WTF is going on with BG?!!!

The Niz · Post by **The Niz** » Sat Oct 13, 2007 6:12 pm

I thought that last TD was going to make me feel better, but it did nothing for me.

So much for Sheehan being the next big thing out of BG. I almost hope ESPN never does another article on a BG football player ever again.

zeket10 · Post by **zeket10** » Sat Oct 13, 2007 6:18 pm

I never jumped on the Sheehan train; The only reason he looked so good was no one was expecting us to pass the ball as much as we have.

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Sat Oct 13, 2007 6:21 pm

The problem with our offense is we don't run and have no balance. I think that is in large part due to the fact that Sheehan is not a good fit for this system. We need a dual threat QB out there.

Tricky_Falcon · Post by **Tricky_Falcon** » Sat Oct 13, 2007 6:24 pm

zeket10 wrote:I never jumped on the Sheehan train; The only reason he looked so good was no one was expecting us to pass the ball as much as we have.

He's a soph. and our play calling is veeery predictable. Pass Pass Pass Punt. We only run when the game is out of hand. BG didn't look like they wanted to play today plain and simple. The only bright spot was our kick returns. Today's game looked a lot like last year.

AZZZZ · Post by **AZZZZ** » Sat Oct 13, 2007 6:37 pm

zeket10 wrote:The only bright spot was our kick returns. Today's game looked a lot like last year.

I've never been much of a coaching staff "basher" for any program I support but how do you get the field position we had in the first half and not take advantage?

One of the widely held definitions of insanity is one that keeps doing the same thing over and over but expects different results-right? Well why didn't we make adjustments at the half (or before) with our play calling, our...I can't even finish I'm so upset.

BourbonFalcon · Post by **BourbonFalcon** » Sat Oct 13, 2007 6:54 pm

I know the way that the MAC handles the standings has changed this year with the addition of Temple. If we were to turn it around and win out, what now needs to happen to get us to Detroit? Can someone who understands this give me the scenario. I'm pretty sure we need Miami to lose twice in East games. Thanks!

TG1996 · Post by **TG1996** » Sat Oct 13, 2007 6:57 pm

BourbonFalcon wrote:I'm pretty sure we need Miami to lose twice in East games. Thanks!

Yes.

Though there's some convoluted way if more than two teams tie for the lead that they use the position of the sun on the third Thursday of the 19th month of the Malaysian calendar to figure out the division winner.

Bleeding Orange · Post by **Bleeding Orange** » Sat Oct 13, 2007 7:27 pm

TG1996 wrote:
BourbonFalcon wrote:I'm pretty sure we need Miami to lose twice in East games. Thanks!
Yes.

Though there's some convoluted way if more than two teams tie for the lead that they use the position of the sun on the third Thursday of the 19th month of the Malaysian calendar to figure out the division winner.

And no matter what, the stars love marsupials.

BGSU33 · Post by **BGSU33** » Sat Oct 13, 2007 7:54 pm

We were completely DOMINATED by Miami today. The only area I thought we actually looked okay in was in our kickoff returns, which unfortunately, we had a lot of. I swear it seemed like Miami had an extra guy or two on both offense and defense today. We looked like a deer in headlights on offense. As much as BC confused us last week in coverage, we at least moved the ball against the Eagles but we had absolutely no chance at anything offensively against Miami today. On defense, we simply had the ball run down our throat time and time again, and then we’d get torched on a big play through the air. We had no answer for their run or pass. And despite giving up a punt block, that wasn’t nearly as bad as our punt return defense looked the rest of the day as our guys looked like they were wearing cement blocks on their feet trying to tackle the punt returner.

Look, I expected a close, hard-fought game today by both teams. I had a bad feeling we might fall short today, but no way did I expect a train wreck. If someone would have told me it would be 47-7 in the 4th quarter, I would have bet the house it would have been the other way around. Miami came in averaging what, 16 point per game, and rolled up 47 on us, and it could have been more! This game was over after the opening drives when we started on their 40-something, get sacked on our first play, end up going 3-&-out, and they go 80 yards for a TD. That was a sign of things to come…. all….. day….. long.

I’ve got to tip my hat to Miami. They beat us worse and more soundly than even Boston College did. That was as thorough of an ass-kicking as you could get and I never expected a MAC team to do this to us this year. We had no answer, for anything, and you once again showed why we trail in the series as bad as we do.

Lastly, if we’re going to put Anthony Turner in at QB, can we at least let him throw one pass for crying out loud? We all know he’s in there to run the ball as a QB, but at least make the defense respect the chance of a pass.

Falcon137 · Post by **Falcon137** » Sat Oct 13, 2007 8:15 pm

BG has several problems, I'll just list a few without much elaboration because I'm still sick from being in Oxford this afternoon.

Teams are just dropping 7 or 8 guys every play because we dont run the ball and if we do it's once a drive so they dont need to worry about it.

Sheehan was awful again. He held on to the ball way way to long all day. THROW IT AWAY!!! Take a 5 yard run dont take -12 yards sacks.

