Those in attendance, what the hell happened?

[Rabbitden]

Re: Those in attendance, what the hell happened?

It happens everywhere...even a pro games.

[jivebunny]

Re: Those in attendance, what the hell happened?

all i can say is playing the basic sets and basic personal in order to hide things from montana was maybe a mistake.  kardoes sucked again.  they finally realized that wagner is a good weapon to have.   secondary didn't look too tough.  bonwell played well put a lot of pressure and got off the line pretty good, gentile looked good too.   a bunch of the players complained about footing after the game.  there was a lot of conversation at jim's about this and other events at sdsu.  berry needs to get put in charge now.  i dunno what else to say about that game besides lack of preparedness.

Along that line, Stig said on the radio after the game that the game plan was simplified between the halfs. By rights, we should have been able to run between the tackles all night and just blown them off the ball. That certainly didn't happen. So maybe simplifying things at the half wasn't the way to go. But with the conditions, there wasn't a chance to do too much fancy junk. I don't know, I was so dispondant through Sunday morning. It was just so ugly. I don't know what the cure is for what happened. More cowbell? Hmmmmm, seems too simple. -s

[thebluehatman]

Re: Those in attendance, what the hell happened?

unlike certain people on the smack board calling me out, i don't feel like responding to their crap. some people deserve response to some of the things they say these 2 don't. Anyways, My friends on the football team were outright embarassed with their performance. Practice this week will be well much like it was last year when they played Georgia Southern. This is what builds the character and heart of the team. Let's come back strong against Montana otherwise I dunno what to tell all you guys. I have a feeling the 6817 attendance doesn't include the 300 + Pride members. Decent crowd. I could hear them pretty good in the north endzone and south endzone along with along the lacrosse bench.

[filbert]

Re: Those in attendance, what the hell happened?

The La Crosse radio guys thought it was a pretty good crowd.

[jackphd]

Re: Those in attendance, what the hell happened?

The La Crosse radio guys thought it was a pretty good crowd.

Given the crummy weather and the 3-day weekend, it wasn't a bad crowd.

[Haldersham]

Re: Those in attendance, what the hell happened?

I look at the stats on the offical website and attendance was something like 6870. That is better than last year which was 5737.  LaCrosse according to the game program average of 3102 in four game and their total attendance was 12,409. So it was a good crowd and impressed LaCrosse announcers apparently.

[mitchell2006]

Re: Those in attendance, what the hell happened?

Bottom Line, from what I saw from the game the horrible field conditions turned out to be a great equalizer. Not that this is a good excuse considering both teams had to deal with it. But the advantage we were supposed to have was bigger, faster, stronger.....the field helped equalized those attributes.
But the biggest reason we lost was because stig and the coaching staff got out coached, and because as soon as things started to look bad, the players hung thier heads instead of getting fired up.

[Jacks99]

Re: Those in attendance, what the hell happened?

At the end did LaCrosse look like a team that just did the impossible when they celbrated, or did they act like they knew they had a decent shot?

[Jacked_Up]

Re: Those in attendance, what the hell happened?

I confess that I didn't stick around to watch La Crosse's post-game celebration. Thanks to an effective passing game, the Eagles played with enthusiasm and confidence the last three quarters. When they got up by two TDs, it seemed inevitable that they would win, given the slow field conditions. Their bench players and small group of fans were supportive. The Eagles had survived the first quarter without much reason to be intimidated. By the mid point of the fourth quarter, they had taken control. The outcome of the game was probably a much bigger stunner to the Jacks than to La Crosse.

[RabbitinTea]

Re: Those in attendance, what the hell happened?

...By rights, we should have been able to run between the tackles all night and just blown them off the ball. That certainly didn't happen. So maybe simplifying things at the half wasn't the way to go. But with the conditions, there wasn't a chance to do too much fancy junk. I don't know, I was so dispondant through Sunday morning. It was just so ugly. I don't know what the cure is for what happened. More cowbell? Hmmmmm, seems too simple. -s[/quote]

I'm sure everyone will let me know if I'm way off here. Since the first half of the game on Saturday night, I've been saying that continuing to run the ball makes absolutely no sense. I don't care whose offensive line was playing in that game, NO ONE WAS GOING TO GET BLOWN OFF THE BALL. I'm not taking any shots here, just picked this example. It has been stated by many. On sound turf, that statement is a fact and I still believe that today after what happened. However, there's a reason that we have all been wondering how they were able to throw the ball around and beat us. It's because a power running game was NOT going to work on Saturday. You CAN'T blow anyone off the ball when you can't get drive your feet. They implemented a controlled short passing game with a smart quarterback. In my mind, that's the difference. We stuck with a power running game and when we passed we should have considered more "West Coast"-type plays. Lastly, even if we did those things we did not see any quarterback capable of playing smart football like theirs did. Sorry if I seem irritated, but I have been since Q1 when I realized our line was not going to move anyone off the ball. Neither did theirs, they were just able to pass block for 2-3 seconds and let their quarterback win the game.