping passes,
fumbling, and missing blocks is going to force the offense to grind to a halt regardless of who the QB is.
The blocking wasn't great for the most part, though both backs who played had troubles. Williams was missing that explosion that an effective back needs.
Mark Anelli had one of his better games as a Badger, doing a nice job of finding seams over the middle of the field and making some nice grabs in traffic.
Poor pass protection, including some very poor blitz pickups and of even more significance, they failed to generate any push up front against an inferior defensive front. Once again, short yardage was a concern.
There really is no other way to say it other than they were blown off the line. IU has a decent offensive line, but the gaping and consistent holes in the defensive line left the back half of the Badger defense completely exposed
As expected, IU exploited the OLB's in pass coverage. On nearly every pass play I was watching, they were simply trailing the play.
While there were some passes completed, IU did not really test the DBs frequently via the pass. However, the tackles missed by the DBs could fill an IU highlight tape.
Neuser made his kicks and Munden had a decent day punting the ball, often against the wind.
1.) Downfield passing
While IU did not throw often, when they did they were effective. Starks could not gain inside position on the early deep ball, and Wisconsin's linebackers
consistently ran behind the receivers. IU was smart to not throw at Echols.
Never have I been so correct while not being correct in the years have I done this. IU not only hung in there early, but pounced on every Badger miscue so effectively
that the game was basically over after the first quarter. Never have I seen anything like those first 10+ minutes of the game....in ANY game I have ever seen.
I believe this was a key element in the Hoosiers success on the ground. The Badger ends could not get early penetration/containment, while not only allowed Randle-El
and Williams to get to the outside, but also forced the Badger linebackers to overpursue to the perimeter, freeing the middle of the field for Indiana.
Williams did not do the damage in the passing game, but IU did exploit Wisconsin's linebackers via the pass. They hit for screen passes and mixed in an occasional throw to
the tight end to keep drives going.
Indiana's punting was horrible as expected, though they still managed to win this battle by converting a blocked punt into a touchdown.
This game worried me as I saw some Badger holes that I thought Indiana could exploit, but I didn't think for a minute it would rememble anything I saw on Saturday.
1.) Downfield passing
Randle-El has had his trouble here against Wisconsin in the past and as such, the Badgers will probably load the box with 8 players in
an attempt to contain El's dangerous option attack. If IU can get some production 12+ yards down the field in the passing game, it should
open things up for their rushing attack.
Indiana has been outscored 45-14 in the first half this year, so a quick Badger lead could demoralize the Hoosiers and lead to a lopsided Badger victory.
IU's offensive line has gotten some praise this year, and they could be facing a battered Badger defensive line, especially at the end spots where Wisconsin could
be without their top 3 ends (Sprague, Jones, and McGrew). With El's explosiveness to the outside and Levron Williams' a breakaway threat on the pitch, the Wisconsin ends
(whomever they may be) must hold initial contain and force Randle-El to make some tough decisions in traffic.
Williams is perhaps Indiana's best receiver despite being a tailback. They will attempt to get him in bad Badger matchups with linebackers. A matchup of Williams vs. Jeff
Mack down the field is enough to wake any Badger fan from the deepest sleep. I presume Wisconsin will try to keep Broussard or Boese on Williams. This is one of those matchups
that may come down to scheme.
Munden was better last week and could actually give the Badgers an edge in the punting game for the first time this year. IU is bringing back 5th year seniors who didn't
even begin the year on the roster in an attempt to find someone who can punt (Randle-El has actually punted quite a bit for them).
I still am not convinced that this young Badger game has the killer instinct to knock anyone out with a big haymaker. Even in the game they have played well, they have not
been able to put teams away. While IU is a bad team, I don't see any reason to expect it tomorrow either. I think Randle-El will have a little more room to run than in past
Badger games, and IU will move the ball early. Red-zone effectiveness remains to be seen however. I expect Wisconsin to try to hammer the ball inside, with moderate success before
attempting to exploit IU deep via the pass. Don't be surprised to see Sorgi play a key role if Wisconsin struggles early. Wisconsin 31-Indiana 20.
Passing offense: WIS 77, IND 88
Passing efficiency: WIS 72, IND 50
Rushing offense: WIS 20, IND 45
Scoring offense: WIS 65, IND 89
Total defense: WIS 16, IND 88
Rushing defense: WIS 35, IND 70
Passing defense: WIS 21, IND 90
Passing efficiency defense: WIS 31, IND 109
Scoring defense: WIS 30, IND 91
Turnover margin: WIS 52, IND 97
Jim Sorgi is 61st in passing efficiency and 94th in total offense per game.
