|
|
Post by BSSN on Oct 12, 2015 8:52:47 GMT -6
I always wonder if we're playing the right guys, too. If you play fantasy football, you'll know that playing the right guys isn't as easy as it sounds. |
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Oct 12, 2015 9:24:07 GMT -6
I always wonder if we're playing the right guys, too. If you play fantasy football, you'll know that playing the right guys isn't as easy as it sounds. Very true |
|
|
|
Post by seattlecardinal on Oct 13, 2015 15:09:36 GMT -6
We try to get good d-lineman, but take a look at the recruiting lists and rankings over time and you'll see our d-line guys aren't usually as heavily recruited as the guys we tend to pull on the other side of the ball. (FWIW I'm not big on the star system, I tend to judge recruits by how many other FBS teams are trying to get them.) We have been able to get some great off-the-radar guys (Crawford comes to mind), but the sought-after recruits tend to go elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by cardcat on Oct 13, 2015 16:45:47 GMT -6
Speaking of DL... I thought it interesting the NY Giants are using a 5'10" fullback as an interior DL.
|
|
nufan
Cardinal Recruit
Posts: 36 
|
Post by nufan on Oct 17, 2015 8:52:29 GMT -6
We do, we just for the most part don't get them. By them I mean impact guys. We mostly get developmental guys you hope can become players. Wmu, Toledo, and other schools like that kick our butts in getting the athletes. these schools appear to have larger budgets with more " big time" accessories to offer players. Larger budgets equates to more extensive recruiting, higher asst. coaches salaries and better facilities to attract the best players. |
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Oct 17, 2015 9:12:31 GMT -6
Bsu will never be/have that.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 17, 2015 13:15:50 GMT -6
Bsu will never be/have that. If the donor base really wants it then it happens. Some here think that can happen, but it's not so easy. One key leadership decision is where exactly to spend the money. Unfortunately, if a donor designates money for a particular goal you might not get most bang for the buck. If some want a giant stadium upgrade, others want operations budget and scholarship support, or coaching salary, or whatever, it is hard to reach any goal. A "general fund" approach is much harder to sell than a targeted goal. So, the job of the AD is to coordinate effort to get the best possible result. |
|
|
|
Post by chirpchirpnation on Oct 24, 2015 16:27:48 GMT -6
Great freshman season wasted.
|
|
|
|
Post by bsu0 on Oct 24, 2015 18:45:22 GMT -6
I disagree to a degree. Wenning did not set the world on fire his freshman year. Lembo is taking it easy on Neal for a reason. He will be much improved next season. (But I wish they would loosen the offense up and see what Neal could do by throwing the ball vertically,15-30yards, rather than horizontally 3-10yards)
|
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Oct 24, 2015 18:57:13 GMT -6
Riley was outstanding at niu throwing it down the field. He can do it. We just don't until it's too late. Do it early in the game and early in downs and see what happens.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 25, 2015 10:16:54 GMT -6
I don't know. You are arguing for a desperate measures approach. Nothing is working, let's gamble.
This isn't Peyton Manning and the Colts, or Keith Wenning and the Cards, even, where you can build a game plan around scoring early and often, and count on the early lead that forces the other team on its heels and into playing from behind. Sure, then rush the passer and play for an up and down game. Except we don't have a pass rush. And. With the way the defense plays, you have to think keeping them off the field and trying to control the clock isn't all bad.
If our relative strength to other teams is a good offensive line, then not running the ball is a mistake. If our relative weakness is secondary, (supposing we hit early) and we do get a lead, forcing the other team to pass even more than they plan on doing, isn't going to work well.
We are a team that has to play without mistakes and win games when we chip away and make a few big plays. Playing for higher risk big plays, putting a lot of pressure on the QB, and not succeeding, means lots of second and long, could mean even more 3 and outs. And if we are not stopping the other team, we get in a hole and it's even harder to get the long ball to work as they tee off and rush the passer. Yes we seem to have some good receivers, but this is a freshman QB. He isn't going to be consistent under pressure.
I don't like the results here any more than you, but I don't think we have a team here that is going to magically win by changing game plans. We predicted this team would be around .500. That assumed some better play by defense, and better ability to run the ball than we have shown. We are getting about what we should expect from a freshman QB and it is not clear it is about the passing game where we have the biggest problems. No real reason to think we will execute better on both sides of the ball with a higher risk game.
|
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Oct 25, 2015 10:43:19 GMT -6
Oh no, I don't mean bombs away, just add some variety. Medium range vertical passes. Use the te's over the middle. Throw on first down sometimes. Just not so much 3-5 horizontal stuff that goes no where and doesn't move the chains. We kept doing the same thing over and over and over and over. It leads to quick 3 and outs and wears down the d. The defense played plenty well enough to win yesterday and the offense did zero to. Help them out.
|
|
|
|
Post by lmills72 on Oct 25, 2015 11:39:03 GMT -6
Oh no, I don't mean bombs away, just add some variety. Medium range vertical passes. Use the te's over the middle. Throw on first down sometimes. Just not so much 3-5 horizontal stuff that goes no where and doesn't move the chains. We kept doing the same thing over and over and over and over. It leads to quick 3 and outs and wears down the d. The defense played plenty well enough to win yesterday and the offense did zero to. Help them out. In terms of points allowed, the defense played well enough to win. In general though I didn't think our D, while better than the previous week, showed any indication of being a great asset. Rush completed about 77 percent of his passes and there were gaping holes (again) on some of those CMU runs. The D came up with two big turnovers, which I give them a lot of credit for since they were truly "takeaways" and not just mistakes by CMU. But overall, CMU had the ball 13 minutes more than we did. That was a nice combination of our three-and-out offensive strategy and our stuff-'em-twice-then-give-up-a-25-yard-pass-on-third-and-24 defensive strategy. On another note: We have tight ends? |
|
|
|
Post by BSU Card Fan in AZ on Oct 26, 2015 7:54:18 GMT -6
I haven't been able to watch the past few games, so hard to comment on the pass play calling. I seem to remember that when Kieth started to mature he really focused on what the defense gave him. We became more effective. That seemed to open up other opportunities. Add in Quake, etc and we were much better. I think this team has the same parts and hopefully will start to click.
Improving the D will fast forward this process IMHO. This really must be accomplished. I also hated to see the red shirt burned, but I think this year will really prepare him for a solid career.
|
|
|
|
Post by comet on Oct 26, 2015 14:49:10 GMT -6
I'll post this here since I don't know where else to actually ask.
If our recievers are as good as thought why is it that the opposing recievers are wide open and ours are pretty well covered most of the time  ? I man I understand that maybe we are not doing anything right with DB's, but geez, I could could complete passes to some of the open CMU recievers last Saturday and we seem to never but maybe Lacanaria open like that. Williams' receptions are pretty much his doings, not the fact that he's open. |
|
? I man I understand that maybe we are not doing anything right with DB's, but geez, I could could complete passes to some of the open CMU recievers last Saturday and we seem to never but maybe Lacanaria open like that. Williams' receptions are pretty much his doings, not the fact that he's open.