The D is putrid. We've been saying it's the 2nd team giving up points and yards. Our 1st team D is down right bad. If they can't get 4+ turnovers a game, we lose and lose big.

Moving ahead I thought the O-Line did a good job running the ball and when we did. They also did a good job protecting Sheehan, say what you want but Sheehan is the sole reason he got sacked not reading the hot guy and holding it way to long.

They will go 4-8 if they can't fix this horrid D and the problems with Sheehan.

Warthog · Post by **Warthog** » Sat Oct 13, 2007 8:20 pm

hammb wrote:The problem with our offense is we don't run and have no balance.

To extend that thought, the problem is that we don't even attempt to run the ball, nor do we even line up in a formation that would possibly result in us running the ball. When you line up five wides with Sheehan on the field, even my cat knows it's going to be a pass. Then when Turner comes in, instead of spreading the field, they actually line up with a RB to bring more defenders into the box, making it easier to defend against the inevitable Turner QB keeper.

Hell, I know CYO coaches who can disguise plays better then we do.

Was it just me, or did Sheehan just hold onto the ball too long today? I think he was suffering from post-interceptionitis syndrome. The reads have to be quick and he needs to get rid of the ball. It was like he was too worried about having another 6 INT game so he just didn't throw the ball as quickly as he needs to.

JoeFalcon · Post by **JoeFalcon** » Sat Oct 13, 2007 8:33 pm

Warthog wrote:
hammb wrote:The problem with our offense is we don't run and have no balance.
To extend that thought, the problem is that we don't even attempt to run the ball, nor do we even line up in a formation that would possibly result in us running the ball. When you line up five wides with Sheehan on the field, even my cat knows it's going to be a pass. Then when Turner comes in, instead of spreading the field, they actually line up with a RB to bring more defenders into the box, making it easier to defend against the inevitable Turner QB keeper. Hell, I know CYO coaches who can disguise plays better then we do.

That's exactly it. Even if were rushing for zero yards or merely lining up in formation that suggests run as you said, it would cause enough hesitation in the minds of the defenders to open up the passing game.

This is Football 101 stuff, and it's shocking that they don't realize how easy they're making it for the defense.

Tech83 · Post by **Tech83** » Sat Oct 13, 2007 9:19 pm

Warthog wrote:
hammb wrote:The problem with our offense is we don't run and have no balance.
To extend that thought, the problem is that we don't even attempt to run the ball, nor do we even line up in a formation that would possibly result in us running the ball. When you line up five wides with Sheehan on the field, even my cat knows it's going to be a pass. Then when Turner comes in, instead of spreading the field, they actually line up with a RB to bring more defenders into the box, making it easier to defend against the inevitable Turner QB keeper. Hell, I know CYO coaches who can disguise plays better then we do.

Was it just me, or did Sheehan just hold onto the ball too long today? I think he was suffering from post-interceptionitis syndrome. The reads have to be quick and he needs to get rid of the ball. It was like he was too worried about having another 6 INT game so he just didn't throw the ball as quickly as he needs to.

WH - There is nothing to add to your astute (as ways) observations.

We got back from the game about 7:20 and I just couldn't bring myself here to comment. It was painful and embarassing to watch. Nicholas and I both commented on our formation (no RB's) - did we run what.... 4 or 5 times? Sheehan was like stone in the pocket.

My only possible reaction to todays game is......

Miami looked the best they have all year and actually seem to be improving and could actually have a good year.

FWIW - We were planning on coming up on Nov 2 and 3 to watch the football game against Akron and the hockey game with Western......... we are actually reconsidering the trip. Why spend the money.

TG1996 · Post by **TG1996** » Sat Oct 13, 2007 9:22 pm

Tech83 wrote:FWIW - We were planning on coming up on Nov 2 and 3 to watch the football game against Akron and the hockey game with Western......... we are actually reconsidering the trip. Why spend the money.

To paraphrase my late grandmother...

"Because they're the Falcons, dammit!"

BGSU33 · Post by **BGSU33** » Sat Oct 13, 2007 9:24 pm

The thing that really concerns me is when we do try to run, we seem like we have nowhere to go when we do. For a little as we run the ball, you'd think we'd have opportunities to exploit teams when they're just sitting back in coverage, but we still can’t get past the three or four-men fronts on the pass rush. That said, it also doesn’t help that when we do run the ball that we don’t fumble it away like we did today. Chris Bullock fumbled on half on his carries (four rushes, two fumbles, one lost). We don’t run the ball that much, but damn, when we do, hold onto the thing!!! I think this is an area we really miss what Eric Ransom could gave given us. He’s like a hidden loss because we didn’t have him last year and didn’t see much of his this year so we don’t know what he could of given us. But that fact that he was our starter tells me he certainly would’ve helped up some in the running game. I also think Sheehan could pick up a lot of mid-range runs if he’d tuck that ball and run when the defenses are dropping back like that. The good thing was today he wasn’t forcing passes like he did at BC, but he did hold onto the ball way too long and took way too many sacks. Tuck it and run when you have nothing downfield and there’s no one in front of you for 10-15 yards. He’s got ample speed and our offense would be in much better shape that a forced pass or sack.