Lee Evans is 50th in receptions per game, 70th in all-purpose yards, and 8th in receiving yards per game.
Scott Starks is 59th in interceptions per game.
Kirk Munden is 60th in punting.
Nick Davis is 79th in punt returns and 49th in kickoff returns.
Mike Allen is 45th in field goals per game.
Antwaan Randle-El is 41st in passing efficiency, 71st in punt returns, and 73rd in total offense.
A.C. Carter is 25th in kickoff returns.
Bollinger was knocked out early, but after a few wobbly passes and stalled drives, Sorgi finally got things going and had a productive game. He made solid reads and even managed to buy himself some time in the pocket, a key factor in a number of plays around the endzones. He didn't throw down the field much, but did an excellent job in finding the underneath routes, specifically to the tight ends.
Bennett did a decent job of getting around the corner and breaking tackles, though he often missed his cutback lanes despites some nice gaps. Given the blocking, he probably should have run for even more yards than he did. Unertl did a better job of hitting the holes, but is limited in his ability to break the big plays. Each RB also had a fumble.
Maybe this grade speaks more to Indiana's woeful secondary, but Wisconsin's receivers continually ran free all over the field. They caught everything thrown their way and had a nice mix of big plays and solid third down underneath routes.
Solid perimeter blocking, allowing a number of nice Bennett runs, and their best receiving day of the season. All three tight ends did a tremendous job of staying alive after the initial routes broke down, allowing Sorgi outlets to deliver the ball.
200+ yardage on the ground, and it could have been even more given the play of the OL. The pass protection was also pretty good as well, not perfect of course, but improving greatly.
Indiana had a few running creases from time to time and Wisconsin by no means shut down the run, but they did a pretty good job of getting penetration and forcing the action. Wendell Bryant in particular was all over the place in the IU backfield. On passing plays, the rush was relentless and consistent. However, they couldn't wrap up the elusive Randle-El and spent much of the game chasing.
They had some troubles with the short crossing routes underneath when Randle-El had a lot of time to throw, but Greisen did have a big pick on a similiar pass. Mack had some trouble finding the fill hole on the option a few times early, but for the most part they held their own. Greisen in particular again was all over the field in run support.
Once again, the DBs gave up little down the field as the corners locked down the outside IU receivers. Echols came up with a huge momentum turning interception in the endzone at a key moment. Doering was super in run support.
Nick Davis finally got things going on kick returns and ran with great explosiveness and hit the lanes hard. Stemke had an off game, though was punting on a short field on both punts. Evans KOR was a heads-up play.
Bingo. As everybody expected, Indiana got their yards, but Wisconsin kept the game under control. Giving up 22 points to Indiana is a solid defensive effort.
While Randle-El did break one long one and was more troublesome with some roll-out passes, Wisconsin for the most part made him beat them through the air, something he could not do. Other than the TD, the option defense was solid.
While I think it can be argued the the passing game won them the game, they did establish the run in order to control tempo with over 200 rushing yards.
A non factor simply because Indiana never forced Wisconsin to punt after the initial drive.
I guess 38-27 is pretty close to 43-22. OK prediction, though not great by any stretch.
Wisconsin must control the tempo of the game. Indiana will have their share of yards, but Wisconsin must minimize the big plays and keep the score in the range of 30-20, NOT get into a track meet to the tune of 41-35.
Wisconsin has had great success against Randle-El in terms of limiting his option damage and making him throw the ball, something he has been unable to do. The Wisconsin ends, linebackers, and free safety must play assignment sure football against the option and not allow Randle-El to create and have space on the perimeter.
The last few weeks, Wisconsin's rushing attack has not been dominant. Going back to point number one, I think it is important to establish the run in order to control the tempo of the game, even while they should have success through the air.
On paper, Wisconsin has a huge huge edge in the punting game. This could be crucial while playing a team with a pretty darn good offense like Indiana's. That extra 10-15 yards of field position could be crucial.
Wisconsin is going to really be able to do some things offensively. Indiana hasn't stopped anyone all year and the Badger offense has been showing signs of putting it all together. Look for a balanced attack, and hopefully quite a few points. I also think that while IU will be able to put some drives together, they aren't going to be able to hit for the big plays that put points on the board. IU hangs in there for four quarters, but Badgers win 38-27.
