That sounds about right. Considering our "defense" I'm surprised its not more. Actually it be better if we were 15 pt underdogs. It might help give our guys some more incentive mainly the D to play harder. We are not good at coming from behind , coming from behind requires you have a solid D which we have none of. We have to be the first scoring team. If we let Bosie score first its all but over guaranteed.
So if BOISE takes the opening kick back for a touchdown the game is over? I don't think that's the case.
No not necessarly. But that would most certainly not help our cause. Has anyone noticed we have never come from a behind by a substanial margin at a good teams place and won in recent years?
That sounds about right. Considering our "defense" I'm surprised its not more. Actually it be better if we were 15 pt underdogs. It might help give our guys some more incentive mainly the D to play harder. We are not good at coming from behind , coming from behind requires you have a solid D which we have none of. We have to be the first scoring team. If we let Bosie score first its all but over guaranteed.
So if BOISE takes the opening kick back for a touchdown the game is over? I don't think that's the case.
No not necessarly. But that would most certainly not help our cause. Has anyone noticed we have never come from a behind by a substanial margin at a good teams place and won in recent years?
That's because we always jump out to an early lead, have the lead trimmed by halftime, go down by 3 TD's in the third, and fall just short of an amazing comeback in the fourth.
falconboy wrote:We have to be the first scoring team. If we let Bosie score first its all but over guaranteed.
So if BOISE takes the opening kick back for a touchdown the game is over? I don't think that's the case.
No not necessarly. But that would most certainly not help our cause. Has anyone noticed we have never come from a behind by a substanial margin at a good teams place and won in recent years?
There's a big difference between something not helping our cause and all but gauranteeing a loss. You seem to be covering a lot of bases here.
Look, I'm all for taking off the orange & brown glasses. I'd be less than honest if I said I think we're going to dominate this game. But I don't think giving up the first score ends the game.
I can understand that you think folks are being too optimistic here. You may have a point, too. But posting hyperbolic stuff like that, then contradicting it, won't score you many points in that regard.
Hey, look at me! I'm all over the InterWebs! Facebook ~ Twitter @ CoachKarlPA ~ LinkedIn
falconboy wrote:
No not necessarly. But that would most certainly not help our cause. Has anyone noticed we have never come from a behind by a substanial margin at a good teams place and won in recent years?
If you can't produce a nice bar graph showing statistical signficance (p<0.05) that we lose games that we have to come from behind at a "good" team than I don't buy it.
1987alum wrote:FWIW, we fell behind 14-7 to Toledo in 2003 before winning.
We fell behind 7-0 to Purdue in 2003 before winning.
We fell behing 14-0 to Northwester in the 2003 Motor City Bowl before winning.
As for 2004, even though we had the early lead against NIU and the halftime lead against Toledo, we lost.
Hence, I'd say that early leads don't exactly tell the tale for the Falcons.
Okay first the UT game was here at the Doyt. Falling behind by a td to Purdue wasn't big deal then. We had a better D then and Purdue wasn't the offensive jaugernaut that Boise is going to be. And the Northestern game was a neutral site and their offense was nowhere near Boise's either. What concerns me most bout this game is that Boise looks like they can run on us big time. What they were able to do vs Georgia was pretty impressive to say the least. 169 yds on a SEC defense. Thats nothing to sneeze at folks. With Georgia's D probably alot faster and quicker than Wisky's. Thats why I have major fears of their running game as well not to even mention their passing game. :ugh:
GO FALCONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LAMBAST THE BRONCOS!!!!!!!!!!!
Jacobs4Heisman wrote:
That's because we always jump out to an early lead, have the lead trimmed by halftime, go down by 3 TD's in the third, and fall just short of an amazing comeback in the fourth.
This is much more indicative of the way our games usually play out
Um ... OK. So getting behind of a top #15 team (Purdue) on the road wasn't a big deal .... Ohhhhhh-kee-doh-kee.
Anyway, this game poses multiple problems for BG, but this thread is clearly not the place to discuss them, since it has taken a tangent into an alternative universe.
Hey, look at me! I'm all over the InterWebs! Facebook ~ Twitter @ CoachKarlPA ~ LinkedIn
falconboy wrote:We had a better D then and Purdue wasn't the offensive jaugernaut that Boise is going to be. And the Northestern game was a neutral site and their offense was nowhere near Boise's either.
If Boise had an "offensive jaugernaut" as you put it, they would have scored more than 13 and 27 points in their first two games.
falconboy wrote:We had a better D then and Purdue wasn't the offensive jaugernaut that Boise is going to be. And the Northestern game was a neutral site and their offense was nowhere near Boise's either.
If Boise had an "offensive jaugernaut" as you put it, they would have scored more than 13 and 27 points in their first two games.
Thats because I believe that Boise has faced much better defenses when they played Georgia (obviosly) and Oregon St. It hurts to say it more than you can imagine guys.
falconboy wrote:Thats because I believe that Boise has faced much better defenses when they played Georgia (obviosly) and Oregon St. It hurts to say it more than you can imagine guys.
I don't know if Louisville agrees with that one....
"I don't believe I can name a coach, anywhere, anytime, anyhow, who did it better than Doyt Perry."
-1955 BG Assistant Bo Schembechler
Plus, that '03 Purdue team was pretty loaded on both sides of the ball. The lost their star RB due to grades at the beginning of the year but were stacked at WR and QB.
One of the greatest wins I've ever seen BG take....
Yes, Boise State rushed for 169 yards on an SEC Defense.
BG passed for 458 yards on a Big Ten Defense.
I'd say both BG and Boise State have concerns about each other.
One way to find out...
TEE THE BALL UP!! This "3 games in September" sux!!!!
Michael W.
BGSU-12 TIME MAC CHAMPION
FALCON FOOTBALL ROCKS!
falconboy wrote:We had a better D then and Purdue wasn't the offensive jaugernaut that Boise is going to be. And the Northestern game was a neutral site and their offense was nowhere near Boise's either.
If Boise had an "offensive jaugernaut" as you put it, they would have scored more than 13 and 27 points in their first two games.
FWIW -- here are 2 interesting stats.
Average weight of Boise's D-line = 258
Number of posts on Boise's board whining about size of their D-line = 0
falconboy wrote:
Thats because I believe that Boise has faced much better defenses when they played Georgia (obviosly) and Oregon St. It hurts to say it more than you can imagine guys.
Saying that Oregon St's defense is better than Wisconsin's is stupid. The Wisconsin defense has given up 5 (or 3) points in their last two games. OSU just gave up 63 in one game.
