ISU/blue

[JackJD]

Re: ISU/blue

I'm in agreement with goon's assessment (although I reserve the right to contest some of his adjectives...haven't heard weather called "crabby" before ).
I enjoyed the game. We were in control the entire time and it was nice to not sit on the edge of the seat through four quarters. We looked good in windy conditions.

[goon]

Re: ISU/blue

I'm in agreement with goon's assessment (although I reserve the right to contest some of his adjectives...haven't heard weather called "crabby" before ).
I enjoyed the game. We were in control the entire time and it was nice to not sit on the edge of the seat through four quarters. We looked good in windy conditions.

crappy or crabby is more of the same. could be a good way to describe mother nature yes? Anyway

Seems the team and fans have made excuses for the field or weather before why we struggled. They had every reason to look bad or miss throws etc but frankly they looked as sharp as we have seen all year. If the biggest issue fans have is we didnt run the score up on um or rack up more yards in a shutout, I cant really find much fault in that.

[RowdyRabbit]

Re: ISU/blue

Maybe I was atching a different game, but it sure seemed better then the final score showed.

First I noticed they had Austin directly undercenter probably to aviod the weather being a factor on pistol or shotgun snaps, but I feel tahts a great change, moves zenner up just a bit to the line, able to get through faster or a better push on short yardage. Maybe they have put Sumner directly under center more this year but i havent noticed it. Also Sumner throws were spot on IMHO. maybe 2 passes were a little iffy in tigh coverage but otherwise everythrow seemed to find the WR in a position to make the catch. Sure we had some issues and ISUB is not a great team, but our Defense has proven most games they are going to give up yards or big play potential and they found away to really play with that intensity. I dont think the QB getting hurt had much to do with it, I think we were going to give who ever was the QB all sorts of issues. REally the only complaint i could think of was the pass protection that the WR didnt get enough seperation in some plays that Sumner had to make more check downs, the line didnt get extra time to pass, and that Sumner didnt have the internal clock running that if the first couple reads arent there to either run out of the pocket or to chuck it away, he needs to learn to not give up big sacks when they can be avoided. Aside from that special teams was as great as we have seen in years. Good coverage on kicks, blocked a punt and FG, made FGs in crabby weather good punting considering the wind etc. All things considered I thought this was better then most games even though we didnt hang 50 on um, I though it was clear we played well for most of the game aside from a few issues with the sacks. Plus the team looked fired up and excited and that is something that didnt appear to be there for some other games this year which is needed since USD is up next and we are their superbowl again. They cant make the playoffs but they could ruin our season for sure if they beat us. Plus they had some tough home losses lately, they are not going to give it up with out a fight so hopefully we are ready.

I think you were watching a different game.

Watching the condensed game on gojacks and Sumner was in shotgun in every clip...at least in the first half, he was under center more in the second half clips. Anyhow, I still thought we struggled to score (3 first half possesions that ended with FG's, 1 of which began on their what..30 yd line?), against a team that gave up 49+ its previous three games. Gotta finish those drives if you want to be a (legit) contender. Against the opponent saturday, we were able to get away with it. Most other weeks, we won't be able to get away with it.

[goon]

Re: ISU/blue

I think you were watching a different game.

Watching the condensed game on gojacks and Sumner was in shotgun in every clip...at least in the first half, he was under center more in the second half clips. Anyhow, I still thought we struggled to score (3 first half possesions that ended with FG's, 1 of which began on their what..30 yd line?), against a team that gave up 49+ its previous three games. Gotta finish those drives if you want to be a (legit) contender. Against the opponent saturday, we were able to get away with it. Most other weeks, we won't be able to get away with it.

We moved the ball effectively in a game with crappy(crabby) weather as effectively as we have all year regardless of oppt. Sumner passing was spot on, D held up got the shut out, speacial teams was not a problem, we just didnt blow um out. no shame in that. Yeah we still have issues but this game was the first of 3 needed where we needed to see improvements and play good football, aside from Sumner taking some sacks the team did just that.

[Jacks-02]

Re: ISU/blue

I guess its good to have high expectations but I find it somewhat amusing that a 29-0 domination of an opponent is no longer considered a blow out.

[RowdyRabbit]

Re: ISU/blue

I guess its good to have high expectations but I find it somewhat amusing that a 29-0 domination of an opponent is no longer considered a blow out.

I'm just saying...we had three possessions that started inside Indiana St. territory, the 18 yd line (3 plays and FG), the 44 yd line (3 and out), and the 30 yd line (2 plays and fumble). We got 3....THREE points out of those situations. That is disappointing no matter how you slice it, and against a better foe, probably would've cost us the game.

Gotta finish those drives this week.

[goon]

Re: ISU/blue

I'm just saying...we had three possessions that started inside Indiana St. territory, the 18 yd line (3 plays and FG), the 44 yd line (3 and out), and the 30 yd line (2 plays and fumble). We got 3....THREE points out of those situations. That is disappointing no matter how you slice it, and against a better foe, probably would've cost us the game.

Gotta finish those drives this week.

One drive still got points, one was a fluke where ZZ fumbled, which rarely happens, otherwise just one 3 and out. Obviously not great, but anytime you can get points i dont think it was a failure, the 3 and out was not good but hardly had any of those and the fumble was more fluke then anything.

[slosho]

Re: ISU/blue

One drive still got points, one was a fluke where ZZ fumbled, which rarely happens, otherwise just one 3 and out. Obviously not great, but anytime you can get points i dont think it was a failure, the 3 and out was not good but hardly had any of those and the fumble was more fluke then anything.

Anytime you settle for a field goal instead of a touchdown it is a failure.

[jack power]

Re: ISU/blue

Anytime you settle for a field goal instead of a touchdown it is a failure.

Especially against a team like ISU/B

[Nidaros]

Re: ISU/blue

Especially against a team like ISU/B

And ISU had no concept of defense?
Give credit for a stop.

[TransAmBison]

Re: ISU/blue

Their pass defense left something to be desired, but their run defense was not bad at all. How did Zenner do against them? Normal day at the office?

[jack power]

Re: ISU/blue

Their pass defense left something to be desired, but their run defense was not bad at all. How did Zenner do against them? Normal day at the office?

Yep 28-148 yds and a td

[2002jack]

ISU/blue

And ISU had no concept of defense?

Correct. I stand along the fence on the visitors side. ISU is a grease fire, poorly coached. I don't think they understand any concepts of football.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TransAmBison]

Re: ISU/blue

Yep 28-148 yds and a td

Huh. Did he get a lot of big gains to bring up the average, or was he consistently getting 5 yds a carry? Our running game wasn't much until then end. We definitely have different types of a running backs, though...so that might be the difference there.

[goon]

Re: ISU/blue

Huh. Did he get a lot of big gains to bring up the average, or was he consistently getting 5 yds a carry? Our running game wasn't much until then end. We definitely have different types of a running backs, though...so that might be the difference there.

Some here, some there, think the longest was probably around 20ish yards for a TD I think.