Wisconsin is 9th at 345 YPG while Indiana is 11th at 453 YPG.
Indiana hasn't stopped anybody all year as their defense is among the very worst in the country. Wisconsin's offensive numbers don't look great, but they have been steadily improving as the team has jelled. Edge to Wisconsin here.
Indiana is 4th at 449 YPG while Wisconsin is 6th at 384 YPG.
Likewise, Indiana has moved the ball against everyone but Michigan. Look for them to move the ball tomorrow as well. Edge to Indiana.
Indiana is 1st in the conference at 275 YPG while Wisconsin is 6th at 155 YPG.
Wisconsin's numbers have been slipping all year. Anything under 170 yards should be the goal for the Badgers in this matchup. Edge to Indiana.
Wisconsin is 5th at 189 YPG while Indiana is 7th at 170 YPG allowed.
Although Wisconsin has not run the ball especially well in recent weeks, there isn't anything here to suggest Wisconsin shouldn't be able to put up 175-200 yard rushing. Edge to Wisconsin.
Indiana is 9th in efficiency with a rating of 111.4 and 10th in yardage at 174 YPG while Wisconsin is 4th in efficiency defense with an opposing rating of 112.3 and a yardage allowed rating of 228.7 YPG, 9th in the conference.
Wisconsin is 7th in efficiency with a rating of 121.5 and 11th in yardage at 156.3 YPG while Indiana is dead last in efficieny defense with an opposing rating of 151.9 and a yardage allowed rating of 284.1 YPG, also last in the conference.
Indiana is 3rd in scoring at 33.6 PG while Wisconsin is allowing 20.5 PG, 4th in the conference.
Wisconsin is 8th at 23.0 PG while Indiana is dead last at 38.1 points allowed.
Indiana is last in gross average (33.2) and also last in net yardage (25.9) while Wisconsin is 6th in punt returns at 9.6 per return.
Stemke's gross average 1st in the conference (45.5) just as his net average (43.8) does. Indiana ranks 8th in punt returns (8.8).
Wisconsin is 8th in the conference at 36.1% while Indiana ranks 9th at 46.3% allowed.
Indiana is 4th in the conference at 46.8% while Wisconsin ranks 1st at 35.3% allowed.
Wisconsin is tied for 4th at +6 while Indiana is last at -12
Wisconsin is tied for 3rd in the conference with 23 sacks while Indiana ranks 1st with only 7 sacks allowed.
Indiana ranks 7th with 18 sacks while Wisconsin ranks 10th in sacks allowed with 40.
Wisconsin is 13 for 22 for 59% while Indiana is 6 of 9 for 67%.
Wisconsin is 5th in fewest penalites with 54. Indiana is 7th with 62.
Wisconsin is 1st at 32+ minutes per game. Indiana is 4th at 30+ per game.
Passing Offense: WIS 96, IND 91
Total Offense: WIS 76, IND 11
Scoring Offense: WIS 74, IND 23
Rushing Defense: WIS 62, IND 80
Pass Effic. Defense: WIS 43, IND 110
Total Defense: WIS 74, IND 111
Scoring Defense: WIS 36, IND 110
Turnover Margin: WIS 31, 106
Antwaan Randle-El is 17th in rushing and 9th in total offense.
Levron Williams is 37th in rushing.
Chris Chambers is 20th in receiving yards and 22nd in receptions (if he had played in 75% of the teams games).
Jamar Fletcher is 6th in interceptions.
Kevin Stemke is 3rd in punting.
Vitaly Pisetsky is 18th in FGs.
Bollinger was outstanding early, moving in the pocket and hitting his receivers to the tune of 9 of 10 for big yardage. His throws were accurate and delivered right on time. He also was able to give the team a boost with his feet, with a few key scrambles and draws. He left midway through the second quarter with a hip pointer.
Dayne with over 160 yards in a half. Bennett with over 100. 461 as a team. Hard to argue with that. Dayne was very instinctive showing some great vision on his TD runs.
Heck, let's stick with the them and give them an A too. Chambers was effective as a possession receiver for much of the game, but also made a splendid catch of a nice Bollinger throw for the first TD of the game. He seems to be over his "drops" that he went through for a few games.
Anelli continued his solid play as a receiving TE with a big play off a bootleg early, running hard and strong after the catch.
Return to Badgermaniac.com